Client-side security always is. There has never been a client-side security device, model, or system that hasn't been broken when given professional resources. The only systems out there that haven't been broken like this are ones either too small to attract attention or resources, or carry legal punishments so severe nobody subject to said laws will try to circumvent them -- ie "violate the DMCA and get 30 years in the electric chair and an 8 quintillion dollar fine".
I want to see that someone has the discipline to go through the process, work with others, and actually see something through to completion.
So what you're saying is, you're an asshole. You aren't hiring based on experience or ability, but because you went to school and therefore they should go to school. You say that you value someone seeing something through to completion -- but you can't fake ability or skillset for years on end. You can fake test scores, classes, hell -- you can buy yourself a degree online if you so desire.
But you can't fake job references. You can't fake supervisors saying "that guy really knows his stuff." You're a bad manager because you've made an assumption, you're operating on belief. That's what bad managers do. Good managers go on instinct and experience... and maybe, if you had worked your way into your position instead of having been handed a degree and slotted into it, you'd know that.
I have no respect for you, and I wouldn't work for you whether I had a degree or not, regardless of the pay. I work for managers who understand information technology is a creative profession, where skills change faster than courses can be designed to teach them, and experience is worth more than book smarts. I don't want to work with someone who can name all the layers of the OSI model but can't explain to me why having large buffers on the border router is a bad idea when it serves a call center.
And that's what you get with a college degree: Book smart. Not street smart.
Of course it's worth getting; assuming the cost of the education is low enough. I believe the average person goes through 3 career changes in the course of his/her life. That's about 16 years in the field, give or take. We'll say the average income in the field is $50,000 -- just for comparison's sake. And let's say your education costs $80,000 (a not unreasonable sum, considering how quickly costs are ballooning). Now obviously because of interest rates and taxes and whatnot, this is an overly-simplistic estimate and I won't consider those -- but given the above, you'd be paying 10% of your income back over the expected life of your career.
The real question you have to ask is -- is the increase in income greater than the cost of the education? Now, obviously, the above numbers are overly simplistic, but it's a starting point to a more in depth analysis. I think you'll find that when all the variables are taken into account, a college education only delivers a marginal benefit to your overall quality of life compared to either trying to get your foot in the door without one, or doing a job that doesn't require one. At least in my country (the United States), with the middle class rapidly imploding due to greed and other factors... you probably want every edge you can get. Work the numbers carefully; If you miscalculate, your financial future is grim.
The problem with forensic science is that it's less a science and more an art. Take identifying the flash point of a fire for example -- it's not as easy as people say or suspect. For years, "scientists" would point to certain fracture patterns or scorching marks and say that was the source, but there was never any studies done on it. It was mostly speculation, compounded by experience. Without any feedback on whether they were actually right or wrong, they developed a false sense of confidence. And in court, confidence + authority = conviction.
The problem is that the legal system doesn't use scientific standards, it uses legal standards. And the law is based on experience -- it is forever looking backwards. A precident set 200 years ago is just as applicable in a court today as it was in the intervening years. Science, on the other hand, only considers the most current understanding relevant. And that's where the problems start. The law says that once a kind of forensic examination carries legal weight, then even if it is later conclusively proven scientifically to be false, it does not overturn past convictions, nor does it prevent its use in the present.
Our justice system is not about fairness or justice -- it is about maintaining public perception of order, which is a separate and distinct concept. It can be quite orderly and efficient to never allow a new trial for the convicted... it is not necessarily fair.
Just because someone denies it's happening doesn't mean it isn't. And the UUIDs might not have been used by the FBI, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a massive surveillance operation against its citizens. History shows the FBI considers itself a righteous organization that can and does ignore its own laws and policies in order to "get the bad guy". Of course, in doing so, they trample the very protections meant to protect the innocent, and so many people are in jail simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had politically controversial views (as the FBI sees them, anyway).
Whenever a law enforcement organization takes liberties with our liberties, it is to the detriment to us all. Regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, it is the traditional path by which democracy is destroyed.
how about what the british actually think today, and their actual policy today? how about judging them on that?
For the same reason I never forget anything you've ever screwed up: It comes in handy when there's a fight and you need to lose. Granted, it's a dysfunctional way of doing things, but it's popularity remains unchallenged. If the British pipe up and say "Oi there, over there in the colonies, you sure ronnied that bit up!" we can just shout back "yeah, how's Palestine working out for you?" See? No different than a couple arguing... each side loads up on ammo, and blasts at the other until nobody, not even the participants has a clue what's going on. It's a convenient way of maintaining the status quo -- neither side loses face, and anyone with an emotional interest in the outcome will bury themselves in the rhetoric until exhausted. Problem solved.
Should have incorporated his criminal enterprise into a bank. Then he wouldn't serve any time and the government would bail him out for business expenses. It's rather silly to commit individual crime when corporate crime pays more and there's usually no time served.
