Two words: Butterfly Ballot. My theory has long been that Democrat organizers bussed a bunch of elderly to the polls and told them "If you don't vote for the second guy, you'll lose your Social Security!" Normally, the first name on the ballot is the Republican and the second name is the Democrat.
But that's so obvious that I doubt it's the policy anywhere. It's pretty standard practice to list candidates in random order. Which will likely be different for every variation of the ballot (e.g. different election for dog-catcher).
You do realize that elections, even federal ones, are handled locally, right? This means that if "poor neighborhoods" had faulty equipment, then it was the fault of the local officials who brought in faulty equipment.
That is true, if by "locally" you mean "whoever controls the state level or lower". The state (at least my state, in Wisconsin apparently it's whatever political hack holds the county clerk job and has a copy of Excel on her personal computer) "type approves" equipment and software. ((rant)My municipality has chosen to use Ranked Choice Voting, but three years later is still hobbled because the state has not approved equipment and software. OSS is not in the running because it doesn't have a "manufacturer" who will pay the fees and post bond. (/rant)) Local (county or municipal) officials purchase, maintain, assign equipment to voting places. The "poor neighborhoods" have little control on their own, it's whoever controls the municipal/county political machine.
Except the people being targeted by Israel using Facebook are not terrorists. They are political activists seeking to engage in non-violent protest.
A "terrorist" is anyone that any government says is a terrorist. It's arbitrary. There cannot be any objective definition, because such a definition would include groups supported by the same governments (this applies to the US, Israel, France, and probably most other governments). "Terrorist", like "regime", is a word with great emotional content but little objective content. It applies to those a government disapproves of, but not those who it counts as friends or minions.
Given that the average commuter can barely handle going in a straight line without screwing up, throwing a multiple yield entry-exit loop into the mix results in a buffer overflow with their frail minds.
What that tells us is that "the average commuter" should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, because they are a menace to the safety of all those around them. Of course, at least in the USA, nobody's got the guts to tell them that. Even if they did, nobody can get them off the phone long enough to get them to hear it.
I've got an old Seagate 2.1Gb SCSI Barracuda that's been running since the 1950's.
Now, that's impressive. Presumably a secret project that IBM stole for their first model, which was introduced in 1956. But IBM's only had fifty 24 inch platters, with a total capacity of 5MB, and it needed 3-phase power and a forklift to move it. Yours is a lot bigger. But is it faster than IBM's (whose access time was close to 1000 ms)?
Re:Make the best browser (Score:2)
by number11 (129686) on Monday June 27, @01:06PM (#36586918)
At work I want something secure. More then anything. At home I want stability. Yet I care less, because it is not me who needs to do the IT part.
At home I want stability. The majority of users does not WANT change. They want to surf the web, chat with their children and perhaps see how much money they have on their account.
And just clicking OK is what is giving the most problems. I try to tell them NOT to do that. The majority uses IT, it does not understand IT.
The majority of users does not WANT change.
This is true. And the older they are, the less they want it. Change "under the hood" is fine, but change that involves the UI is hated. I know one person who refuses to upgrade from FF3.x because the little "back pulldown" button isn't in 4 or 5 (and I can't find an extension that replaces it). Yes, she knows now that if you hover over the "back" button you get the same thing (they didn't make it easy to find out, though). It might have helped if FF4 came with a way to make the look and feel exactly the same as FF3, but they don't do that. I was able to tell her how to fix the tabs so they weren't upside down (WTF? why are we changing something like that, that doesn't actually make any difference?) but that wasn't enough. Lots of us don't want to learn new features, unless there's a better reason than that somebody thought they looked nifty. We're fine with learning new features if there's an actual good reason to do so. "Must change GUI so everybody knows it's NEW!!!!" is not one of them.
And every upgrade breaks at least one extension (how can anyone live without multi-column display of bookmarks? why did FF lose the ability to do that without an add-on? we'll never know).
Of course, my XP desktop looks pretty much the same as my NT desktop did. Takes half a day of farting around and googling to get things looking the same again after every Win upgrade. No, I don't want it to look like a Mac, OSX cosmetics irritate me. No, I don't want no damn animated features, those are the "blink" attributes of the GUI world. No docking bars . No pictures in the background. And dammit, get off my lawn.
At work I want something secure. More then anything. At home I want stability. Yet I care less, because it is not me who needs to do the IT part.
