On many of these electrics, you do need to plug-in to get your initial charge. Isn't that causing just as much, if not more, pollution than burning oil locally?
I'm still not sure that anyone can actually decipher all the different impacts that "environmentally-friendly" vehicles or machines have. I know I read an article this year that spoke of the CO2 emissions for just peddling a bike or taking a walk, so even not using machinery seems to have an impact.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of the global warming scams out there, nor am I a fan of peak oil theory. I just need to see the whole picture, rather than what some people will say is a small portion of the picture, but ignores other ramifications of decision making.
One area we're visiting in India in January is a town on a hill that allows no cars or trucks (you usually can only get there by train). Same in Switzerland (entire towns with no machinery). Yes, the air is cleaner, but so are the people living there. If we all use electric vehicles in those towns (let's say), another town that generates the energy is going to get the brunt of the polluting. I'd rather pollute MY area, so we can see the direct effect, than push it off to a poorer neighborhood where we won't.
Global yadda-yadda-yadda, I think it is more important to focus on the damage you can actually see than try to control the world's climate.
Yeah, that's not quite the most compelling argument I've heard about this issue. Certainly not the most informed, either.
For many years, the idea of a truly software-based, frequency-hopping radio was the idea of dreams and science fiction. We have them today. They work well, but are still limited in frequencies they can utilize. Power-sources have been the biggest limiting factor for opening up spectrum for unregulated use, but that too is quickly being overcome by technological discoveries (see the nano-wire battery article from yesterday).
Regulated spectrum may have been important when radio transmissions were inefficient, dirty, and even dangerous. We've overcome those issues, and now have the technology to utilize wireless transmissions that could be best navigated and selected based on distance to the other transceiving device, available power for transceiving, speed and latency requirements, and other traffic detected. Because power is not limitless, the idea that one massive power source would likely overpower everything in the area is only based on the idea that someone would or even could transmit garbage over every frequency at high power levels. Yes, I know there are technological marvels that COULD do this, and that's why I will allow for the idea that the FCC may exist only to penalize users of such dirty-transmission devices. Personally, I feel that the market would correct for these power-wasting freaks, but I'll at least accept a small role for the FCC to prevent dirty-transmissions.
With frequency-hopping, and software-based radios, we'd reach a new era of wireless. We're WASTING gigahertz of spectrum on old media -- TV, radio, even cell phone and cordless phone frequencies that could be better used to combine everything into a WiFi-like system. The days of forced media schedules are slowly ending, with more and more people grabbing TV shows a la carte, via bittorrent or PVR-systems. Instead of flooding the airwaves with the gigahertz of garbage no one is watching, de-regulate that bandwidth and allow more wireless providers to send people what they want, when they want it.
Those who demand faster bandwidth and lower latency may spend the money for the extra power they'll need to acquire the spectrum they need in their area, for their purposes. Yet power is the BIGGEST cost of wireless transmissions, and I can guarantee that anyone who wants to hog a wide swath of spectrum will find themselves with an unbelievable electric bill after one month. Yet even with someone locally occupying a certain amount of frequencies, there is still a huge amount of bandwidth available all over the entire radio spectrum. A move to digital, on demand IP-based transceiving makes more sense. We're moved beyond the need for fixed-frequencies, except for the old media who needs to control, and regulate, competition out of existence.
They know their time has come. The need to keep cell phones on the same basic frequency, TV on the same basic frequency, and radio on the same basic frequency has been replaced, and proven so, by the newer technologies out there (Satellite, XM, WiFi, even 700Mhz cordless phones). Those days are over, but we're too engaged with the old system to realize it.
The best thing the FCC could do is to just deregulate the 700Mhz-900Mhz frequencies entirely, and let the market provide services. Let's see what would happen. I bet amazing things would come into the market quickly. Then start deregulating more frequencies, until the FCC shrinks to a minor enforcer of clean transceiving.
Multibillion dollar companies owned by... you and I, or anyone with a share.
The problem is not the multibillion dollar companies, the problem is the FCC. The FCC creates the regulations, and laws, and restrictions, and mandates, that force you and I and a million others from tossing in our own $1500 each and competing. We'd need to hire lawyers who probably worked for the FCC and wrote the rules. We'd need to get approvals from a slow and red-tape-ladened administration. We'd need to prove who we are and what our intentions are.
That's the problem. You think it's these huge megacorps that cause these issues? Well, they sure lobby for them. But if the Federal Executive branch actually followed the Rule of Law (i.e., the Constitution), the FCC would be probably a teeny tiny organization that just made sure no one was perverting the airwaves with massive noise outputs from dirty electronics.
WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.
We don't need the FCC, we need more individuals getting together, pitching in a few grand, hiring managers, and competing with the old powerful regimes. Unfortunately, it isn't available. We can't do it. We can't compete. The market doesn't work efficiently when there are barriers to entering the market, and the ONLY barrier is government regulation. Raising $1billion is easy; the machete you need to cut through red tape is nearly non-existent.
Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?
As far as I know, only the "King of Spammers" has said that he is opposed to Federal funding of stem cell research, and would vote against any bill that proposed any Federal regulation of it.