Okay, a lot of people are going to get on here and talk about their favorite computer, or how to get your kid involved in programming and hacking, etc. But let's be honest: Most kids at that age play games with a computer. Until they're a teenager, there's no strong need for privacy, so I'd say just get something like a mac mini or an HTPC, set it up in the livingroom, and then give the kid a wireless keyboard and mouse and hook it up to the TV. Kids will spill juice, food, and generally destroy anything you give them.
A laptop or tablet is straight out unless they're waterproof and can survive being run over by a car. or worse. Get one of those fold-up keyboards... don't spend much money on it either way, it'll die. And you might want to buy a spare. (-_-) For kids "survivability" is far more important of an attribute than tech specs or even operating system.
I take it that stating something that may be politically controversial is a 'troll' now on slashdot. Rather than having the decency to respond to my post with some informed criticism, you choose to mod me "-1, disagree". Undo your mod, press reply, and tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Because while I might be full of sarcasm, I don't think I've said anything a lot of people wouldn't agree with or find a factual basis for.
So if you can't use electronics, how do you dispatch them? Do they return to the depot after every pickup to receive little strips of paper? (-_-)
Another case of capitalism gone full retard -- "We forbid you to use anything that could make your job more efficient and convenient for your customers!"
On one hand, efficacy and direct, immediate action.
No. There's been nothing efficient, fast, or direct about this. It's another power grab by the Department of Homeland Security, and pardon my french, but fuck them. They have incompetently managed every resource assigned to them, whether it's investigating domestic crime, securing airports, or anything else. They've created gulag prison camps within our borders to throw protesters in, encouraged the usurpation of local and state laws to further their interests, they irradiate their citizens and workers alike to the point that cancer clusters are now showing up in TSA screeners that are well-beyond being able to be dismissed as a statistical abnormality, and the list goes on.
And now they want a master kill switch for the internet, to dictate terms about how all our communications infrastructure is organized, and they have deep connections with media organizations -- of which only a few need to be manipulated to suppress information at the national level. The Department of Homeland Security has become the Ministry of Truth, and thanks to clever and covert manipulation of the media and the occasional use of deadly force and questionable laws, has all but silenced dissent or even knowledge of what its activities are.
No. It's gone too far. It no longer matters to me how well-intentioned or beneficial a proposal is; If it is administered or requested by Homeland Security, my advice is to resist it in any way you reasonably can... they're a dangerous and corrupt organization, unamerican and destructive of the very means it seeks to protect. I'd rather have a hundred Osama Bin Ladens out there plotting the downfall of my country than to turn over my personal safety and security to a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats -- at least in the former case, I know who my enemies are.
You're correct in that the business model does have a few advantages for funding. And if copyright lasted only a few years, perhaps it would be a reasonable tradeoff. But when something lasts 150 years plus the life of the author, then you no longer have a situation where cost and benefit are balanced -- it costs the consumer massively, for little to no benefit.
I personally think the aggressive enforcement of copyright and modification of copyright laws are what is causing the destruction of the industry, not piracy. It's just like what happened during the Prohibition in the United States -- they tried to cut off access to a common recreational activity by force of law, and drove its use underground, resulting in the creation of this country's first large-scale organized crime syndicates, which remain active to this day due to the War on Drugs. Had the Prohibition never happened, organized crime might not developed in this country, or at least not to the breadth and depth that is is today.
When I studied Macroeconomics, there was a man whose name I forget who proposed that beyond a certain point, increasing taxes would actually result in less tax being collected because the incentives to cheat the system would outweigh the risks. So a tax rate of 30% might earn the same amount of revenue that a tax rate of 70% would. I think the same situation has happened in the entertainment industry -- except the tax in this case is a amortized in the system -- there are hundreds of little fees and laws and procedures that all work together in a complex dance to create a similar framework at a macro level.
Or put more simply: The recording industry priced itself out of the market. Their attempts to raise prices to compensate for lost income (in the form of a distribution 'tax') passed the critical threshold where there were more incentives to evade the system than participate in it. And yes, we all lose because of it, in the form of less available income and lower quality material... but it is hardly the fault of the consumer (legal or illegal) -- it was, in the final analyis, caused by a lack of competition. Had the recording industry not been dominated by only a few players, the pricing couldn't have been manipulated enough to cause it to pass the critical threshold, as the price would have remained aligned with the market demands.
They did this to themselves, and they took us with them.
Because it's my civic responsibility to teach others how to be safe in a world they don't fully understand.
> 2. What type of people do you do that for?
Friends, family, and anyone that's a part of their social network, etc. A large part of it is referrals and reputation. People know me by reputation and my connections, and my willingness to teach.
