It could be an annoyance, I guess an annoyance of having your bank account emptied is not as big then? Just saying.
Of-course there are other options, like displaying to the user what the page looked like when they left it and what it looks like now, by the time they have returned to it, but again, an annoyance.
Well, the point was that a site that does not look like it's trying to phish anything changes all of a sudden (possible to do with a script or with a delayed HTTP response, sort of a server push) and this innocuously looking site morphs into a phishing page.
So if the site was a legitimate one (well, how legitimate is the real Facebook, but still) and then someone hijacked it, then it would be a problem for the user because user would trust Facebook.
If the site is not something that the user is familiar to, that would be the site to block from running scripts on the background unless it's white-listed upon user switching to another tab or application. So the browser would have to detect whether there is a script running on the background of the site and ask the user to: allow always/never/this time/stay on page, and then whitelist the site if the 'allow always' option is chosen.
Of-course it's not going to prevent every single type of attack, it's just one more protection that can do pretty well if the user understands what is happening of-course.
--
Another possibility is to record what the tab/window looked like before the user left the page and then show the old page and the new one once the user returns. It's more complicated than the other proposal, it also has pitfalls, but there must be some options of dealing with this.
Even if the scripts are completely disabled on the page, what about a delayed HTTP response, in effect a push to the browser by a server that is done sometime after the page is loaded as a delayed response to the browser request?
It's really hard to avoid all possible scenarios on how a page can be changed from something to something else.
those are great, aren't they? You missed another one: a delayed HTTP response, in effect a server 'push' to the browser.
You use white listing to avoid this problem by detecting if a page is running scripts on the background and presenting the user with the obvious: "run always/never/this time/stay on page" dialog with an explanation of why this is.
If they decide not to pay attention and click on whatever, well, I actually believe in social Darwinism and in this instance it really is not likely that someone will die if their bank account is emptied (though there is a remote chance of that.)
Do you think that a dialog, warning a user who is switching from one screen to another with a 'allow always/never/this time/stay on this page' in case a site is running scripts on the background and then white-listing the site if the 'allow always' button is pushed is such an outrageous concept?
Maybe then the users deserve to have their private information stolen.
This is Internet, it's not your mommy, who will love you no matter what you do (supposedly).
I don't know who is bitching or moaning, but the suggestion is totally reasonable when provided with a white-list, so the sites you want to run scripts on background will be able to if the browser warns the user that there are scripts on the background that await execution and that switching from the tab will stop them.
Then the proverbial: Cancel/Allow or something to that effect would add this site to a white-list.
Maybe it is time for the browsers to take matters more seriously and block any scripts from running in tabs that are not currently in focus.
But this can be done in separate windows too, not just in tabs. In terms of whether this is a new concept, let's just say that I have 'seen' this done 10 years ago to gain access to some chat accounts.
Oh, yeah, because after choosing to kill a bunch of people (well, assholes, but still) really I would totally be stopped by the fact that my specific preferred gun type is outlawed in the area where killing must take place.
Yes judge, I killed these 20 motherfuckers with an illegal weapon. I was going to kill them with a legal one, but decided to be an outlaw instead.
1. My argument is that responsibility for prevention belongs with the corporation but the punishment responsibility is on the government if damage can be shown.
2. Governmental oversight is demonstrably corrupt and flawed and prohibitively expensive.
3. You got me, I got mine, so this is a devious plot by me to make sure nobody ever gets anything again.
well, they already built a robot, could as well teach it to play from notes, otherwise it would be a very laborious task to get it to play a different piece of music. The hearing part is not extremely difficult, sample the produced sound and compare to an expected sound wave that must be produced from the notes.
I think that your premise is a bit off, in a system with no government involvement into economics and where government does not stifle competition with regulations, the huge monopolies would be much less common if could exist at all. However in case of BP right now, they can pay for everything, their net worth is large enough, if it must all be liquidate, fine.
The most important part is of-course personal responsibility, confiscation of property from the responsible and jail time.
I agree that this is a problem, but looking at what has been happening for the past 100 years with Oil/coal/gas extraction you can notice that the same or a similar problem exists with all of the regulations that also exist but the difference is nobody is personally liable and there are not enough teeth in any punishment to do much of anything real to prevent future events like that.
As I mentioned, the government's regulations are always a step (or more) behind and the costs to keep regulations up to date an the cost of checking everyone for all regulation compliance would be something we haven't really seen before (because it was never really done.)