Other than that, AFAIK, all the other candidates are as ambiguous on that issue as all the other issues: just pandering for votes from both moderates and fanatics, answering no one in the process.
ACtually, 3D Realms has had Duke Nukem Forever available via bittorrent for a few years now. They're only seeding 99.9% of it, though, with the remaining.1% in the.EXE missing.
About 15,000 trolls asking for someone to please seed the entire thing.
Thanks for making me feel like I've wasted 1/3rd of my years reading slashdot.
Sad, but I do remember when I finally registered here (after months of lurking, I'd say), I felt like my UID was _really_ late compared to a lot of the 4-digits that were posting.
Wonder where they all went. Can't be jobs (have always had one). Can't be wives (been with the same gal for 12 years off and on). Can't be families (watch my mentally retarded BiL 4 days a week). Can't be sports (geeks don't play them). WoW maybe?
1. I accept that it the current law, but I believe the law is wrong. My reasoning for it is that the Internet is internationally accessible, and it should be the consumer's responsibility to conform to local and State laws.
2. To a point, I do agree. I don't believe inciting violence through speech is applicable. If it is, our government is the biggest criminal.
3. Yelling "fire" on private property should be regulated by the property owners, not the police. If I say "No yelling fire in a non-emergency" I should be able to file a civil lawsuit against loss of income, damage, and injury caused by someone breaking my rule. The government should not abridge speech on private property, or on public property.
4. There are a LOT of situations where this has happened. My dates may be off, and I really should start a website dedicated to it, but here's what I can recall:
4a. Appalachian School of Law in Virginian, around January 2002. Crazed shooter killed 2 or 3 people. Two students ran to their cars, got their guns, and subdued the shooter. If they waited for police, how many more people would be dead? Cops did nothing.
4b. Santana High School in Santee, California, around 2001. Crazed shooter on rampage. Off-duty cop has his gun, and stops the shooter. No one else was allowed to carry a gun on the property. Why?
4c. Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi, around 1997. Some crazed shooter went on a rampage. The Principal heard the shots, ran to his car, grabbed his gun, and subdued the shooter.
There are more tales that I've written about, and I really need to make an index site of them.
The idea that fistfights turn into wild west gun rampages is illogical. It doesn't happen. I gave up my guns maybe a year ago because of a slashdot writer here jdavidb who gave me a reasonable debate on why a Christian should never use force. Until them, I armed myself regularly in Las Vegas and Dallas, two cities I do a lot of business in. I'd meet MANY people who were armed, and I never heard once about them going on rampages. If you've never shot a gun, you can't comment on it. It's very VERY difficult to pull the trigger on a human being. While in Chicago, I stopped two robberies near my office (in a nice neighborhood) just by brandishing my weapon with the lock still on. Both times the probably armed robbers took off, and when police arrived, they looked the other way about me having an illegal weapon (you can't arm yourself in Chicago).
When criminals know you're armed, they'll generally go elsewhere where people aren't armed. I feel FAR safer in the ghetto in Texas than in the ghetto in Chicago. Las Vegas was never a worry for me when I was armed, and even now it isn't because I know many locals are armed. My first stop after a plane trip was to Wal*Mart to pick up ammo, and the taxi drivers ALWAYS knew why I asked to go there. I even feel safe walking down dark roads at 3am, because the criminals tend to know that the locals won't hesitate to shoot first if they're threatened.
Schools should NOT be gun free zones. I find it ridiculous that principals and teachers can't arm themselves to subdue a crazed gunman. The times that there were armed individuals, deaths were reduced or prevented entirely. The times that rampages continued, it took cops a long time to get to the scene and try to stop the incident.
First, your experience tells us nothing why you believe this. Great, you buy $3000 of ink a week, but from this it doesn't seem like you've though that maybe the ink could be cheaper, or if there's a better way.
I do the research. HP doesn't prevent me from going online, and looking for cheaper ink. They may make it difficult to use cheaper ink, but that's their prerogative and I see NO reason to make it illegal. People are free to tell others that HP makes it hard to use third party ink (which, by the way, they don't!). You are free to not buy HP's product if you don't want to. As long as government doesn't REQUIRE you to buy HP products, then other companies can, and will, make competitive products.
By the way, innovation is the best way for companies to compete, not collusion. Secondly, collusion is bad for the consumer, and it's illegal. Gas is about $3 a gallon where I am. What if ExxonMobil and Ford conspired so that you could only use Ford gas in your Ford car? Now what if every other car maker did the same thing because it increased their profits? Who loses out? The little guy. People pay $3000 a week for ink, the retailers each get $100 million, and then HP rakes in billions on ink alone. Shouldn't I be able to chose my gas or my ink?
Collusion shouldn't be illegal, because in the long run it hurts producers who collude more than consumers. Competition will always appear when demand is available. Someone will ALWAYS say "I can do that cheaper," unless governments puts in obstacles to prevent competition (see: sugar industry, corn industry, gasoline refinery industry, etc).
