Nor did the study rule out the possibility that, once sufficiently stoned, one really has no desire to read--let alone learn--much of anything. IQ is like many things: use it or lose it.
Whenever I see something like this, I wonder: Is there a hidden agenda?
I wanna see some more data before changing my opinion. One study does not a fact make.
On the other hand, I'm quite sure they will only want to know if you were speeding when you crashed.
Oh, I'm quite sure that insurance companies—and not just auto insurers—would absolutely love to know how fast you drive.
Right or wrong, insurers consider exceeding speed limits to be a significant risk factor, which is why they periodically audit their customers' driving records and adjust their actuarial ratings accordingly.
If you think they don't, I suggest you do more research.
Fortunately the FCC did allow the Sirius XM merger and prices did indeed drop (to $7 for a 50-channel plan).
I don't think the prices were lowered; from what I saw, they went up. I can find no mention of a $7, 50-channel plan on any Sirius-XM site. The closest they advertise is $10 for 50 channels of talk or 70 channels of music.
And, like the airlines, they added some mandatory fees to their offerings rather than raising their rates: If you want a plan that includes music, you have to pay the "Music Royalty Fee" (currently 9.8%) and an activation fee.
So no, I don't see the merger helping at all. Just like cable TV, satellite radio could benefit from from good, old-fashioned competition. Corporate management is paid to maximize return on equity, and will charge the highest prices the market will bear.
And there is nothing wrong with that--it's the way business works.
Why would it be too good to be true? We now have decades of research on HIV, large amounts of funding for HIV research, and a very real and widely accepted public need. At one time, people would have said that the current treatments for HIV infection sounded too good to be true as well.
Like I said (twice, in fact), "I hope I'm wrong."
Once again, as clearly as I can say it: HIV is a scourge on humanity and I hope this truly is a breakthrough that will cure/prevent HIV AIDS.
That being said, I've become skeptical from seeing too much overhyped research news; I won't start dancing for joy just yet.
Yeah? How about those who caught it from a blood transfusion? Or the people who made the mistake of sharing a syringe? Or those who were infected during plain, ol' heterosexual sex?
Sure, doing IV drugs is stupid, but it doesn't rise to a level deserving a death sentence.
Besides, if being stupid was a punishable by death, you wouldn't have been here to write what you did.
Lets be clear here, it was criminal to use them for anything other than social security for anyone, private or government.
Now it is illegal for any government agency to require you to give your SS#, apart from the social security office.
{{Citation Needed}}
I don't believe you're correct. A person's SSN is also their TIN, so the IRS requires it. Also, HHS requires it for Medicare (and--I think but am not sure--Medicaid), FEMA requires it on disaster aid loan applications, and every employer is required to collect (and report) it for tax purposes, not just for FICA. Have you ever tried to open a back account without one?
This is an ongoing problem when services are concentrated under one roof: it gives potential attackers a much richer target, with many more juicy pieces of low-hanging fruit in a convenient, easy-to-hit area.
Cloud and remote-hosting services are not bad; in many cases they are a wonderfully effective deployment tool. Customers must be careful, though, to ensure their provider implements good security practices and that their backup solution truly allows for service recovery after a disaster.
Unfortunately, this information is rarely presented on the service's website or in their ad brochure.
Yes, you can use "irregardless" in place of "regardless". You can also use "desalinization" and "preventative" instead of "desalination" and "preventive".
The problem is, you're trying to communicate--to make your message understood by as many readers as possible--and these less-than-preferred forms can cause your readers to pay more attention to the language than to the message.
Not to mention the lack of credibility many readers infer when they perceive an author can't even use the language properly.
Personally, I'd rather improve my chances of being understood.
I don't think money orders are legal tender, so they could decline to accept payment in that form. However, since pennies are legal tender, no creditor can decline to accept it as payment for a debt.
Money orders, checks, and credit cards are not legal tender, either, but many court-imposed payments may be made with them.
OTOH, pennies are legal tender, but don't try paying your taxes (or tolls--except in Illinois) with them!
Legal tender or not, refusing to accept proffered payment can have some interesting legal ramifications, but are not the be-all, end-all answer to the question.
From what I've seen, courts pretty much set their own rules on what payments they will (or will not) accept. Ignore their rules at your peril.
No, I don't think so. Intellectual Property, perhaps, but the takedown request, which may be seen by following one of the links in TFA, specifically mentions "17 U.S.C. sect. 501", which is copyright, not trademark law. (For trademark law, see the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.)