So then the same thing I throw back at your post: if government had resources to police every player in every industry and was up to date on all developments in industries and corporations then they could probably prevent all practices that lead to disasters. What are the chances and then what would be the costs of that?
However I hate not providing a solution to a problem and only posing a question, so in response to this problem I would suggest that while the changes were written into Law about changing the limited status of liability for the managers of a corporations, the other changes would include modifying the process of running a corporation, so that at all shareholder meetings they would have to look at the practices of the company in terms of damage control and they would have to study any court case (if there are) pertinent to the kinds of control they need to implement.
So I see that there is a possibility someone is missing some information, this would encourage them to actively seek it.
I also think that in fact this system would give advantage to those corporations, who would invest into researching and developing new practices to keep their work safer. I think it may cause an actual increases of research by corporations and would encourage exchange of information because if one company finds ways to do work with less possible damage, then there is incentive for this company to implement it to secure its business more, but there is also an incentive for this company to share this knowledge with others because there are always costs associated with changes to business and if one company was incurring such costs, then it would want the other players in the industry to incur them as well. Since I propose that industry is the source of regulations in the first place, it means that any new developments set a new standard for what is expected from all players in the industry.
Of-course the other possibility is that all research stops dead and everyone actively tries to avoid doing any research to make their work potentially less dangerous, but in that case, any disaster would have to be punished severely anyway and personal responsibility would have to be applied. I see that as a push for the industries not to stagnate but to try and prevent this because I think most people really don't want to spend time in prison.
The last point is that if someone does not care about prison time (which does not happen currently) then some regulation violation would not be a consideration for them either. In my proposal I give a way to get rid of these people but placing them where they belong. In the current system those people are not punished but Rewarded and the next company would be only too happy to have them on their staff of managers.
I agree with you. The cost of the ocean cannot be defined in anything meaningful, but the cost of Damage can be somewhat calculated.
However that is my position that there must be a fine for the costs that Can be calculated, but due to the difficulties in such calculations, the law must provide ability to invoke punitive damages that are multiples of the calculated damages. This is why I am talking about x10, x100, x1000 punitive damages on top of the actual damages that can be calculated.
We can calculate damages to some degree. We can show variables from things like income of fisheries and even possibly increases of costs of running restaurants that serve fish. We can show costs to the hospitality business. Things like that are not too hard to calculate and to apply as long as the laws allow it.
There are more complicated questions, like the cost of this part of the Ocean in principle. So we could then talk about the depletion of oxygen in the polluted area, the dead zones caused by it, which is direct damage to the environment. The destruction of air producing and cleaning organisms that will be dying off now if not dead already. The amount of time it may take for oil to degrade in the beach sand and on the ocean floor, if that even will happen.
We do need to set costs associated with losing part of environment, I think it is an interesting subject in itself, I am not an expert in this of-course, otherwise I would give numbers. However estimates can be provided by people who understand something about regeneration of air/water/creatures. How can they estimate cost of that? We can say put a cost on it based on our, human ability to do the same thing that the polluted environment would have done.
What would it cost people to produce all that Oxygen that is going to be lost now due to oil mixing in water + due to death of Oxygen producing organisms? What would it cost to husband all that fish and other creatures for us in the same quantities that are killed off?
We can do this, it's possible and probably a very good exercise in understanding consequences of our behavior anyway.
People covering their asses and all that other jazz is happening today everywhere, with all the regulations.
The difference in what I am proposing is that they are finally personally liable for actions they take, for damage they cause. Today they are not, which completely negates the ability of regulations to work.
I understand that there is another possibility, the kind of possibility that a totalitarian regime would take: punish everyone personally if they screw up but still have all of those regulations, pretend that regulations work. This would be done just to have a larger government, which in a totalitarian regime is a bonus I suppose, not for the people of-course, but for the rulers, who do not care about economy and the people.
So my proposal goes only if both sides of the equation are satisfied: personal responsibility + severe punitive damages + paying to fix the problems cause, but on the other side of the equation must be the reduction of government in terms of regulatory power.
I would Imagine that in a system like that it would be best for survival of corporations to share their knowledge of best industry standards, however it would also mean that some corporations could be better of than others, because they would have the knowledge of how to do business in a safer way, while others may not posses this knowledge. Possibly one more thing is needed: knowledge must be transferable, shared between corporations on the best practices.