If Ford and ExxonMobil conspired to prevent you from using gas from a competitive market, they'd BOTH go under quickly. People would stop buying Fords. Exxon would lose business in the gas they created that would only work with Fords. There is NO reason to create laws to prevent this as the market always provides for penalties to companies that collude. You should be able to choose your ink if the market provides alternatives. The market always provides alternatives, in every market, for every item and service, except where government says they can't. It isn't corporations that limit your choice, its government that does. Why is sugar so expensive? Why is the price of peanuts higher than what it costs to grow and distribute? Government-mandated limits on the market.
There's convenience and then there is gouging. I may need ink NOW, but asking someone to pay $30 face to face when I can buy one for $3 online is gouging. Also, there's marketing, and refilled cartridges are designed to be hard to refill and not give as good quality. HP makes sure of that. Their marketing works to make it sound like refilled cartridges are a bad investment and encourage only using theirs, and if your printer breaks while using a refilled cartridge, they'll blame the cartridge without even bothering to troubleshoot.
In my town, we have NO office supply stores. None. Walgreens sells a few brands of cartridges, but other than that -- no one sells even paper. I'm opening a store to sell paper and ink, using the profits to pay for my non-profit overhead. Guess what? My ink cartridges will be $10 more than Office Depot. My reams of paper will be double in price. Why? Because I can. It's not gouging if no one else wants to sell the product. If I am the only source, I SHOULD charge more because there is a risk that the market may not exist, or that I may sell out of a product before I can restock. It's like gas-gouging in a gas-shortage. Gas retailers SHOULD gouge if they have no idea when they'll be replenished. They have to pay to keep the doors open and the employees paid without knowing when they'll be restocked. The price should naturally go WAY UP if supply is way down, just so they can meet their overhead during the unknown future. It's not gouging, it's a supply-and-demand response to what the market can't provide easily.
How do you know if a bank has this insurance or not? And why is FDIC insurance a scam?
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of research. If you've followed my banking info (take a look at my latest site, Full Reserve Banking where I am theorizing on the actual process of my utopian bank), you know that I don't keep a lot of money in cash-denominated accounts. Almost all of my dollar savings are in some sort of full-reserve structure, such as a laddered CD. I only do this to keep my money partially interest-bearing, but still accessible on a monthly basis.
My favorite banks are generally credit unions, but they're also hard to navigate. More often than not, a simple letter to the bank requesting their D&O policy and underwriters beyond that policy will grant you all you need to know. Read the D&O policy, most of the time it's scary. You'd be surprised what people AREN'T protected against.
The reason that I feel FDIC is a scam is the way it's based. A very, VERY close friend of mine is the General Manager of a very large bank at one of their largest branches. When a bank fails to redeem deposits, FDIC doesn't step in right away. Instead, other member-banks within the system (meaning, competitor banks generally) will bail out the failed bank. The FDIC will likely never make a payment. There are historical precedents of FDIC bailouts, but they're really complicated.
The one bailout I investigated thoroughly was incredibly complicated. From my recollection, it went like this:
1. Depositors felt bank was unstable (all fractional reserve banks are illiquid, of course) 2. Depositors withdrew deposits (savings, checking, CDs, etc) 3. Bank ran out of funds. 4. Federal Reserve would not loan bank capital due to bank not having assets to borrow against. 5. Bank ruptured (bankruptcy). 6. FDIC stepped in, competitor banks loaned the bank money against their own reserves. 7. Bank still ruptured more. 8. FDIC stepped in, and made bank re-capitalize assets. New recapitalization allowed a private company to purchase the banks remaining illiquid assets at well below market value. FDIC then used taxpayer dollars to redeem the rest of the depositors.
So what we have here is competitors forced to start the bailout process. That failed. Then, the FDIC required that the bank price up all their assets (anything they've loaned against, buildings, etc). Let's say that the bank owed depositors $1 billion. The bank had $60 million in cash, and $800 million in assets. Savers want their $1 billion. The bank pays out the $60 million it has, and then has to sell assets to other banks, or call in the loans. They are still short, so the FDIC has other banks pay out depositors, who then increase their demand for money. Now, $100 million has been paid out, leaving $900 million in receipts, and still only $800 million in illiquid assets. Mr. Insider says he'll pay $600 million for those assets, and there are rarely big bids for those assets. FDIC requires failed bank to sell the $800m in assets for $600m, and uses taxpayer funds to pay the other $300m to depositors.
It's a scam. There's no insurance money set-aside really. The fractional reserve ratio is abnormally low, but the banks believe that depositors won't rush to withdraw money at the same time. Of course, that is starting to happen. And instead of finding a buyer for the bank's assets, no one comes to the table because many of those assets are falling in value fast (think, housing bubble crash).
It's an ugly situation. I wrote it up simpler than reality, but you get the gist of the situation.
I _have_ found a relatively full reserve bank, in the Middle East, in a country that we're still allowed to send money to. Their actual reserves are around 80%, but it's better than 9% or 6% or whatever the FedRes requires now. The risk is that the bank's chartering country may be considered an enemy in the future, which means the assets wou
...is building your reputation and experience to the level that a CEO or other top-level manager understands your talent, combined with understanding the need for security as part of their company's overhead.