This really looks like they think he's distributing their property. He should take a deep breath and send them a letter, clearly stating that he's doing no such thing.
Here are what appear to be the salient points of Atari's letter:
Based on available information, Atari has a good faith belief that the url(s):
infringes its copyright and other intellectual property right by copying, reproducing and/or offering for distribution, display and/or download (including through links to other sites) unauthorized console emulation software and/or unauthorized copies of game products (software) protected by Atari's copyright rights. Atari's copyrighted works that have been infringed include:
Atari 800; Atari 2600; Atari 7800; Atari Lynx
The infringing material or the material that is the subject of infringing activities (collectively referred to as "Infringing Material") is listed and/or identified by console and game-related titles or variations thereof, console and game-related descriptions, or images of console and game-related artwork.
The Infringing Material is in violation of Atari's exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act. It therefore constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. sect. 501.
No, SecuROM really is DRM, just like CSS or region encoding on a commercial video DVD. Anything that restricts free, unencumbered use of digital media is Digital Rights Management (some say Digital Restrictions Management).
SecuROM can be used by the publisher as simple copy protection (by verifying unusual data written to the disc), it can perform date checks and disallow use of the package before a certain date, it can "phone home" to request permission to install, or it can count the number of installations and prevent any that exceed a pre-set limit.
If it phones home and the validation server is not reachable (or says "no"), you can't play your game. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like it "preserves your rights" at all; it sounds to me like it thwarts them.
I have no hatred of SecuROM (or any other DRM system) provided the limitation are spelled out to me before I buy. What I hate are surprises.
In all of Bethesda's previous games, the answer to that would be an unambiguous 'yes'. They haven't indicated anything to suggest different for Skyrim.
No, not quite all. While the original Oblivion was fairly unprotected, the Shivering Isles expansion and the GOTY Edition DO contain the dreaded SecuROM DRM. AFAIK, it does not "phone home" like some other titles, but it's there, nevertheless and will prevent use of some drive emulators and utilities like ProcessExplorer.
In my experience, the COST of security matters much less to people than does the INCONVENIENCE it entails. Many organizations are quite willing to spend money on security hardware, software, and services. Secure implementations can be defeated by authorized users who either perceive the security as inconvenient or unnecessarily harsh ("I'm not going to lock my screen before I get coffee; I'll only be gone for a couple of minutes.")
One solution might consist of better user training coupled with better security design (protect truly secret data but don't worry about disclosure of information freely obtainable by outsiders via mechanisms like FOIA, stockholder inquiry, etc.)
It's a challenge, regardless of what you have to protect--or how you choose to protect it.
Yeah, it's really an awkward usage of the word "quashes". We're not speaking Middle English, so it's probably safe to stick with modern usage. Since one really doesn't "void", "vacate", "suppress", "defeat" or "smash" software bugs, I can only imagine the wording was an attempt to humorously play on the word "bugs", in which case a better word might have been "squashed" or "squished".
... It's illegal in this country to distribute this information. Amazon had a legal obligation to terminate their relationship with Wikileaks.... It is most certainly illegal. Perhaps you should go read up on Civil Disobedience.
Please remember that disclosing classified material is only illegal if the person has a security clearance. Once the material is made public (i.e. leaked), possession of it by a non-cleared person is not a statutory violation unless, of course, that person used illegal means to obtain it (e.g. breaking and entering).
(You may have trouble with the Special Rendition team, though...)
Conceivably, though, possession AND DISCLOSURE of, say, TS/SCI information could rise to the level of treason, particularly if the data was sold.
While Amazon may have a contractual obligation to do what they did, I don't believe they were legally required to do so.
Perhaps you should read Executive Order 13526 (and 13292, perhaps). Issued in 2009 and 2003, respectively, they codify (alongside 32 C.F.R. 2001), the United States' legal framework for protecting classified data. All of them are quite a bit newer than Thoreau's writing.
I cannot imagine losing my spouse and am sorry about your family's situation.
I lost my grandparents quite a while ago and my parents much more recently; I think about and miss them often.
While they were still alive, one of my relatives sat down with my grandparents and parents and "interviewed" them in much the same way as one would a guest on a TV show.
Because of the format and comprehensive list of questions asked, I consider these recordings to be one of the best reminders I have of my [grand]parents' lives.
The oldest--my grandparents'--is audio-only, and the other is audio with accompanying pictures (this was before the age of common and affordable video). Nevertheless, they are wonderful and I consider myself richer for having them.