Of-course this will help the society, this will help the corporations who are sharing the knowledge, because it would make it impossible for those with less knowledge to claim that they just did not have the knowledge and thus could not have applied it and to get away with consequences of not having this knowledge. This would hurt those companies, who get the knowledge late in the game from the producers of knowledge.
The interesting possible unintended consequence is an 'arms race' in trying to find new ways of doing business better, I actually think this is the most interesting unintended consequence in terms of development of economy ever.
What you are saying is true, it would be enough to just measure the pressure, apply correct movements etc., but that's not actually playing a violin, is it?:) If you don't have a feedback in terms of hearing, then you don't hear what you are playing, how do you really know that it sounds good? By using pressure alone, it does not tell you that the instrument is really actually truly producing the sounds that you expect. After all, it could be a chair that the robot was playing with the bow, as long as the pressure was right, the robot would 'believe' that the sound was OK, but do you know how bad a chair sounds when scratched with a violin bow?
please, don't say you think that in anything I said I meant to propose to return to the days, when people did not care about what they did to public property and environment and people.
I am talking about punishment that severe in both, economic sense and personal punishment in the sense of prison time.
I am not a proponent of wild west where anything goes without any consequences.
I am not for socializing the damage while privatizing the profits.
I think the point is that your community and jonestown's community are different, so then why is your community deciding what's good for the kids of jonestown's community? So they all end up dead, but if that's what the community wanted, then any action from your community to intervene would be on grounds that are only supported by your community.
Basically you'd be waging a war on principles that other people live or die by. Obviously people wage those kinds of wars all the time, it's like the Afghanistan/Taliban problem that so many countries think they must fix and force to behave the way those countries prefer.
If an entire community does not agree with your community's way of thinking, basically, is it OK (and OK by whose standards) for your community to force its values upon the other one?
And finally, isn't this the Darwinism in action? You may think that your community is right and the other is wrong, but will it not be at the end, the competition and survival that will show who really was 'right'?
The robot was playing the violin and the crowd was clapping. The crowd was wowing and cheering, but the player did not understand or even know about this.
Question: was the robot just performing pre-programmed moves, was it really playing as if from notes and did it rely on its hearing to compensate for the sound at all?
I understand your view, but realize just how many times before now Oil has been spilled into oceans, onto lands etc.
So what has really been done by any regulations so far? Seems that nothing has been done. I am a libertarian for purely practical reasons, of-course my position is ideological, but I do not see another way to fix economy at all. No amount of regulation can do it, and it only makes it worse by growing the government further, which needs to shrink instead.
Problem with regulations is that it creates a point of entry for the private interest. You set up a regulatory body, I'll show you the place to concentrate private interest their corruption efforts and I'll show you the place for the unscrupulous (*of which there are always enough*) to enter the game only to make money, not to do any actual work, AND I will show you another government spending point that did not need to exist.
There were so many spills, so many catastrophes by now, so where is all that regulation that changed anything? Anything at all? Why did the country need to wait until something so close and huge to the shore now to do anything?
Do you believe that anything will change? Will anybody be punished? Will anybody's money be taken away? Will anyone Who Matters actually spend time in jail?
I think we both know the answer.
So yes, this is a humorously unbearable problem, but did it have to become this bad?
No, I believe that by allowing corporations' management to get away with limited personal responsibility caused this. Obviously personal responsibility was removed and instead the regulations were installed, but both of this events created a huge moral hazard, which hurts the society and economy in enormous ways.
By getting rid of regulations and applying the law to sue, take money away, jaili those responsible the real changes can be achieved.
1. There will be more possibility of competition. Regulations are great if they work, but if a company does follow all the necessary precautions that are possible at all then a regulatory body is only a point of cost to the economy and it is really not needed and makes government cheaper and less prone to corruption and makes it possible to run a business that is actually doing all that is possible to run safely while escaping the costs of getting all of the licenses, and YES escaping the costs of bribing the government:)
2. There will be actual changes in the way businesses operate if it was understood that the Government is Coming after the guilty in both ways: money and prison time.
Shooting someone in the head? Well, it's a possibility, but that's up to the limits of the law as a punishment for any kind of crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and by the way, 'thinking about suggestions before making them' - that's outdated.
There is time to act and there is time to think.
This here, gentlemen, is not time to think.
(of-course shamelessly ripped off of the Canadian Bacon)
It could be an annoyance, I guess an annoyance of having your bank account emptied is not as big then? Just saying.