Being passionate is great. But that is a small part of the demand that employers have for a security professional. If they don't understand the demand, there is no supply in this case, pertaining to that particular employer.
We have many customers with great security needs, but they were not aware of them until we briefed them on it. In some cases, we specifically turned down contracts because they lacked security. In other cases, we negotiated to REMOVE some security burdens because the customer was wasting their money, shooting off big words that didn't pertain to their industry.
It is rare that I meet a security professional without passion. It isn't rare when I meet one who doesn't have the business skill to sell their job security to their employer. I've also met my share of security professionals (W2) who are so embedded in their network(s) that they're ignorant of other security flaws that are evident to a consultant. Passion doesn't necessarily mean efficient.
Without the management on board, your job will suck, even if you're passionate about it. Here's a place where being proactive will keep you employed. Being reactive will get you canned. Passionate or not.
...but in the meantime, they've made their money. In essence, the Lone Ranger rides in after the girl has already been run over by the train, and then chases down Snidely Whiplash (I'm blending kids' TV, so sue me) and tells him not to do that again or it might cost him. Markets work best where there is transparency, and this type of collusion is a blatant deception to the customer. As the parties involved have no incentive for competition, these types of deals will continue. Why argue over bread crumbs when we all can have a loaf?
But that is the beauty of a market economy unrestrained by regulations that actually PREVENT competition from fixing short term flaws such as collusion or monopolistic tendencies. Yes, in the short run one individual or a group of individuals may make a large amount of money. Yet overall, in a relatively unregulated market, other individuals are able to compete, especially if they are more efficient at providing that particular good or service in the long run. People think that one company can buy all the competitors, but it doesn't happen. Standard Oil, the socialists "go-to" monopoly, actually tried this, but overall they had to continuously LOWER their prices as their new competition was more efficient. If you plot the price of fuel from Standard Oil over their "worst" years that they bought up competition, their price went lower and lower. As they lowered their prices "monopolistically," new competition would go EVEN LOWER. Standard Oil couldn't compete, so they bought the competition to learn the ways to be even cheaper. Then they'd lower prices again (good for consumers), and new competition would find an even cheaper way to provide fuel. Eventually, Standard Oil's sheer size made them uncompetitive, and they lost a lot of market share before Congress took a peek at their practices.
Collusion is a VERY big deal, though maybe you don't think it affects you (though it does). Collusion is what allowed Enron to happen. If you allow it to go unpunished, it spreads. Why are CDs still so expensive after 20+ years? The media costs next to nothing, there's minimal problems with breakage, and shrinkage protection is substantially better due to inexpensive technology. Either we have collusion, or an example of the market taking an exceptionally long time to fix the problem. (Has it?)
Err, no. Enron did NOT happen because of market forces. Enron happened for one reason: government got itself involved, keeping market forces OUT of Enron's way. Seriously, that's why Enron happened - the people who promised to protect you ended up just protecting their own profits. William L. Anderson covers the Myths about Enron quite nicely, so I don't have to repeat it all. If we kept the State out of the energy situation, the market forces of competition would help consumers almost instantly.
Maybe it's not your life that's affected; you may have a decent paying job, but it does affect those at the bottom. In this case, it's printer ink, which is a small enough expense for most people. Imagine, however, if it was like this for everything. Imagine all the grocery stores in town decided to set minimum prices, and then used their influence on the zoning board to prevent other grocers from opening. Eventually the monopoly would probably be broken, but in the meantime, you've paid the price, and you will never get that money back from the market.
Let's repeat this exact poster's quote again, but let's look at the guilty party:
Maybe it's not your life that's affected; you may have a decent paying job, but it does affect those at the bottom. In this case, it's printer ink, which is a small enough expense for most people. Imagine, however, if it was like this for everything. Imagine all the grocery stores in town decided to set minimum prices, and then used their influence on the zoning board to prevent other grocers from opening. Eventually the monopoly would probably be broken, but in the m
That is if you trust this figure....... Gartner is not the most relaible source, and how did they come up with this estimate, when the victims mostly will not tell people they were scammed, and the banks will not release their losses...
Still doesn't effect me. The minute I heard about phishing, I sent an email to all my friends and family explaining it in detail. This goes back years ago. So far, not a single person I know, not a single customer I work with (out of thousands of users) and not a single person I've heard of from any friends, family or client has been phished or scammed.
Let's say conservatively that 5000 people are in that circle. I did my job informing them. They protected themselves with simple software available for YEARS. Why should I be penalized because other people did not take the time to learn how to properly and safely use the tools they're using? A guy cuts his fingers off with a circular saw, and from now on I have to buy overly safe circular saws? Someone crashes their car into the median fence on an icy day because they didn't train themselves on how to see and deal with black ice?
Where has personal responsibility gone to? You screw up, you deal with the consequences, you teach your kids, family and friends what happened. If you misuse a service and get defrauded, prepare for it in the future through one of the DOZENS of insurance plans that protect you, or learn what mistake you made. Duh.