> 3. What are the programs and in what order do they load (unless you get paid to do that. . . . then I understand if you don't want to list them off).
Varies by person, but most usually I show up with a harddrive on day 1, connect it to the computer, and make a full backup, then compress it and give it to them as a restore DVD/bluray, or on a flash drive. There are scripts once that completes to automatically load in a VM session, update all the scanners, and run them sequentially, generating log files, screen shots, etc. Because of the amount of time each individual scanner takes to run, and that they can't (unfortunately) be parallelized, I usually return the following day, as it takes about 12-16 hours to run everything.
I usually install Firefox with a bevy of plugins like noscript, proxy switchers, cookie and LSO managers, etc. I do not care much for which ones are used -- as long as they are under current development. Then followup with spybot, malware antibytes, and avast, though again, I'm constantly reviewing and testing various products. My only requirements is that the 'realtime scanner' be disabled (and stay disabled), that it doesn't come with intrusive advertising or 'phone home' components -- in other words, it does what it says on the tin and that's it. I also install Comodo firewall because it's one of the few that are free and offer fine-grained control over outgoing connections. I have my own registry patches and such to preconfigure applications.
Then comes the hard part: User education. I usually spend 2--4 hours with printouts and stuff I've made explaining to them how it all works, why it is setup the way it is, and how to use the tools in a day to day fashion.
> 4. And again, what's the goal? Is it user safety for people you know? Clients? Family (to avoid the inevitable 'my computer's running slow, I bet it's that foxfire thing you put on there' conversation)? Why do you do these things?
The goal is to create an environment where people can be safe, secure, and have privacy online -- a task that becomes more difficult as more middlemen pile into the fold with visions of becoming rich by screwing over their fellow man. I suppose you could say my ultimate goal is to make exploitation of people's digital lives unprofitable, since making it illegal is out of the question in a country like the one I live in where money makes laws, instead of people.
The real reason the Pirate Bay is hated is because it is a content distribution network. The BitTorrent protocol doesn't care whether it's a linux iso or a copy of the latest popular bluray rip that it transfers; It simply distributes the load to all of its participants. The RIAA, MPAA, and organizations they represent only exist because they have controlled the distribution of content (not its creation).
To hear that an author is distributing content on the 'honor system', is not surprising. All he's doing is leveraging a (free) distribution network, and probably making more money due to reduced overhead than he would if he went with one of the commercial solutions. Not to mention that gaining access to one of those solutions would require he give them a cut of the profits and pay regular fees on top of that. For a small-margins production like this, that would probably leave him with next to nothing.
The free market at work, that's what this is: And that's exactly why he has to die, horribly, painfully, and with many legal injunctions and fees. We can't have people using the internet to create money directly for themselves without any middlemen -- most of the jobs in our economy are middlemen. Burn the heretic.
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
All easily solved by simply saying that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is inconvenient. It's a simple motion to file in most jurisdictions -- if I live in Texas, and I sue you in New York, you can request the venue (that is, where the court is located, not which laws apply) be changed to New York, as you are the defendant and the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove damages, etc. It's all under the 'innocent until proven guilty' -- and not granting such a motion would prejudice the defense.
Unfortunately, such just and fair legal concepts have been thrown out... and nobody gives a damn. People are busy protesting crap like mortgage defaults, while the judiciary falls apart to the sound of silence.
Wait, are you telling me that corporations paid the government to do what they couldn't do themselves? That's almost like saying that the government sometimes pays corporations to do what they can't do themselves... and we all know that never happens. Hangon, my cell phone is beeping... huh... I wonder why the GPS icon is blinking....
Ah, but you assume too much. I'm sorry, the TSA people I've interacted with may have had high school degrees but were hardly the alpha cut. As for TSA as theater: agreed. That was my point, the actual level of security provided is very little.
I don't assume anything. I contracted with the TSA when they hired their first batch of airport screeners -- my primary job responsibilities supported their hiring process. I can't disclose details, but this isn't assumption or "I read it online" -- this is "I was there" knowledge. And whatever you think of the screeners' intelligence level, I can assure you that they were all given a standardized test and receive regular training and testing for their entire career. Their IQ is a meaningless metric to their supervisors -- as long as they can follow procedure without deviation, they could have had their brain replaced with a toilet scrubber and they'd still keep their job.
I've had a sneaking suspicion that the TSA is a stealth jobs program for the otherwise unemployable.
You assume incorrectly. The marginally employable in this country are those who are any/all of the following: under the age of 25, over the age of 65, overweight, physically disabled, have a criminal record (this one overshadows all the rest combined except age), lack a degree/diploma of any kind, or do not speak english fluently. The TSA's hiring criterion specifically disqualify most of the people in the former categories; You can't have a criminal record, you need to be physically fit enough to stand on your feet for an 8 hour shift, and you need to speak english fluently. I believe they also required a high school diploma or GED -- and unlike most other employers, they will check.