At home I want stability. The majority of users does not WANT change. They want to surf the web, chat with their children and perhaps see how much money they have on their account.
And just clicking OK is what is giving the most problems. I try to tell them NOT to do that. The majority uses IT, it does not understand IT.
The majority of users does not WANT change.
This is true. And the older they are, the less they want it. Change "under the hood" is fine, but change that involves the UI is hated. I know one person who refuses to upgrade from FF3.x because the little "back pulldown" button isn't in 4 or 5 (and I can't find an extension that replaces it). Yes, she knows now that if you hover over the "back" button you get the same thing (they didn't make it easy to find out, though). It might have helped if FF4 came with a way to make the look and feel exactly the same as FF3, but they don't do that. I was able to tell her how to fix the tabs so they weren't upside down (WTF? why are we changing something like that, that doesn't actually make any difference?) but that wasn't enough. Lots of us don't want to learn new features, unless there's a better reason than that somebody thought they looked nifty. We're fine with learning new features if there's an actual good reason to do so. "Must change GUI so everybody knows it's NEW!!!!" is not one of them.
And every upgrade breaks at least one extension (how can anyone live without multi-column display of bookmarks? why did FF lose the ability to do that without an add-on? we'll never know).
Of course, my XP desktop looks pretty much the same as my NT desktop did. Takes half a day of farting around and googling to get things looking the same again after every Win upgrade. No, I don't want it to look like a Mac, OSX cosmetics irritate me. No, I don't want no damn animated features, those are the "blink" attributes of the GUI world. No docking bars . No pictures in the background. And dammit, get off my lawn.
It didn't say that set top boxes draw more than a new refrigerator, it said that some home theatre "configurations" draw more power than a refrigerator, ie. STB, media PC, HD TV, surround sound system, game console (or 3), etc
Wrong. TFA said:
One high-definition DVR and one high-definition cable box use an average of 446 kilowatt hours a year, about 10 percent more than a 21-cubic-foot energy-efficient refrigerator
I work in electronics and never in my life have I seen a clock that works like this. Ive been dismantling old equipment since I could hold a screwdiver. 35 years
Wow. So you've never seen a "classic" alarm clock, analog clock with time-set knobs on the back and usually a plunger on the back that you push in or pull out to shut up/arm the annoying buzzer? Never seen electric timer, a little box that plugs into the outlet that you plug something else into, has a big round wheel with mechanical detents that you use to set the trip times? Never seen a timing motor like is in the control unit of older washing machines, a little synchronous motor that's geared to run at a particular speed? I'm not sure if they still make analog alarm clocks (these days quartz is probably cheaper, though I defy you to find a quartz alarm clock that will still function perfectly after 50 years of operation). But they still make timers (Intermatic is a common brand, your hardware store probably has them) and timing motors, both of which depend on line frequency.
On Windows PCs at least, the BIOS will perform a hard power-off if you hold down the "soft" off button for 5 seconds.
Even "off", my desktops consume 2-4 watts. (Figure, $1/watt/year @ $0.115/kwh.) Thus, they're plugged into an outlet strip with a "hard" switch. 2 outlet strips, actually, one for stuff backed up by the UPS, and one for the bits and pieces (second monitor, speakers, printer) that don't need UPS. A third (that never gets turned off) strip connected to the UPS for the always-on stuff like router, ATA, and telephones. It saves a couple of bucks a month (and gives somewhat better protection against possible thunderstorm spikes).
Please stop your silly neo-Marxist comments. The only reason those workers put up with $10 daily and those dorms is simply because their other alternatives stink even more.
My mistake. They are clearly living in a capitalist paradise.
Chinese law mandates 40-hour day, and all businesses officially comply.
Very few Chinese businesses (outside of the prison labor) actually succeed in getting 40 hours work per employee per day. But it's like in the old USSR, "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".
all that is a diversion, most people in debt are not in debt due to medical bills.
Perhaps true. But in the USA, most (62%) personal bankruptcies are due to excessive medical bills (and three-quarters of those people did have insurance). Not that there's anything wrong with the US medical care system, or anything.
Could be wrong, but I always thought that the 1st Amendment stated you had the freedom of speech in so much that it does not impede or infringe upon the rights of others.
Wrong. The 1st Amendment states
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
No qualifications whatsoever. Doesn't say squat about the "rights of others". The qualifications are all "interpretation". You wouldn't think such an unequivocal rule would require much interpretation (as someone said, "what part of 'no' don't you understand?"), but there you are.