Of-course there are other options, like displaying to the user what the page looked like when they left it and what it looks like now, by the time they have returned to it, but again, an annoyance.
Well, the point was that a site that does not look like it's trying to phish anything changes all of a sudden (possible to do with a script or with a delayed HTTP response, sort of a server push) and this innocuously looking site morphs into a phishing page.
So if the site was a legitimate one (well, how legitimate is the real Facebook, but still) and then someone hijacked it, then it would be a problem for the user because user would trust Facebook.
If the site is not something that the user is familiar to, that would be the site to block from running scripts on the background unless it's white-listed upon user switching to another tab or application. So the browser would have to detect whether there is a script running on the background of the site and ask the user to: allow always/never/this time/stay on page, and then whitelist the site if the 'allow always' option is chosen.
Of-course it's not going to prevent every single type of attack, it's just one more protection that can do pretty well if the user understands what is happening of-course.
--
Another possibility is to record what the tab/window looked like before the user left the page and then show the old page and the new one once the user returns. It's more complicated than the other proposal, it also has pitfalls, but there must be some options of dealing with this.
Even if the scripts are completely disabled on the page, what about a delayed HTTP response, in effect a push to the browser by a server that is done sometime after the page is loaded as a delayed response to the browser request?
It's really hard to avoid all possible scenarios on how a page can be changed from something to something else.
those are great, aren't they? You missed another one: a delayed HTTP response, in effect a server 'push' to the browser.
You use white listing to avoid this problem by detecting if a page is running scripts on the background and presenting the user with the obvious: "run always/never/this time/stay on page" dialog with an explanation of why this is.
If they decide not to pay attention and click on whatever, well, I actually believe in social Darwinism and in this instance it really is not likely that someone will die if their bank account is emptied (though there is a remote chance of that.)
Do you think that a dialog, warning a user who is switching from one screen to another with a 'allow always/never/this time/stay on this page' in case a site is running scripts on the background and then white-listing the site if the 'allow always' button is pushed is such an outrageous concept?
Maybe then the users deserve to have their private information stolen.
This is Internet, it's not your mommy, who will love you no matter what you do (supposedly).
I don't know who is bitching or moaning, but the suggestion is totally reasonable when provided with a white-list, so the sites you want to run scripts on background will be able to if the browser warns the user that there are scripts on the background that await execution and that switching from the tab will stop them.
Then the proverbial: Cancel/Allow or something to that effect would add this site to a white-list.
So, no need for your dramatic epithets.
white-listing of sites would fix that problem.
white listing is not an impossible concept, or is it?
Maybe it is time for the browsers to take matters more seriously and block any scripts from running in tabs that are not currently in focus.
But this can be done in separate windows too, not just in tabs. In terms of whether this is a new concept, let's just say that I have 'seen' this done 10 years ago to gain access to some chat accounts.
Oh, yeah, because after choosing to kill a bunch of people (well, assholes, but still) really I would totally be stopped by the fact that my specific preferred gun type is outlawed in the area where killing must take place.
Yes judge, I killed these 20 motherfuckers with an illegal weapon. I was going to kill them with a legal one, but decided to be an outlaw instead.
1. My argument is that responsibility for prevention belongs with the corporation but the punishment responsibility is on the government if damage can be shown.
2. Governmental oversight is demonstrably corrupt and flawed and prohibitively expensive.
3. You got me, I got mine, so this is a devious plot by me to make sure nobody ever gets anything again.
Finally, a constructive argument.
well, they already built a robot, could as well teach it to play from notes, otherwise it would be a very laborious task to get it to play a different piece of music. The hearing part is not extremely difficult, sample the produced sound and compare to an expected sound wave that must be produced from the notes.
I think that your premise is a bit off, in a system with no government involvement into economics and where government does not stifle competition with regulations, the huge monopolies would be much less common if could exist at all. However in case of BP right now, they can pay for everything, their net worth is large enough, if it must all be liquidate, fine.
The most important part is of-course personal responsibility, confiscation of property from the responsible and jail time.
I agree that this is a problem, but looking at what has been happening for the past 100 years with Oil/coal/gas extraction you can notice that the same or a similar problem exists with all of the regulations that also exist but the difference is nobody is personally liable and there are not enough teeth in any punishment to do much of anything real to prevent future events like that.