I guess the format is not nearly as important as the content. Many of the painful "if only I could talk to them one last time" moments deal with family history: where they came from, how they met, what they did before you showed up, etc.
Get some help from any/everyone you can and write a comprehensive set of questions. Your kids (and you) will appreciate it for years to come!
What's the encryption got to do with the ability to wipe the data?
It can make it easier and faster to render the data irrevokably unretrievable. If you want to wipe, say, a 32GB clear-text filesystem, you have to wipe out all the bits (multiple times, if you're following milspec guidelines).
However, if that 32GB partition is encrypted, all you have to do is lose the key (assuming you're using a good cypher with strong keys). If you really want to be safe, destroying certain parts of the cyphertext will render it unusable, even with the keys.
Either/both of these can be done lightning-fast, compared to the time required to wipe the physical media.
This, IMHO, is only hinting at the real problem: Blackberry internet services are provided through a central server (BIS or BES) that acts as a proxy; the handheld device doesn't access the HTTP, POP, or IMAP services directly (at least with the provided apps).
RIM's encryption is pretty darned good, but this "server in the middle" method of operation gives some Security folks headaches because of the possibilities for mischief.
While it is very nice for corporate monitoring and control, the downside is that a government can easily shut down BB services by blocking the server. If the BB was a true Internet client, this would not be the case.
As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.
The problem with the E-Z Kill Switch is the potential for abuse. If a large swath of infrastructure can be disabled with the simple push of a button, when an emergency occurs and authorities get nervous, someone will "hit the button and ask questions later".
It doesn't really matter what the law "clearly indicates"; it doesn't really matter what the courts will say later. Once the button is pushed, the damage is done and un-pushing the button always takes longer.
Cicero, in ancient Rome, said it best: Silent enim leges inter arma. ("Among arms, the laws fall mute," or "In times of war, the law falls silent.") In an emergency, authorities will tend to do what they feel they need to do to address the issue, especially if it's easy.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor did the study rule out the possibility that, once sufficiently stoned, one really has no desire to read--let alone learn--much of anything. IQ is like many things: use it or lose it.
Whenever I see something like this, I wonder: Is there a hidden agenda?
I wanna see some more data before changing my opinion. One study does not a fact make.
Oh, I'm quite sure that insurance companies—and not just auto insurers—would absolutely love to know how fast you drive.
Right or wrong, insurers consider exceeding speed limits to be a significant risk factor, which is why they periodically audit their customers' driving records and adjust their actuarial ratings accordingly.
If you think they don't, I suggest you do more research.
I don't think the prices were lowered; from what I saw, they went up. I can find no mention of a $7, 50-channel plan on any Sirius-XM site. The closest they advertise is $10 for 50 channels of talk or 70 channels of music.
And, like the airlines, they added some mandatory fees to their offerings rather than raising their rates: If you want a plan that includes music, you have to pay the "Music Royalty Fee" (currently 9.8%) and an activation fee.
So no, I don't see the merger helping at all. Just like cable TV, satellite radio could benefit from from good, old-fashioned competition. Corporate management is paid to maximize return on equity, and will charge the highest prices the market will bear.
And there is nothing wrong with that--it's the way business works.
Like I said (twice, in fact), "I hope I'm wrong."
Once again, as clearly as I can say it: HIV is a scourge on humanity and I hope this truly is a breakthrough that will cure/prevent HIV AIDS.
That being said, I've become skeptical from seeing too much overhyped research news; I won't start dancing for joy just yet.
But remember, "I hope I'm wrong."
{{citation needed}}
Yeah? How about those who caught it from a blood transfusion? Or the people who made the mistake of sharing a syringe? Or those who were infected during plain, ol' heterosexual sex?
Sure, doing IV drugs is stupid, but it doesn't rise to a level deserving a death sentence.
Besides, if being stupid was a punishable by death, you wouldn't have been here to write what you did.
Ignorant moron.
I wanna see some peer-review output. I hope I'm wrong, but this sounds too good to be true, like cold fusion or the like.
Maybe, though, I'm just getting skeptical in my old age...
But still, I hope I'm wrong.
{{Citation Needed}}
I don't believe you're correct. A person's SSN is also their TIN, so the IRS requires it. Also, HHS requires it for Medicare (and--I think but am not sure--Medicaid), FEMA requires it on disaster aid loan applications, and every employer is required to collect (and report) it for tax purposes, not just for FICA. Have you ever tried to open a back account without one?