Can't happen. Everyone that has replied to my original post says that government speeds up the breaking down of monopolies, but that is not true. So far, no one in my life has named one business "monopoly" that was NOT aided by government in becoming the most powerful force in that sector, and then broken down by government before competition destroyed their top tier position.
Standard Oil -- provided lower prices EVERY YEAR. By the time that government actually brought legislation against Standard Oil, the competition already beat them out of the top position, even the top 5.
Microsoft -- by the time the IE "disbanding" was finished, Firefox was already on its way up. Even with IE "stuck" in the OS, many users found ways to replace the browser without problems.
Samsung, et al Memory -- The monopoly collusion fell apart when consumers realized that RDRAM was more expensive than SDRAM. The lawsuit came years after RDRAM already fell to 5% of the market or less.
In every "monopoly" case I've research, the market of competition has destroyed the monopolist. Years later did government want a little cash for helping the monopoly survive, so they sue the already losing ex-monopolist as the final nail. Too late, though. Consumers were helped by competition.
The one area that MAYBE was a monopoly was Ma Bell, and they were granted that status by government, so they weren't a monopoly, they were part of government completely. Beyond that, the only current monopolies are the 2 oil refiners (granted monopoly status by government), the few peanut growers (granted monopoly status by government), sugar farmers (granted monopoly status by government), and possibly a few other niche areas, which also exist as monopolies because of status granted by government.
All other temporary monopolies fell because of competition.
You're the first person I've heard that actually thinks the prison system is perfect. You ever hear of repeat offenders, people breaking their parole, or the overcrowding of jails?
Doesn't matter to me. If the law decides to release them, they're not criminals anymore. I don't agree with the law or the justice system, but it's a fact: if you're a criminal, you've commmitted a crime. You do time in jail based on serving enough time and punishment to balance the crime's effect on society. I personally don't believe in the public justice system as I believe private and competitive feedback systems (like eBay) combined with negative outcome insurance would do a better job of providing justice for bad actions. No need for courts or jails.
Since MOST people I've visited in prison harmed no one (no crime against an individual or their property was committed), I don't believe in the term "criminal" except in situations where myself, or someone I actually know, has been physically harmed or robbed from. If someone is judged "guilty" in a case that is titled "The People of _____ versus Criminal," I definitely do not judge them as criminals. The People can not sue an individual as an individual can not commit a crime against "the People." Crimes are committed against other individuals, or their property, or not at all.
Aha, so let's say you pay $10/month for your "calamity" insurance - which means over the last 5 years you've paid $600 for it and counting. Might as well drop the insurance and learn your $10 lesson with the rest of the "morons".
Err, no. I only bank with banks that provide extra insurance over their D&O policy. If you are familiar with banking regulations and laws, D&O protects banks from a lot of fraudulent activities that the banks can generally ignore. SOME banks have extra D&O insurance. If they have no D&O-violation payouts, the insurance is VERY cheap per deposit. On $100,000 on deposit, the insurance might be $3 a year if the bank has no history of D&O violations. No big deal. I won't deal with big banks that have large legal teams and no extra D&O insurance, ever. We even surcharge customers for writing us checks from banks without extra D&O insurance. It's a nice way to inform people of the risk they take.
I also don't bank at FDIC-insured banks, since it's also a scam on depositors. No thanks.
Phishing doesn't concern me. Identity theft doesn't concern me. Privacy of records doesn't concern me. You can protect yourself very well already, you just need to spend a little bit of time navigating the laws and regulations. It is those dastardly things that force me to do so, whereas in a more free economic market I'd just hire an insurance company to write a policy covering what I want. Today, I have to deal with the bank's insurer, as private privacy protection insurance has too many loopholes and offer little to no protection. D&O insurance is the only way to deal with these issues.
This is a rather apples-to-oranges comparison. Torrentspy wasn't just selling oil paints (to use your painting example), it was selling kits including paints, brushes, and a "Mona Lisa by numbers" template so you could just fill in the blanks. In fact, from a "how much effort does it require to violate copyright" point of view, they were darn close to just letting you click and receive a newly painted copy of the artwork.
And if this person happened to live in a country with no copyright laws, is it the seller's requirement to actually understand the law in every city, county, state, country and union of countries? The seller is selling an item that may or may not have legal purposes. TorrentSpy may, or may not, be legal or illegal within various government borders. Is it TorrentSpy's requirement to check on each user? I'd say no.
As for the gun analogy, while the murderer clearly bears the final responsibility, if I walk into a gun store and say "what's the best weapon to use if I want to shoot my wife from a distance of 6 feet or less" and they sell me a weapon, they've gone beyond the "we didn't know what he was doing" defense.
Actually, I see no reason for the store owner to NOT sell them a gun, still. It's still the person's responsibility who pulls the trigger. Your verbal comment is vague, too. How do we know the guy wasn't talking about his wife who regularly threatens him from 6 feet or less and wants to be protected against her? As far as I believe, shooting another person is wrong even in self-defense. Yet I don't believe it is the selling party's responsibility to judge what a buyer may or may not do. The act of a crime is a crime. Thinking about the act of a crime should never be a crime, since a person or their property were not harmed.