The chicken wire is unlikely to be an effective Faraday cage at all radio frequencies though.
Around here, the "chicken wire" is usually expanded steel mesh, with ~5mm holes. Not that much looser than the shield in the window of a microwave, so I'll wager it blocks pretty well at 2.4GHz and below.
Keeping the information in reserve is patently wrong. On the bright side, it is also illegal to do this,
Cite?
Automating the ticketing from the stop sign, on the other hand is a *great* idea. If you roll through a stop sign you should get a ticket in the mail.
The problem there is knowing who is driving. What makes you think it's necessarily the owner of the car? My city installed a bunch of photo ticket gadgets at intersections, and they now sit unused, because they failed to install cameras that could identify the driver, and the court (quite reasonably) said they couldn't ticket anyone if they couldn't prove that person had done something. Another stupid idea from City Council bit the dust.
The other problem is finding some official who can testify under oath that the cameras always work properly, no "false positives".
Unless, of course, you are talking about actual illegal activity, in which case you *should* be arrested. That's why we have laws.
Quite right. The stop sign at the end of my block, hardly anyone comes to a full, complete stop at. Damn scofflaws doing rolling stops. They need to all be arrested. Of course, if they had a camera there, they could just keep the information in reserve, in case they should want to nail you for something some other time. Maybe if you came out publicly against reappointing the police chief, or something.
Oh, you didn't mean that sort of law? Too bad you don't get to choose which law, isn't it?
The real problem is that our representatives aren't representing the people of this country, rather they are representing the corporate interests.
And that will continue to be the case, so long as the corporate interests can finance the election of the representatives (through donations, PACs, and "independent" front groups) and manipulate the economic environment that each election occurs in. How you'd change that, I don't know. Even fixing the finance bit presupposes that you can somehow get representatives who are owned by corporations to go against the interests of those same corporations. And you'd still have to solve the problem of corporate blackmail, "if you do that we'll move our plant to another state/overseas".
The fact is, if you consider corporations to be persons, they are 800 pound gorilla persons, and their wishes are always going to be attended to before those of real live persons. And ultimately they are self-centered and amoral persons, persons without much concept of right and wrong, persons without any concern for the general good or patriotism, to a corporation the only moral issue is "will it make more money for us".
(Remember when Google coined the motto "don't be evil" and how easy it is to make fun of that? And they're probably better by far than most of their corporate brethren.)
How many innocent investors and employees are you willing to punish for the malicious actions of a few?
They don't get "punished". Criminal behavior often hurts innocent bystanders, are you saying that somebody with a spouse and three kids should be exempt from jail because to jail them would hurt their dependents? Hell, the investors will be hurt if the corporation makes a marketing blunder, why not if the corporation commits a crime? Yes, it's unfortunate. Maybe we should give the investors and employees standing to sue the corporation for any damages they suffer.
What if the company provides a vital service to its customers?
What if I provide a vital service to my customers? Does that mean I should be exempt from jail?
A quick search didn't turn up any other reports of this besides discussion pointing back to the linked Network World article.
Exactly. TFA doesn't seem to say where Mr. Hassan acquired that computer. But if it wasn't just randomly picked off the shelf, one wonders if maybe the presence of a keylogger could be related to the fact that the buyer has a Middle Eastern name. It would be very interesting to know just where the keylogger was going to phone home to.
Or, if from a store, if they sold him as "new" a computer that had been returned by another buyer, who had installed some free bonus software for the next owner.
If you make a habit of punishing "the CEO", then "the CEO" will be a fall guy hired by whoever actually runs the company.
True. What needs to be done is, find the corporation guilty, and give it 30 days. Now, 30 days in the slammer is only a slap on the wrist, as punishments go. And of course, you can't actually put the corporation in the local jail, but you can put it under "house arrest". Send the marshalls around to padlock their premises, and freeze their bank accounts for 30 days.
The economic consequences to the corporation would be vastly greater than any fine that could be levied. But nobody worries about other criminals who won't be able to meet their financial commitments if they do a stretch in the workhouse, so why should we worry about that when it's a corporate "person"?
Slashdot Mirror
Two words: Butterfly Ballot. My theory has long been that Democrat organizers bussed a bunch of elderly to the polls and told them "If you don't vote for the second guy, you'll lose your Social Security!" Normally, the first name on the ballot is the Republican and the second name is the Democrat.