It's not so much the intrusive searches and so on as the STUPIDITY of their measures (how are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?).
You assume that the reason for the intrusive searches and 'stupid' measures are to improve security. They aren't. They're there to make the passengers feel safe. All of these searches and measures are highly visible (there are no privacy shields for most of their activities -- they prefer it be in public view), obvious, and very visually-orientated. It is quite literally theatre. The phrase "security theatre" describes what they're doing perfectly; they are actors on a stage, and you are the audience. The polls have consistently shown people support these procedures; It has broad public support. Articles like this are a tempest in a teapot; the general public simply doesn't care about those things. They may agree with everything the article states, but they'll quite happily keep right on doing it because it makes them feel safer.
And that, my friend, is all the TSA offers: A feeling of security.
I was an American teenager in the 1970s. Back then, people made fun of the Soviet Union. One of the most popular jokes referred to a Soviet citizen's internal passport, which apparently they were supposed to carry even when going from city to city. And of course there were all the stories about the KGB.
The most popular joke is our Pledge of Allegiance, which until the red scare, did not include the words "under god". Communists were portrayed as being godless heathens, and thus atheists and agnostics were frequently profiled (to use the modern vernacular) by police and the authorities. Of course, sixty years later, revisionist history has all but forgotten it. This country has a long and inglorious history of sacrificing its citizens on the altar of public opinion whenever an external threat was perceived. "I hold in my hand a list of 80 names of communist party members in the democratic caucus" is laughed at as an example of how 'backwards' people in the 50s and 60s were, even as we nod our heads agreeably to watchlists containing tens of thousands of names of suspected terrorists.
Change the names and places, and people forget it's the same dance.
The real reason for this is to make you, the idiot public, feel safe by having some random person in a uniform approach you and proceed to do something vaguely scientific-looking while assuring you that you're very safe here. See, you're safe because we're doing this thing of dubious value, but we're dressed in uniforms that command authority.
If you want to see this first hand, dress up in a suit, wear an official-looking nametag (it needs to have a BIG official-looking gold seal on it) covered in laminate, and then walk around a commercial building telling people what to do. Tell them men's room is closed and everyone has to use the women's (or vice versa). Stand in front of an elevator and tell people it's out of order (even as people exit from right behind you). Now, take it to Troll Level 99 by getting a couple of your friends involved in it: Come up with something completely outrageous (claim you're an USDA food inspector and need to look at anyone carrying a sandwich while in front of a cafe), and make sure your friends agree to do whatever you're doing. Then demand the same of other random people. Take a bite out of their sandwich and then tell them it's "acceptable" and let them go. You can have one of your friends object, at which point you eat the entire sandwich and treaten to write them a citation for interfering in official inspector business.
You'd be surprised just how far you can take it. I mean, you can basically rob someone of everything they own, and as long as other people are complicit to allow it, they'll just fold in like a deck of cards. No. I really mean it. But don't do it since it's unethical. But they do, they really do.:(
If that opinion is that you don't think SimCity should go online, then by all means say so.
I don't think it should or shouldn't. I think that the game's design and the designers should make the decision as to whether or not a feature or aspect of gameplay should be developed or included. What's happening here is that a manager who is far-removed from the creative process has, without much knowledge or understanding of the product, its expected user-base, or the market itself, has dictated terms to the design team. Sometimes this is a non-fatal mistake, but usually when management does this (in any industry, not just game design) the end-result runs a spectrum from mediocre to truly awful. There are a great many examples of EA trying to bolt on multiplayer into game genres and titles that it is not a good fit for, and this has been the result in the past.
In short, the EA exec is a poor manager, and should be removed for the good of the company. The argument of a fraction of the userbase, or an individual poster on slashdot, saying how "happy" they are that it'll have an online component is not an argument for its inclusion -- the design of the game in this case isn't amiable to it. No other Sims title has multiplayer, and all attempts so far to create a multiplayer or "social" experience have resulted in mediocre results. Sims 3 tries to be more "social"; and even my 15 year old sister, who is oblivious to IT, game design, or anything beyond simply playing the game because she's a 15 year old girl... says that the social/multiplayer stuff is stupid.
This executive is poisonous to EA as an organization. That's my opinion, but it's also backed up by historical data of this company's efforts to achieve his vision so far, this specific game series, and the industry at large. So this isn't really about SimCity, or your preferences one way or another -- it's about one man ruining dozens of gaming titles because he's a fucking moron.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like snake-oil to me.
Client-side security always is. There has never been a client-side security device, model, or system that hasn't been broken when given professional resources. The only systems out there that haven't been broken like this are ones either too small to attract attention or resources, or carry legal punishments so severe nobody subject to said laws will try to circumvent them -- ie "violate the DMCA and get 30 years in the electric chair and an 8 quintillion dollar fine".