I suspect there are others examples.
This is an ongoing problem when services are concentrated under one roof: it gives potential attackers a much richer target, with many more juicy pieces of low-hanging fruit in a convenient, easy-to-hit area.
Cloud and remote-hosting services are not bad; in many cases they are a wonderfully effective deployment tool. Customers must be careful, though, to ensure their provider implements good security practices and that their backup solution truly allows for service recovery after a disaster.
Unfortunately, this information is rarely presented on the service's website or in their ad brochure.
Yes, you can use "irregardless" in place of "regardless". You can also use "desalinization" and "preventative" instead of "desalination" and "preventive".
The problem is, you're trying to communicate--to make your message understood by as many readers as possible--and these less-than-preferred forms can cause your readers to pay more attention to the language than to the message.
Not to mention the lack of credibility many readers infer when they perceive an author can't even use the language properly.
Personally, I'd rather improve my chances of being understood.
Gee, where can I get one of those $0 PCs? ;-)
So, what you're really saying is:
$50 game purchase
$50 game purchase (?) + $10/mo OnLive subscription (?)
Yeah, I figured as much...
'Tis indeed a drama, but the real telling question is: To whom does the WebOS division/group/team report in the organization?
The answer to that question often speaks volumes for future plans for a line of business.
The link is to a scribd page, not a PDF, and scribed--a you-can't-copy-this-document publishing solution--uses a UI that sucks for many people.
Were it a PDF, it probably would have been fine. Perhaps we should check our facts before we jump all over the person.
Naaaaaaaaa! (Apologies to Steve Martin...)
I don't think money orders are legal tender, so they could decline to accept payment in that form. However, since pennies are legal tender, no creditor can decline to accept it as payment for a debt.
Money orders, checks, and credit cards are not legal tender, either, but many court-imposed payments may be made with them.
OTOH, pennies are legal tender, but don't try paying your taxes (or tolls--except in Illinois) with them!
Legal tender or not, refusing to accept proffered payment can have some interesting legal ramifications, but are not the be-all, end-all answer to the question.
From what I've seen, courts pretty much set their own rules on what payments they will (or will not) accept. Ignore their rules at your peril.
No, I don't think so. Intellectual Property, perhaps, but the takedown request, which may be seen by following one of the links in TFA, specifically mentions "17 U.S.C. sect. 501", which is copyright, not trademark law. (For trademark law, see the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.)
This really looks like they think he's distributing their property. He should take a deep breath and send them a letter, clearly stating that he's doing no such thing.
Here are what appear to be the salient points of Atari's letter:
Based on available information, Atari has a good faith belief that the url(s):
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-atari800.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-DC7800.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-dcs2600.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-lynx.htm
http://dcemu.seanbajuice.com/dcemu-stelladc.htm
infringes its copyright and other intellectual property right by copying, reproducing and/or offering for distribution, display and/or download (including through links to other sites) unauthorized console emulation software and/or unauthorized copies of game products (software) protected by Atari's copyright rights. Atari's copyrighted works that have been infringed include:
Atari 800; Atari 2600; Atari 7800; Atari Lynx
The infringing material or the material that is the subject of infringing activities (collectively referred to as "Infringing Material") is listed and/or identified by console and game-related titles or variations thereof, console and game-related descriptions, or images of console and game-related artwork.
The Infringing Material is in violation of Atari's exclusive rights under the United States Copyright Act. It therefore constitutes copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. sect. 501.
I was curious about that myself. This is the second /. article mentioning him in the last 5 hours or so. How did he manage that, I wonder?
No, SecuROM really is DRM, just like CSS or region encoding on a commercial video DVD. Anything that restricts free, unencumbered use of digital media is Digital Rights Management (some say Digital Restrictions Management).
SecuROM can be used by the publisher as simple copy protection (by verifying unusual data written to the disc), it can perform date checks and disallow use of the package before a certain date, it can "phone home" to request permission to install, or it can count the number of installations and prevent any that exceed a pre-set limit.
If it phones home and the validation server is not reachable (or says "no"), you can't play your game. I'm sorry but that doesn't sound like it "preserves your rights" at all; it sounds to me like it thwarts them.
I have no hatred of SecuROM (or any other DRM system) provided the limitation are spelled out to me before I buy. What I hate are surprises.