What Torrentspy had would be akin to a gun store which has shelves of weapons marked "Ideal for Convenience Store Holdup," "Perfect for Penetrating Law Enforcement Bulletproof Vests," and "Just the Thing For Killing Dozens in Your School Lunchroom."
I'd feel safer knowing that these facts were out there. Then I could protect myself better -- as people should take as their personal responsibility. Do police stop convenience store holdups? No. In my town there is a convenient store that has been held up numerous times, until one of the employees shot defensively another would-be robber. That's how you stop people from committing crimes most of the time: making them unaware who is armed and who isn't. I can't understand how the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech" can be taken any other way. The government has no right to tell a store owner that they can't sell items with those slogans. The guy who owns the convenient store may well end up buying a gun BETTER than the one that is labeled "Ideal of convenience store holdup." A person who has a home and a family in an area where the police repeatedly kill and maim innocents may want a gun that shoots through bullet-proof vests, to properly defend their family from criminals such as these. While I personally won't shoot back, I also believe in the right to defend your home from intruders: black market criminals, or criminals with badges. And "just the thing for killing dozens in your school uniform" is easily defended against as well: remove the laws preventing teachers and security guards from being armed on campus. We don't hear the reports on how often an armed student or teacher stops a crazed shooter who can get a gun legally, or illegally, regardless of the laws you think are just.
Instead of these categories, Torrentspy had movies, TV shows, etc. How many movies are really released without copyright? How many TV shows? Not many at all, and anybody taking the briefest look at what was in those categories would have their suspicions that they housed copyright material confirmed.
Doesn't matter to me, I am insured against all sorts of financial calamity. I also tend not to keep my money in the bank where it makes someone else money, so it's another thing I don't worry too much about.
$3.2 billion. I have to worry about $3.2 billion gross lost due to phishing, and put up with what will amount to billions more in wasted time and energy when Citibank decides to cancel my card while I'm in Europe even though I called them 5 times to let them know exactly where I will be and when. "oh, we thought you gave your number away online."
Let's look at $3.2 billion "lost."
300 million adults in the US x Z = 3,200 million.
Z = $10.66
So we're all fretting over $10.66 each that we lost in a year. Big deal. Nothing to see here. This problem is self resolving.
A few morons will lose a few hundreds, or a few thousand, or maybe even a few tens of thousands. They'll cry. If they are insured against it, they'll get paid back. If they weren't, they're LEARN THEIR LESSON.
Problem solved. No laws needed that aren't already there (notably, fraud and theft). No need for more regulation on banks, or more stern restrictions in banking. Let the idiots lose out a few billion over a few years, and then let them learn not to use sites they haven't visited themselves, with confirmed identity. It's not so hard.
At $10.66 per person, it's a non-issue. Move along.
Get yourself a disposable credit "debit" card from any discount store (Wal*Greens, etc). GreenDot is very popular with the black market types. You can even use it on gambling sites, supposedly.
The best part of the disposable cards is that you can cap the spending without fees. If you're buying something for $500, put $500 on it, and don't refill it. A few times a year they have deals where the cards are free as is the first deposit, so pick up a few grand worth of them at various levels and you're set.
From what I know of the people who use them alot (google Rosemont, Illinois), they're also a great way to exchange money without anyone tracking it. Just what I've heard, though.
Are you saying there should be criminal background checks and waiting periods for persons who wish to use copyright-infringement devices?
No, I'm saying I don't agree with criminal background checks. Criminals are in prison. Ex-criminals are those who have done their time, and are now free because the system believes they're not criminals. Pretty simple.
Also, if you think you're smarter than every judge who has ever lived, I'm wondering why you're not trying to become one yourself.
No, thanks. I don't believe in judging someone using the force of the law. Everyone I have met who works in government is projecting their own fears about their own shortcomings, and I think many of the judges are the worst about it. Larry Craig anyone?
The Xerox lasers work well, and if you have been privy to their research reports you will know they have better throughput on color than many competitors. The key thing is to get a good deal on their horrible service contracts, but I expect you know that.
The Xerox lasers can't be beat in terms of quality. They're wicked fast (LEDs, not true lasers) at 36ppm, maybe 30ppm color, and about 14ppm color duplex. Nothing compares. The finisher is of great quality, but very slow. The service contracts ARE horrible, but Xerox's President (the actual lady Pres) replaced a bad unit within 24 hours. They paid shipping and even restocked toner and drums. Their service tech who comes out is a complete idiot, but I have all the admin books, and handle MOST maintenance myself. The $1600 3-year contract ($2500 retail?) I paid will cover replacement on a $8000 printer.
However, if quality is not that important - and from your description, I fear it isn't - have you looked at Kyocera? The per page costs are very good and the drums last about 400000 impressions. Technically they lag about a generation behind everybody else, but they do work. We have Kyocera mono and color lasers for evaluation and they seem reliable enough. If this sounds like faint praise, I'm one of those people who values print quality and I rate HP/Canon, Xerox and Oki lasers high on those scores. But I have to show people the Kyocera output alongside the others before most people realise they are not quite as good. And the mono is fine for all normal purposes.