I want to see that someone has the discipline to go through the process, work with others, and actually see something through to completion.
So what you're saying is, you're an asshole. You aren't hiring based on experience or ability, but because you went to school and therefore they should go to school. You say that you value someone seeing something through to completion -- but you can't fake ability or skillset for years on end. You can fake test scores, classes, hell -- you can buy yourself a degree online if you so desire.
But you can't fake job references. You can't fake supervisors saying "that guy really knows his stuff." You're a bad manager because you've made an assumption, you're operating on belief. That's what bad managers do. Good managers go on instinct and experience... and maybe, if you had worked your way into your position instead of having been handed a degree and slotted into it, you'd know that.
I have no respect for you, and I wouldn't work for you whether I had a degree or not, regardless of the pay. I work for managers who understand information technology is a creative profession, where skills change faster than courses can be designed to teach them, and experience is worth more than book smarts. I don't want to work with someone who can name all the layers of the OSI model but can't explain to me why having large buffers on the border router is a bad idea when it serves a call center.
And that's what you get with a college degree: Book smart. Not street smart.
Of course it's worth getting; assuming the cost of the education is low enough. I believe the average person goes through 3 career changes in the course of his/her life. That's about 16 years in the field, give or take. We'll say the average income in the field is $50,000 -- just for comparison's sake. And let's say your education costs $80,000 (a not unreasonable sum, considering how quickly costs are ballooning). Now obviously because of interest rates and taxes and whatnot, this is an overly-simplistic estimate and I won't consider those -- but given the above, you'd be paying 10% of your income back over the expected life of your career.
The real question you have to ask is -- is the increase in income greater than the cost of the education? Now, obviously, the above numbers are overly simplistic, but it's a starting point to a more in depth analysis. I think you'll find that when all the variables are taken into account, a college education only delivers a marginal benefit to your overall quality of life compared to either trying to get your foot in the door without one, or doing a job that doesn't require one. At least in my country (the United States), with the middle class rapidly imploding due to greed and other factors... you probably want every edge you can get. Work the numbers carefully; If you miscalculate, your financial future is grim.
Well, with all the austerity going on there, they must be really bored, sort of how the computers on Magrathea...
Magrathea? Magrathea! -- Zaphod
Total Ratcall was it?
The original, I can only hope...
The problem with forensic science is that it's less a science and more an art. Take identifying the flash point of a fire for example -- it's not as easy as people say or suspect. For years, "scientists" would point to certain fracture patterns or scorching marks and say that was the source, but there was never any studies done on it. It was mostly speculation, compounded by experience. Without any feedback on whether they were actually right or wrong, they developed a false sense of confidence. And in court, confidence + authority = conviction.
The problem is that the legal system doesn't use scientific standards, it uses legal standards. And the law is based on experience -- it is forever looking backwards. A precident set 200 years ago is just as applicable in a court today as it was in the intervening years. Science, on the other hand, only considers the most current understanding relevant. And that's where the problems start. The law says that once a kind of forensic examination carries legal weight, then even if it is later conclusively proven scientifically to be false, it does not overturn past convictions, nor does it prevent its use in the present.
Our justice system is not about fairness or justice -- it is about maintaining public perception of order, which is a separate and distinct concept. It can be quite orderly and efficient to never allow a new trial for the convicted... it is not necessarily fair.
All seriousness aside: By looking at the scantily clad women they advertise with, is it any surprise they go down?
I think those scantily clad women are very disappointed it can't stay up as well.
Just because someone denies it's happening doesn't mean it isn't. And the UUIDs might not have been used by the FBI, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a massive surveillance operation against its citizens. History shows the FBI considers itself a righteous organization that can and does ignore its own laws and policies in order to "get the bad guy". Of course, in doing so, they trample the very protections meant to protect the innocent, and so many people are in jail simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or had politically controversial views (as the FBI sees them, anyway).
Whenever a law enforcement organization takes liberties with our liberties, it is to the detriment to us all. Regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, it is the traditional path by which democracy is destroyed.
how about what the british actually think today, and their actual policy today? how about judging them on that?
For the same reason I never forget anything you've ever screwed up: It comes in handy when there's a fight and you need to lose. Granted, it's a dysfunctional way of doing things, but it's popularity remains unchallenged. If the British pipe up and say "Oi there, over there in the colonies, you sure ronnied that bit up!" we can just shout back "yeah, how's Palestine working out for you?" See? No different than a couple arguing... each side loads up on ammo, and blasts at the other until nobody, not even the participants has a clue what's going on. It's a convenient way of maintaining the status quo -- neither side loses face, and anyone with an emotional interest in the outcome will bury themselves in the rhetoric until exhausted. Problem solved.