If they "normally" put the Republican first, that in itself is a means of skewing the election, since being first improves chance of winning.
But that's so obvious that I doubt it's the policy anywhere. It's pretty standard practice to list candidates in random order. Which will likely be different for every variation of the ballot (e.g. different election for dog-catcher).
You do realize that elections, even federal ones, are handled locally, right? This means that if "poor neighborhoods" had faulty equipment, then it was the fault of the local officials who brought in faulty equipment.
That is true, if by "locally" you mean "whoever controls the state level or lower". The state (at least my state, in Wisconsin apparently it's whatever political hack holds the county clerk job and has a copy of Excel on her personal computer) "type approves" equipment and software. ((rant)My municipality has chosen to use Ranked Choice Voting, but three years later is still hobbled because the state has not approved equipment and software. OSS is not in the running because it doesn't have a "manufacturer" who will pay the fees and post bond. ( /rant)) Local (county or municipal) officials purchase, maintain, assign equipment to voting places. The "poor neighborhoods" have little control on their own, it's whoever controls the municipal/county political machine.
Except the people being targeted by Israel using Facebook are not terrorists. They are political activists seeking to engage in non-violent protest.
A "terrorist" is anyone that any government says is a terrorist. It's arbitrary. There cannot be any objective definition, because such a definition would include groups supported by the same governments (this applies to the US, Israel, France, and probably most other governments). "Terrorist", like "regime", is a word with great emotional content but little objective content. It applies to those a government disapproves of, but not those who it counts as friends or minions.
Given that the average commuter can barely handle going in a straight line without screwing up, throwing a multiple yield entry-exit loop into the mix results in a buffer overflow with their frail minds.
What that tells us is that "the average commuter" should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle, because they are a menace to the safety of all those around them. Of course, at least in the USA, nobody's got the guts to tell them that. Even if they did, nobody can get them off the phone long enough to get them to hear it.
You forgot the "GET OFF MY LAWN" part... *sigh*
Hey, that's implied by my low UID. It shouldn't have to be explcit.
I've got an old Seagate 2.1Gb SCSI Barracuda that's been running since the 1950's.
Now, that's impressive. Presumably a secret project that IBM stole for their first model, which was introduced in 1956. But IBM's only had fifty 24 inch platters, with a total capacity of 5MB, and it needed 3-phase power and a forklift to move it. Yours is a lot bigger. But is it faster than IBM's (whose access time was close to 1000 ms)?
Re:Make the best browser (Score:2)
by number11 (129686) on Monday June 27, @01:06PM (#36586918)
At work I want something secure. More then anything. At home I want stability. Yet I care less, because it is not me who needs to do the IT part.
At home I want stability. The majority of users does not WANT change. They want to surf the web, chat with their children and perhaps see how much money they have on their account.
And just clicking OK is what is giving the most problems. I try to tell them NOT to do that. The majority uses IT, it does not understand IT.
The majority of users does not WANT change.
This is true. And the older they are, the less they want it. Change "under the hood" is fine, but change that involves the UI is hated. I know one person who refuses to upgrade from FF3.x because the little "back pulldown" button isn't in 4 or 5 (and I can't find an extension that replaces it). Yes, she knows now that if you hover over the "back" button you get the same thing (they didn't make it easy to find out, though). It might have helped if FF4 came with a way to make the look and feel exactly the same as FF3, but they don't do that. I was able to tell her how to fix the tabs so they weren't upside down (WTF? why are we changing something like that, that doesn't actually make any difference?) but that wasn't enough. Lots of us don't want to learn new features, unless there's a better reason than that somebody thought they looked nifty. We're fine with learning new features if there's an actual good reason to do so. "Must change GUI so everybody knows it's NEW!!!!" is not one of them.
And every upgrade breaks at least one extension (how can anyone live without multi-column display of bookmarks? why did FF lose the ability to do that without an add-on? we'll never know).
Of course, my XP desktop looks pretty much the same as my NT desktop did. Takes half a day of farting around and googling to get things looking the same again after every Win upgrade. No, I don't want it to look like a Mac, OSX cosmetics irritate me. No, I don't want no damn animated features, those are the "blink" attributes of the GUI world. No docking bars . No pictures in the background. And dammit, get off my lawn.
At work I want something secure. More then anything. At home I want stability. Yet I care less, because it is not me who needs to do the IT part.
At home I want stability. The majority of users does not WANT change. They want to surf the web, chat with their children and perhaps see how much money they have on their account.