No, not quite all. While the original Oblivion was fairly unprotected, the Shivering Isles expansion and the GOTY Edition DO contain the dreaded SecuROM DRM. AFAIK, it does not "phone home" like some other titles, but it's there, nevertheless and will prevent use of some drive emulators and utilities like ProcessExplorer.
One solution might consist of better user training coupled with better security design (protect truly secret data but don't worry about disclosure of information freely obtainable by outsiders via mechanisms like FOIA, stockholder inquiry, etc.)
It's a challenge, regardless of what you have to protect--or how you choose to protect it.
Yeah, it's really an awkward usage of the word "quashes". We're not speaking Middle English, so it's probably safe to stick with modern usage. Since one really doesn't "void", "vacate", "suppress", "defeat" or "smash" software bugs, I can only imagine the wording was an attempt to humorously play on the word "bugs", in which case a better word might have been "squashed" or "squished".
Just my $0.02...
... It's illegal in this country to distribute this information. Amazon had a legal obligation to terminate their relationship with Wikileaks. ... It is most certainly illegal. Perhaps you should go read up on Civil Disobedience.
Please remember that disclosing classified material is only illegal if the person has a security clearance. Once the material is made public (i.e. leaked), possession of it by a non-cleared person is not a statutory violation unless, of course, that person used illegal means to obtain it (e.g. breaking and entering).
(You may have trouble with the Special Rendition team, though...)
Conceivably, though, possession AND DISCLOSURE of, say, TS/SCI information could rise to the level of treason, particularly if the data was sold.
While Amazon may have a contractual obligation to do what they did, I don't believe they were legally required to do so.
Perhaps you should read Executive Order 13526 (and 13292, perhaps). Issued in 2009 and 2003, respectively, they codify (alongside 32 C.F.R. 2001), the United States' legal framework for protecting classified data. All of them are quite a bit newer than Thoreau's writing.
I cannot imagine losing my spouse and am sorry about your family's situation.
I lost my grandparents quite a while ago and my parents much more recently; I think about and miss them often.
While they were still alive, one of my relatives sat down with my grandparents and parents and "interviewed" them in much the same way as one would a guest on a TV show.
Because of the format and comprehensive list of questions asked, I consider these recordings to be one of the best reminders I have of my [grand]parents' lives.
The oldest--my grandparents'--is audio-only, and the other is audio with accompanying pictures (this was before the age of common and affordable video). Nevertheless, they are wonderful and I consider myself richer for having them.
I guess the format is not nearly as important as the content. Many of the painful "if only I could talk to them one last time" moments deal with family history: where they came from, how they met, what they did before you showed up, etc.
Get some help from any/everyone you can and write a comprehensive set of questions. Your kids (and you) will appreciate it for years to come!
What's the encryption got to do with the ability to wipe the data?
It can make it easier and faster to render the data irrevokably unretrievable. If you want to wipe, say, a 32GB clear-text filesystem, you have to wipe out all the bits (multiple times, if you're following milspec guidelines).
However, if that 32GB partition is encrypted, all you have to do is lose the key (assuming you're using a good cypher with strong keys). If you really want to be safe, destroying certain parts of the cyphertext will render it unusable, even with the keys.
Either/both of these can be done lightning-fast, compared to the time required to wipe the physical media.
"... services will be suspended"
This, IMHO, is only hinting at the real problem: Blackberry internet services are provided through a central server (BIS or BES) that acts as a proxy; the handheld device doesn't access the HTTP, POP, or IMAP services directly (at least with the provided apps).
RIM's encryption is pretty darned good, but this "server in the middle" method of operation gives some Security folks headaches because of the possibilities for mischief.
While it is very nice for corporate monitoring and control, the downside is that a government can easily shut down BB services by blocking the server. If the BB was a true Internet client, this would not be the case.
As long as the law clearly indicates that the powers are authorized for use against attacks (rather than against political speech or against copyright infringement) I don't see any issue with this thing.
The problem with the E-Z Kill Switch is the potential for abuse. If a large swath of infrastructure can be disabled with the simple push of a button, when an emergency occurs and authorities get nervous, someone will "hit the button and ask questions later".
It doesn't really matter what the law "clearly indicates"; it doesn't really matter what the courts will say later. Once the button is pushed, the damage is done and un-pushing the button always takes longer.
Cicero, in ancient Rome, said it best: Silent enim leges inter arma. ("Among arms, the laws fall mute," or "In times of war, the law falls silent.") In an emergency, authorities will tend to do what they feel they need to do to address the issue, especially if it's easy.
Why make it easy?