Should have incorporated his criminal enterprise into a bank. Then he wouldn't serve any time and the government would bail him out for business expenses. It's rather silly to commit individual crime when corporate crime pays more and there's usually no time served.
Okay, a lot of people are going to get on here and talk about their favorite computer, or how to get your kid involved in programming and hacking, etc. But let's be honest: Most kids at that age play games with a computer. Until they're a teenager, there's no strong need for privacy, so I'd say just get something like a mac mini or an HTPC, set it up in the livingroom, and then give the kid a wireless keyboard and mouse and hook it up to the TV. Kids will spill juice, food, and generally destroy anything you give them.
A laptop or tablet is straight out unless they're waterproof and can survive being run over by a car. or worse. Get one of those fold-up keyboards... don't spend much money on it either way, it'll die. And you might want to buy a spare. (-_-) For kids "survivability" is far more important of an attribute than tech specs or even operating system.
I take it that stating something that may be politically controversial is a 'troll' now on slashdot. Rather than having the decency to respond to my post with some informed criticism, you choose to mod me "-1, disagree". Undo your mod, press reply, and tell me what, exactly, you disagree with. Because while I might be full of sarcasm, I don't think I've said anything a lot of people wouldn't agree with or find a factual basis for.
So if you can't use electronics, how do you dispatch them? Do they return to the depot after every pickup to receive little strips of paper? (-_-)
Another case of capitalism gone full retard -- "We forbid you to use anything that could make your job more efficient and convenient for your customers!"
On one hand, efficacy and direct, immediate action.
No. There's been nothing efficient, fast, or direct about this. It's another power grab by the Department of Homeland Security, and pardon my french, but fuck them. They have incompetently managed every resource assigned to them, whether it's investigating domestic crime, securing airports, or anything else. They've created gulag prison camps within our borders to throw protesters in, encouraged the usurpation of local and state laws to further their interests, they irradiate their citizens and workers alike to the point that cancer clusters are now showing up in TSA screeners that are well-beyond being able to be dismissed as a statistical abnormality, and the list goes on.
And now they want a master kill switch for the internet, to dictate terms about how all our communications infrastructure is organized, and they have deep connections with media organizations -- of which only a few need to be manipulated to suppress information at the national level. The Department of Homeland Security has become the Ministry of Truth, and thanks to clever and covert manipulation of the media and the occasional use of deadly force and questionable laws, has all but silenced dissent or even knowledge of what its activities are.
No. It's gone too far. It no longer matters to me how well-intentioned or beneficial a proposal is; If it is administered or requested by Homeland Security, my advice is to resist it in any way you reasonably can... they're a dangerous and corrupt organization, unamerican and destructive of the very means it seeks to protect. I'd rather have a hundred Osama Bin Ladens out there plotting the downfall of my country than to turn over my personal safety and security to a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats -- at least in the former case, I know who my enemies are.
You're correct in that the business model does have a few advantages for funding. And if copyright lasted only a few years, perhaps it would be a reasonable tradeoff. But when something lasts 150 years plus the life of the author, then you no longer have a situation where cost and benefit are balanced -- it costs the consumer massively, for little to no benefit.
I personally think the aggressive enforcement of copyright and modification of copyright laws are what is causing the destruction of the industry, not piracy. It's just like what happened during the Prohibition in the United States -- they tried to cut off access to a common recreational activity by force of law, and drove its use underground, resulting in the creation of this country's first large-scale organized crime syndicates, which remain active to this day due to the War on Drugs. Had the Prohibition never happened, organized crime might not developed in this country, or at least not to the breadth and depth that is is today.
When I studied Macroeconomics, there was a man whose name I forget who proposed that beyond a certain point, increasing taxes would actually result in less tax being collected because the incentives to cheat the system would outweigh the risks. So a tax rate of 30% might earn the same amount of revenue that a tax rate of 70% would. I think the same situation has happened in the entertainment industry -- except the tax in this case is a amortized in the system -- there are hundreds of little fees and laws and procedures that all work together in a complex dance to create a similar framework at a macro level.
Or put more simply: The recording industry priced itself out of the market. Their attempts to raise prices to compensate for lost income (in the form of a distribution 'tax') passed the critical threshold where there were more incentives to evade the system than participate in it. And yes, we all lose because of it, in the form of less available income and lower quality material... but it is hardly the fault of the consumer (legal or illegal) -- it was, in the final analyis, caused by a lack of competition. Had the recording industry not been dominated by only a few players, the pricing couldn't have been manipulated enough to cause it to pass the critical threshold, as the price would have remained aligned with the market demands.
They did this to themselves, and they took us with them.
> 1. Why do you do that?
Because it's my civic responsibility to teach others how to be safe in a world they don't fully understand.
> 2. What type of people do you do that for?