As I mentioned, the government's regulations are always a step (or more) behind and the costs to keep regulations up to date an the cost of checking everyone for all regulation compliance would be something we haven't really seen before (because it was never really done.)
So then the same thing I throw back at your post: if government had resources to police every player in every industry and was up to date on all developments in industries and corporations then they could probably prevent all practices that lead to disasters. What are the chances and then what would be the costs of that?
However I hate not providing a solution to a problem and only posing a question, so in response to this problem I would suggest that while the changes were written into Law about changing the limited status of liability for the managers of a corporations, the other changes would include modifying the process of running a corporation, so that at all shareholder meetings they would have to look at the practices of the company in terms of damage control and they would have to study any court case (if there are) pertinent to the kinds of control they need to implement.
So I see that there is a possibility someone is missing some information, this would encourage them to actively seek it.
I also think that in fact this system would give advantage to those corporations, who would invest into researching and developing new practices to keep their work safer. I think it may cause an actual increases of research by corporations and would encourage exchange of information because if one company finds ways to do work with less possible damage, then there is incentive for this company to implement it to secure its business more, but there is also an incentive for this company to share this knowledge with others because there are always costs associated with changes to business and if one company was incurring such costs, then it would want the other players in the industry to incur them as well. Since I propose that industry is the source of regulations in the first place, it means that any new developments set a new standard for what is expected from all players in the industry.
Of-course the other possibility is that all research stops dead and everyone actively tries to avoid doing any research to make their work potentially less dangerous, but in that case, any disaster would have to be punished severely anyway and personal responsibility would have to be applied. I see that as a push for the industries not to stagnate but to try and prevent this because I think most people really don't want to spend time in prison.
The last point is that if someone does not care about prison time (which does not happen currently) then some regulation violation would not be a consideration for them either. In my proposal I give a way to get rid of these people but placing them where they belong. In the current system those people are not punished but Rewarded and the next company would be only too happy to have them on their staff of managers.
I am quite certain that shit floats, so I don't think your plan holds water.
I agree with you. The cost of the ocean cannot be defined in anything meaningful, but the cost of Damage can be somewhat calculated.
However that is my position that there must be a fine for the costs that Can be calculated, but due to the difficulties in such calculations, the law must provide ability to invoke punitive damages that are multiples of the calculated damages. This is why I am talking about x10, x100, x1000 punitive damages on top of the actual damages that can be calculated.
We can calculate damages to some degree. We can show variables from things like income of fisheries and even possibly increases of costs of running restaurants that serve fish. We can show costs to the hospitality business. Things like that are not too hard to calculate and to apply as long as the laws allow it.
There are more complicated questions, like the cost of this part of the Ocean in principle. So we could then talk about the depletion of oxygen in the polluted area, the dead zones caused by it, which is direct damage to the environment. The destruction of air producing and cleaning organisms that will be dying off now if not dead already. The amount of time it may take for oil to degrade in the beach sand and on the ocean floor, if that even will happen.
We do need to set costs associated with losing part of environment, I think it is an interesting subject in itself, I am not an expert in this of-course, otherwise I would give numbers. However estimates can be provided by people who understand something about regeneration of air/water/creatures. How can they estimate cost of that? We can say put a cost on it based on our, human ability to do the same thing that the polluted environment would have done.
What would it cost people to produce all that Oxygen that is going to be lost now due to oil mixing in water + due to death of Oxygen producing organisms? What would it cost to husband all that fish and other creatures for us in the same quantities that are killed off?
We can do this, it's possible and probably a very good exercise in understanding consequences of our behavior anyway.
People covering their asses and all that other jazz is happening today everywhere, with all the regulations.
The difference in what I am proposing is that they are finally personally liable for actions they take, for damage they cause. Today they are not, which completely negates the ability of regulations to work.
I understand that there is another possibility, the kind of possibility that a totalitarian regime would take: punish everyone personally if they screw up but still have all of those regulations, pretend that regulations work. This would be done just to have a larger government, which in a totalitarian regime is a bonus I suppose, not for the people of-course, but for the rulers, who do not care about economy and the people.
So my proposal goes only if both sides of the equation are satisfied: personal responsibility + severe punitive damages + paying to fix the problems cause, but on the other side of the equation must be the reduction of government in terms of regulatory power.