And just clicking OK is what is giving the most problems. I try to tell them NOT to do that. The majority uses IT, it does not understand IT.
The majority of users does not WANT change.
This is true. And the older they are, the less they want it. Change "under the hood" is fine, but change that involves the UI is hated. I know one person who refuses to upgrade from FF3.x because the little "back pulldown" button isn't in 4 or 5 (and I can't find an extension that replaces it). Yes, she knows now that if you hover over the "back" button you get the same thing (they didn't make it easy to find out, though). It might have helped if FF4 came with a way to make the look and feel exactly the same as FF3, but they don't do that. I was able to tell her how to fix the tabs so they weren't upside down (WTF? why are we changing something like that, that doesn't actually make any difference?) but that wasn't enough. Lots of us don't want to learn new features, unless there's a better reason than that somebody thought they looked nifty. We're fine with learning new features if there's an actual good reason to do so. "Must change GUI so everybody knows it's NEW!!!!" is not one of them.
And every upgrade breaks at least one extension (how can anyone live without multi-column display of bookmarks? why did FF lose the ability to do that without an add-on? we'll never know).
Of course, my XP desktop looks pretty much the same as my NT desktop did. Takes half a day of farting around and googling to get things looking the same again after every Win upgrade. No, I don't want it to look like a Mac, OSX cosmetics irritate me. No, I don't want no damn animated features, those are the "blink" attributes of the GUI world. No docking bars . No pictures in the background. And dammit, get off my lawn.
It didn't say that set top boxes draw more than a new refrigerator, it said that some home theatre "configurations" draw more power than a refrigerator, ie. STB, media PC, HD TV, surround sound system, game console (or 3), etc
Wrong. TFA said:
You could continue using FCP 7 but...
So maybe it's time to switch to Avid or Sony Vegas?
Me, I use Womble, but neither my hardware nor my needs are what you'd call "professional level".
Unfortunately, I don't think any other program is going to be compatible with those old FCP7 files.
I work in electronics and never in my life have I seen a clock that works like this. Ive been dismantling old equipment since I could hold a screwdiver. 35 years
Wow. So you've never seen a "classic" alarm clock, analog clock with time-set knobs on the back and usually a plunger on the back that you push in or pull out to shut up/arm the annoying buzzer? Never seen electric timer, a little box that plugs into the outlet that you plug something else into, has a big round wheel with mechanical detents that you use to set the trip times? Never seen a timing motor like is in the control unit of older washing machines, a little synchronous motor that's geared to run at a particular speed? I'm not sure if they still make analog alarm clocks (these days quartz is probably cheaper, though I defy you to find a quartz alarm clock that will still function perfectly after 50 years of operation). But they still make timers (Intermatic is a common brand, your hardware store probably has them) and timing motors, both of which depend on line frequency.
The T-Mobile "Pay as you Go" option is good for 12 months after each time you fill up your account with credit.
If you buy $100 worth of time. And if AT&T hasn't swallowed up T-Mobile by the time you come again.
On Windows PCs at least, the BIOS will perform a hard power-off if you hold down the "soft" off button for 5 seconds.
Even "off", my desktops consume 2-4 watts. (Figure, $1/watt/year @ $0.115/kwh.) Thus, they're plugged into an outlet strip with a "hard" switch. 2 outlet strips, actually, one for stuff backed up by the UPS, and one for the bits and pieces (second monitor, speakers, printer) that don't need UPS. A third (that never gets turned off) strip connected to the UPS for the always-on stuff like router, ATA, and telephones. It saves a couple of bucks a month (and gives somewhat better protection against possible thunderstorm spikes).
Please stop your silly neo-Marxist comments. The only reason those workers put up with $10 daily and those dorms is simply because their other alternatives stink even more.
My mistake. They are clearly living in a capitalist paradise.
Chinese law mandates 40-hour day, and all businesses officially comply.
Very few Chinese businesses (outside of the prison labor) actually succeed in getting 40 hours work per employee per day. But it's like in the old USSR, "we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us".
all that is a diversion, most people in debt are not in debt due to medical bills.
Perhaps true. But in the USA, most (62%) personal bankruptcies are due to excessive medical bills (and three-quarters of those people did have insurance). Not that there's anything wrong with the US medical care system, or anything.
Could be wrong, but I always thought that the 1st Amendment stated you had the freedom of speech in so much that it does not impede or infringe upon the rights of others.