Friends, family, and anyone that's a part of their social network, etc. A large part of it is referrals and reputation. People know me by reputation and my connections, and my willingness to teach.
> 3. What are the programs and in what order do they load (unless you get paid to do that. . . . then I understand if you don't want to list them off).
Varies by person, but most usually I show up with a harddrive on day 1, connect it to the computer, and make a full backup, then compress it and give it to them as a restore DVD/bluray, or on a flash drive. There are scripts once that completes to automatically load in a VM session, update all the scanners, and run them sequentially, generating log files, screen shots, etc. Because of the amount of time each individual scanner takes to run, and that they can't (unfortunately) be parallelized, I usually return the following day, as it takes about 12-16 hours to run everything.
I usually install Firefox with a bevy of plugins like noscript, proxy switchers, cookie and LSO managers, etc. I do not care much for which ones are used -- as long as they are under current development. Then followup with spybot, malware antibytes, and avast, though again, I'm constantly reviewing and testing various products. My only requirements is that the 'realtime scanner' be disabled (and stay disabled), that it doesn't come with intrusive advertising or 'phone home' components -- in other words, it does what it says on the tin and that's it. I also install Comodo firewall because it's one of the few that are free and offer fine-grained control over outgoing connections. I have my own registry patches and such to preconfigure applications.
Then comes the hard part: User education. I usually spend 2--4 hours with printouts and stuff I've made explaining to them how it all works, why it is setup the way it is, and how to use the tools in a day to day fashion.
> 4. And again, what's the goal? Is it user safety for people you know? Clients? Family (to avoid the inevitable 'my computer's running slow, I bet it's that foxfire thing you put on there' conversation)? Why do you do these things?
The goal is to create an environment where people can be safe, secure, and have privacy online -- a task that becomes more difficult as more middlemen pile into the fold with visions of becoming rich by screwing over their fellow man. I suppose you could say my ultimate goal is to make exploitation of people's digital lives unprofitable, since making it illegal is out of the question in a country like the one I live in where money makes laws, instead of people.
The real reason the Pirate Bay is hated is because it is a content distribution network. The BitTorrent protocol doesn't care whether it's a linux iso or a copy of the latest popular bluray rip that it transfers; It simply distributes the load to all of its participants. The RIAA, MPAA, and organizations they represent only exist because they have controlled the distribution of content (not its creation).
To hear that an author is distributing content on the 'honor system', is not surprising. All he's doing is leveraging a (free) distribution network, and probably making more money due to reduced overhead than he would if he went with one of the commercial solutions. Not to mention that gaining access to one of those solutions would require he give them a cut of the profits and pay regular fees on top of that. For a small-margins production like this, that would probably leave him with next to nothing.
The free market at work, that's what this is: And that's exactly why he has to die, horribly, painfully, and with many legal injunctions and fees. We can't have people using the internet to create money directly for themselves without any middlemen -- most of the jobs in our economy are middlemen. Burn the heretic.
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
All easily solved by simply saying that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is inconvenient. It's a simple motion to file in most jurisdictions -- if I live in Texas, and I sue you in New York, you can request the venue (that is, where the court is located, not which laws apply) be changed to New York, as you are the defendant and the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove damages, etc. It's all under the 'innocent until proven guilty' -- and not granting such a motion would prejudice the defense.
Unfortunately, such just and fair legal concepts have been thrown out... and nobody gives a damn. People are busy protesting crap like mortgage defaults, while the judiciary falls apart to the sound of silence.
Wait, are you telling me that corporations paid the government to do what they couldn't do themselves? That's almost like saying that the government sometimes pays corporations to do what they can't do themselves... and we all know that never happens. Hangon, my cell phone is beeping... huh... I wonder why the GPS icon is blinking....
Ah, but you assume too much. I'm sorry, the TSA people I've interacted with may have had high school degrees but were hardly the alpha cut. As for TSA as theater: agreed. That was my point, the actual level of security provided is very little.
I don't assume anything. I contracted with the TSA when they hired their first batch of airport screeners -- my primary job responsibilities supported their hiring process. I can't disclose details, but this isn't assumption or "I read it online" -- this is "I was there" knowledge. And whatever you think of the screeners' intelligence level, I can assure you that they were all given a standardized test and receive regular training and testing for their entire career. Their IQ is a meaningless metric to their supervisors -- as long as they can follow procedure without deviation, they could have had their brain replaced with a toilet scrubber and they'd still keep their job.
I've had a sneaking suspicion that the TSA is a stealth jobs program for the otherwise unemployable.
You assume incorrectly. The marginally employable in this country are those who are any/all of the following: under the age of 25, over the age of 65, overweight, physically disabled, have a criminal record (this one overshadows all the rest combined except age), lack a degree/diploma of any kind, or do not speak english fluently. The TSA's hiring criterion specifically disqualify most of the people in the former categories; You can't have a criminal record, you need to be physically fit enough to stand on your feet for an 8 hour shift, and you need to speak english fluently. I believe they also required a high school diploma or GED -- and unlike most other employers, they will check.