I would Imagine that in a system like that it would be best for survival of corporations to share their knowledge of best industry standards, however it would also mean that some corporations could be better of than others, because they would have the knowledge of how to do business in a safer way, while others may not posses this knowledge. Possibly one more thing is needed: knowledge must be transferable, shared between corporations on the best practices.
Of-course this will help the society, this will help the corporations who are sharing the knowledge, because it would make it impossible for those with less knowledge to claim that they just did not have the knowledge and thus could not have applied it and to get away with consequences of not having this knowledge. This would hurt those companies, who get the knowledge late in the game from the producers of knowledge.
The interesting possible unintended consequence is an 'arms race' in trying to find new ways of doing business better, I actually think this is the most interesting unintended consequence in terms of development of economy ever.
thank you, I don't like it when ACs read my comments.
What you are saying is true, it would be enough to just measure the pressure, apply correct movements etc., but that's not actually playing a violin, is it? :) If you don't have a feedback in terms of hearing, then you don't hear what you are playing, how do you really know that it sounds good? By using pressure alone, it does not tell you that the instrument is really actually truly producing the sounds that you expect. After all, it could be a chair that the robot was playing with the bow, as long as the pressure was right, the robot would 'believe' that the sound was OK, but do you know how bad a chair sounds when scratched with a violin bow?
please, don't say you think that in anything I said I meant to propose to return to the days, when people did not care about what they did to public property and environment and people.
I am talking about punishment that severe in both, economic sense and personal punishment in the sense of prison time.
I am not a proponent of wild west where anything goes without any consequences.
I am not for socializing the damage while privatizing the profits.
Just saying.
I think the point is that your community and jonestown's community are different, so then why is your community deciding what's good for the kids of jonestown's community? So they all end up dead, but if that's what the community wanted, then any action from your community to intervene would be on grounds that are only supported by your community.
Basically you'd be waging a war on principles that other people live or die by. Obviously people wage those kinds of wars all the time, it's like the Afghanistan/Taliban problem that so many countries think they must fix and force to behave the way those countries prefer.
If an entire community does not agree with your community's way of thinking, basically, is it OK (and OK by whose standards) for your community to force its values upon the other one?
And finally, isn't this the Darwinism in action? You may think that your community is right and the other is wrong, but will it not be at the end, the competition and survival that will show who really was 'right'?
The robot was playing the violin and the crowd was clapping. The crowd was wowing and cheering, but the player did not understand or even know about this.
Question: was the robot just performing pre-programmed moves, was it really playing as if from notes and did it rely on its hearing to compensate for the sound at all?
I understand your view, but realize just how many times before now Oil has been spilled into oceans, onto lands etc.
So what has really been done by any regulations so far? Seems that nothing has been done. I am a libertarian for purely practical reasons, of-course my position is ideological, but I do not see another way to fix economy at all. No amount of regulation can do it, and it only makes it worse by growing the government further, which needs to shrink instead.
Problem with regulations is that it creates a point of entry for the private interest. You set up a regulatory body, I'll show you the place to concentrate private interest their corruption efforts and I'll show you the place for the unscrupulous (*of which there are always enough*) to enter the game only to make money, not to do any actual work, AND I will show you another government spending point that did not need to exist.
There were so many spills, so many catastrophes by now, so where is all that regulation that changed anything? Anything at all? Why did the country need to wait until something so close and huge to the shore now to do anything?
Do you believe that anything will change? Will anybody be punished? Will anybody's money be taken away? Will anyone Who Matters actually spend time in jail?
I think we both know the answer.
So yes, this is a humorously unbearable problem, but did it have to become this bad?
No, I believe that by allowing corporations' management to get away with limited personal responsibility caused this. Obviously personal responsibility was removed and instead the regulations were installed, but both of this events created a huge moral hazard, which hurts the society and economy in enormous ways.
By getting rid of regulations and applying the law to sue, take money away, jaili those responsible the real changes can be achieved.
1. There will be more possibility of competition. Regulations are great if they work, but if a company does follow all the necessary precautions that are possible at all then a regulatory body is only a point of cost to the economy and it is really not needed and makes government cheaper and less prone to corruption and makes it possible to run a business that is actually doing all that is possible to run safely while escaping the costs of getting all of the licenses, and YES escaping the costs of bribing the government :)
2. There will be actual changes in the way businesses operate if it was understood that the Government is Coming after the guilty in both ways: money and prison time.
Shooting someone in the head? Well, it's a possibility, but that's up to the limits of the law as a punishment for any kind of crime.