I _need_ 12"x18" sizing, so I'm not sure if Kyocera would work. We have CDW 20 minutes away, so being able to pick up toner or drums is also important during emergency "out of supplies" days. I'm definitely a quality freak, but because what we do is already way better than what the customer is used to, it's only important to me. I actually love HPs better on laser gloss, but Xerox on plain paper is really amazing. We're currently hacking an OLD Phaser 2135 to do actual full-bleed on paper without trimming (got it to work weeks ago, using the transfer belt wiper to pick up the extra toner). The Xeroxes are really open to hacking new features, and we've had a lot of luck getting things working that aren't standard features. My biggest problem with the Xeroxes is that they're not designed by service people. Taking them apart is terrible.
As you might guess, I work for a printing consultancy and I have to be careful what I say, but in general our advice is always consolidate, consolidate.
I agree. I've had a lot of luck consolidating down. We used to have 15 different printers from different suppliers. Now we're cutting down and liquidating the older equipment. Our busiest day this week has us printing almost 26,000 side-equivalents of 8.5x11's in one day. That's almost 6 hours straight for 3 printers. I have to have quick access to parts and supplies on days like that. We're also printing close to 1200 sqft of 50" wide large-format prints (pigment, poypropylene). That's almost 20 hours at "best" mode x 3 printers. Ouch. Christmas, though, busy time for churches.
Oh, and best wishes with your project.
Thanks! I found the market with no competition, because no one would be stupid enough to try to squeeze blood from a turnip. I also get to meet some of the nicest people along with some of the worst fascists. The great part is that I have the supply that they demand, so I can pretty much be open when I disagree with my clients about the way they do business. I have a lot of standards that I won't break, such as "No Hell" on anything I print (I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in Hell or "Satan"), and nothing political if you're a 501(c)3 (in 2008, we won't accept many 501(c)3s possibly because it's hypocritical). I do love working with such variety.
I'm really sick of our Federal system, as most of you know. It's completely ridiculous that law-school educated judges can not read the Constitution, and understand the basic definitions of freedom.
Copyright is a Constitutionally-protected power of government. I understand that. I hate copyright, I would never use it, but I accept it. To infringe on copyright, a person must take someone else's art, and make a copy. That person who paints their own version of a copyright-protected oil painting will use oils and canvas to breach copyright. The oil manufacturer is not guilty. The canvas manufacturer is not guilty. Exxon/Mobil who provided fuel for you to drive to buy the oil and canvas are not guilty. Ford, who provided the car to get to the store to buy oil and canvas are not guilty. The person selling you a book with a license to reprint that oil, is not guilty. You, the person doing the copying, are guilty.
TorrentSpy is like the gun, or the gun manufacturer. The murderer is the person actively aiming the weapon in anger, and pulling the trigger. The person selling the gun shouldn't care what the end user is going to do, other than warn them that they're buying something dangerous. The person making the gun should not be held responsible. The ACT of committing a crime comes from actually committing a crime.
If copyright is moral, and valid, then the person doing the copying should be found guilty. Hosting a torrent is not hosting a file.
If you vote, please vote against retention on every position. Judges need to be kicked out as quick as they're voted in. Vote against incumbents who enforce the law, too (police chief, etc). There's no reason to keep anyone in office long enough to abuse power. All these judges are just power-hungry. They can't understand that copyright is protected by the artist, only against someone else copying the art.
I wish that was the case. The co-op I founded is focused not as a business, but as a co-operative. We only work for churches (and some ministries), and we act like we were just a part of the church. We're an all volunteer staff (no payroll) and the only cost the churches pay are the cost of ink and paper. Maintenance and hardware is paid for by me (out of my real business profits). So most of our cost is to ink.
Why do we buy small amounts? Churches are notorious for paying late. As of today, we have $22,000 in payments over 60 days. And this is at cost. We also do offset press work, also at paper+ink cost. If the churches would pay on time, we'd be able to buy larger quantites and pass the savings on. As it is, that particular market is terrible.
The other big problem with buying larger quantities is storage. Ink sitting in storage costs money (rent of space, utilities to keep humidity and temperature controlled), plus there are added inventory problems. We maintain about 20 printers now (other than the offset). Large format, small format, laser large (13"x19") and one old Versatec (basically a HUGE laser, drums are around 40" long). Trying to keep inventory of ink can be a real pain, but I am working on downsizing our equipment to something standard over the next 36 months. We're moving to all Xerox in terms of laser, and all Epson in small format inkjet, until desktop eco-solvent inks take over (hopefully, soon, dye and pigment inks are idiotic). In terms of large format, we've already ordered a massively big eco-solvent (136" wide) printer, and they already offer 5 gallon drums of the ink, so we're set there.