It's not so much the intrusive searches and so on as the STUPIDITY of their measures (how are four small bottles of liquid different from one large bottle?).
You assume that the reason for the intrusive searches and 'stupid' measures are to improve security. They aren't. They're there to make the passengers feel safe. All of these searches and measures are highly visible (there are no privacy shields for most of their activities -- they prefer it be in public view), obvious, and very visually-orientated. It is quite literally theatre. The phrase "security theatre" describes what they're doing perfectly; they are actors on a stage, and you are the audience. The polls have consistently shown people support these procedures; It has broad public support. Articles like this are a tempest in a teapot; the general public simply doesn't care about those things. They may agree with everything the article states, but they'll quite happily keep right on doing it because it makes them feel safer.
And that, my friend, is all the TSA offers: A feeling of security.
Ugh. You're one of those kinds of slashdot posters. I'll just keep replying with the same thing, since that's pretty much all you're doing now.
Last word Post!
I was an American teenager in the 1970s. Back then, people made fun of the Soviet Union. One of the most popular jokes referred to a Soviet citizen's internal passport, which apparently they were supposed to carry even when going from city to city. And of course there were all the stories about the KGB.
The most popular joke is our Pledge of Allegiance, which until the red scare, did not include the words "under god". Communists were portrayed as being godless heathens, and thus atheists and agnostics were frequently profiled (to use the modern vernacular) by police and the authorities. Of course, sixty years later, revisionist history has all but forgotten it. This country has a long and inglorious history of sacrificing its citizens on the altar of public opinion whenever an external threat was perceived. "I hold in my hand a list of 80 names of communist party members in the democratic caucus" is laughed at as an example of how 'backwards' people in the 50s and 60s were, even as we nod our heads agreeably to watchlists containing tens of thousands of names of suspected terrorists.
Change the names and places, and people forget it's the same dance.
The real reason for this is to make you, the idiot public, feel safe by having some random person in a uniform approach you and proceed to do something vaguely scientific-looking while assuring you that you're very safe here. See, you're safe because we're doing this thing of dubious value, but we're dressed in uniforms that command authority.
If you want to see this first hand, dress up in a suit, wear an official-looking nametag (it needs to have a BIG official-looking gold seal on it) covered in laminate, and then walk around a commercial building telling people what to do. Tell them men's room is closed and everyone has to use the women's (or vice versa). Stand in front of an elevator and tell people it's out of order (even as people exit from right behind you). Now, take it to Troll Level 99 by getting a couple of your friends involved in it: Come up with something completely outrageous (claim you're an USDA food inspector and need to look at anyone carrying a sandwich while in front of a cafe), and make sure your friends agree to do whatever you're doing. Then demand the same of other random people. Take a bite out of their sandwich and then tell them it's "acceptable" and let them go. You can have one of your friends object, at which point you eat the entire sandwich and treaten to write them a citation for interfering in official inspector business.
You'd be surprised just how far you can take it. I mean, you can basically rob someone of everything they own, and as long as other people are complicit to allow it, they'll just fold in like a deck of cards. No. I really mean it. But don't do it since it's unethical. But they do, they really do. :(
If that opinion is that you don't think SimCity should go online, then by all means say so.
I don't think it should or shouldn't. I think that the game's design and the designers should make the decision as to whether or not a feature or aspect of gameplay should be developed or included. What's happening here is that a manager who is far-removed from the creative process has, without much knowledge or understanding of the product, its expected user-base, or the market itself, has dictated terms to the design team. Sometimes this is a non-fatal mistake, but usually when management does this (in any industry, not just game design) the end-result runs a spectrum from mediocre to truly awful. There are a great many examples of EA trying to bolt on multiplayer into game genres and titles that it is not a good fit for, and this has been the result in the past.
In short, the EA exec is a poor manager, and should be removed for the good of the company. The argument of a fraction of the userbase, or an individual poster on slashdot, saying how "happy" they are that it'll have an online component is not an argument for its inclusion -- the design of the game in this case isn't amiable to it. No other Sims title has multiplayer, and all attempts so far to create a multiplayer or "social" experience have resulted in mediocre results. Sims 3 tries to be more "social"; and even my 15 year old sister, who is oblivious to IT, game design, or anything beyond simply playing the game because she's a 15 year old girl... says that the social/multiplayer stuff is stupid.
This executive is poisonous to EA as an organization. That's my opinion, but it's also backed up by historical data of this company's efforts to achieve his vision so far, this specific game series, and the industry at large. So this isn't really about SimCity, or your preferences one way or another -- it's about one man ruining dozens of gaming titles because he's a fucking moron.