Wrong. The 1st Amendment states
No qualifications whatsoever. Doesn't say squat about the "rights of others". The qualifications are all "interpretation". You wouldn't think such an unequivocal rule would require much interpretation (as someone said, "what part of 'no' don't you understand?"), but there you are.
"Free speech" in US too excludes the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema hall.
Not if there really is a fire.
The chicken wire is unlikely to be an effective Faraday cage at all radio frequencies though.
Around here, the "chicken wire" is usually expanded steel mesh, with ~5mm holes. Not that much looser than the shield in the window of a microwave, so I'll wager it blocks pretty well at 2.4GHz and below.
Keeping the information in reserve is patently wrong. On the bright side, it is also illegal to do this,
Cite?
Automating the ticketing from the stop sign, on the other hand is a *great* idea. If you roll through a stop sign you should get a ticket in the mail.
The problem there is knowing who is driving. What makes you think it's necessarily the owner of the car? My city installed a bunch of photo ticket gadgets at intersections, and they now sit unused, because they failed to install cameras that could identify the driver, and the court (quite reasonably) said they couldn't ticket anyone if they couldn't prove that person had done something. Another stupid idea from City Council bit the dust.
The other problem is finding some official who can testify under oath that the cameras always work properly, no "false positives".
Unless, of course, you are talking about actual illegal activity, in which case you *should* be arrested. That's why we have laws.
Quite right. The stop sign at the end of my block, hardly anyone comes to a full, complete stop at. Damn scofflaws doing rolling stops. They need to all be arrested. Of course, if they had a camera there, they could just keep the information in reserve, in case they should want to nail you for something some other time. Maybe if you came out publicly against reappointing the police chief, or something.
Oh, you didn't mean that sort of law? Too bad you don't get to choose which law, isn't it?
The real problem is that our representatives aren't representing the people of this country, rather they are representing the corporate interests.
And that will continue to be the case, so long as the corporate interests can finance the election of the representatives (through donations, PACs, and "independent" front groups) and manipulate the economic environment that each election occurs in. How you'd change that, I don't know. Even fixing the finance bit presupposes that you can somehow get representatives who are owned by corporations to go against the interests of those same corporations. And you'd still have to solve the problem of corporate blackmail, "if you do that we'll move our plant to another state/overseas".
The fact is, if you consider corporations to be persons, they are 800 pound gorilla persons, and their wishes are always going to be attended to before those of real live persons. And ultimately they are self-centered and amoral persons, persons without much concept of right and wrong, persons without any concern for the general good or patriotism, to a corporation the only moral issue is "will it make more money for us".
(Remember when Google coined the motto "don't be evil" and how easy it is to make fun of that? And they're probably better by far than most of their corporate brethren.)
How many innocent investors and employees are you willing to punish for the malicious actions of a few?
They don't get "punished". Criminal behavior often hurts innocent bystanders, are you saying that somebody with a spouse and three kids should be exempt from jail because to jail them would hurt their dependents? Hell, the investors will be hurt if the corporation makes a marketing blunder, why not if the corporation commits a crime? Yes, it's unfortunate. Maybe we should give the investors and employees standing to sue the corporation for any damages they suffer.
What if the company provides a vital service to its customers?
What if I provide a vital service to my customers? Does that mean I should be exempt from jail?
A quick search didn't turn up any other reports of this besides discussion pointing back to the linked Network World article.
Exactly. TFA doesn't seem to say where Mr. Hassan acquired that computer. But if it wasn't just randomly picked off the shelf, one wonders if maybe the presence of a keylogger could be related to the fact that the buyer has a Middle Eastern name. It would be very interesting to know just where the keylogger was going to phone home to.
Or, if from a store, if they sold him as "new" a computer that had been returned by another buyer, who had installed some free bonus software for the next owner.
If you make a habit of punishing "the CEO", then "the CEO" will be a fall guy hired by whoever actually runs the company.
True. What needs to be done is, find the corporation guilty, and give it 30 days. Now, 30 days in the slammer is only a slap on the wrist, as punishments go. And of course, you can't actually put the corporation in the local jail, but you can put it under "house arrest". Send the marshalls around to padlock their premises, and freeze their bank accounts for 30 days.
The economic consequences to the corporation would be vastly greater than any fine that could be levied. But nobody worries about other criminals who won't be able to meet their financial commitments if they do a stretch in the workhouse, so why should we worry about that when it's a corporate "person"?