Lastly, the smallest problem is life of ink. I don't believe that ink itself has a life, as long as you're not concerned about Pantone color charts and exacting calibrations (at our price, they can go pay 4-600% more for that stuff professionally done). But inkjet heads DO fail if they're not installed "soon" although they do tend to last 2-3x their EOL date on the box if sealed.
Slashdot Mirror
On many of these electrics, you do need to plug-in to get your initial charge. Isn't that causing just as much, if not more, pollution than burning oil locally?
I'm still not sure that anyone can actually decipher all the different impacts that "environmentally-friendly" vehicles or machines have. I know I read an article this year that spoke of the CO2 emissions for just peddling a bike or taking a walk, so even not using machinery seems to have an impact.
Then again, I'm not a big fan of the global warming scams out there, nor am I a fan of peak oil theory. I just need to see the whole picture, rather than what some people will say is a small portion of the picture, but ignores other ramifications of decision making.
One area we're visiting in India in January is a town on a hill that allows no cars or trucks (you usually can only get there by train). Same in Switzerland (entire towns with no machinery). Yes, the air is cleaner, but so are the people living there. If we all use electric vehicles in those towns (let's say), another town that generates the energy is going to get the brunt of the polluting. I'd rather pollute MY area, so we can see the direct effect, than push it off to a poorer neighborhood where we won't.
Global yadda-yadda-yadda, I think it is more important to focus on the damage you can actually see than try to control the world's climate.
Yeah, that's not quite the most compelling argument I've heard about this issue. Certainly not the most informed, either.
For many years, the idea of a truly software-based, frequency-hopping radio was the idea of dreams and science fiction. We have them today. They work well, but are still limited in frequencies they can utilize. Power-sources have been the biggest limiting factor for opening up spectrum for unregulated use, but that too is quickly being overcome by technological discoveries (see the nano-wire battery article from yesterday).
Regulated spectrum may have been important when radio transmissions were inefficient, dirty, and even dangerous. We've overcome those issues, and now have the technology to utilize wireless transmissions that could be best navigated and selected based on distance to the other transceiving device, available power for transceiving, speed and latency requirements, and other traffic detected. Because power is not limitless, the idea that one massive power source would likely overpower everything in the area is only based on the idea that someone would or even could transmit garbage over every frequency at high power levels. Yes, I know there are technological marvels that COULD do this, and that's why I will allow for the idea that the FCC may exist only to penalize users of such dirty-transmission devices. Personally, I feel that the market would correct for these power-wasting freaks, but I'll at least accept a small role for the FCC to prevent dirty-transmissions.
With frequency-hopping, and software-based radios, we'd reach a new era of wireless. We're WASTING gigahertz of spectrum on old media -- TV, radio, even cell phone and cordless phone frequencies that could be better used to combine everything into a WiFi-like system. The days of forced media schedules are slowly ending, with more and more people grabbing TV shows a la carte, via bittorrent or PVR-systems. Instead of flooding the airwaves with the gigahertz of garbage no one is watching, de-regulate that bandwidth and allow more wireless providers to send people what they want, when they want it.
Those who demand faster bandwidth and lower latency may spend the money for the extra power they'll need to acquire the spectrum they need in their area, for their purposes. Yet power is the BIGGEST cost of wireless transmissions, and I can guarantee that anyone who wants to hog a wide swath of spectrum will find themselves with an unbelievable electric bill after one month. Yet even with someone locally occupying a certain amount of frequencies, there is still a huge amount of bandwidth available all over the entire radio spectrum. A move to digital, on demand IP-based transceiving makes more sense. We're moved beyond the need for fixed-frequencies, except for the old media who needs to control, and regulate, competition out of existence.
They know their time has come. The need to keep cell phones on the same basic frequency, TV on the same basic frequency, and radio on the same basic frequency has been replaced, and proven so, by the newer technologies out there (Satellite, XM, WiFi, even 700Mhz cordless phones). Those days are over, but we're too engaged with the old system to realize it.
The best thing the FCC could do is to just deregulate the 700Mhz-900Mhz frequencies entirely, and let the market provide services. Let's see what would happen. I bet amazing things would come into the market quickly. Then start deregulating more frequencies, until the FCC shrinks to a minor enforcer of clean transceiving.
Multibillion dollar companies owned by... you and I, or anyone with a share.
The problem is not the multibillion dollar companies, the problem is the FCC. The FCC creates the regulations, and laws, and restrictions, and mandates, that force you and I and a million others from tossing in our own $1500 each and competing. We'd need to hire lawyers who probably worked for the FCC and wrote the rules. We'd need to get approvals from a slow and red-tape-ladened administration. We'd need to prove who we are and what our intentions are.
That's the problem. You think it's these huge megacorps that cause these issues? Well, they sure lobby for them. But if the Federal Executive branch actually followed the Rule of Law (i.e., the Constitution), the FCC would be probably a teeny tiny organization that just made sure no one was perverting the airwaves with massive noise outputs from dirty electronics.
WiFi is relative proof that you can go relatively unregulated in spectrum bandwidth and have things work just fine. Yes, yes, some people in the middle of Manhattan complain about WiFi performance, but my experience at my old office in downtown Chicago showed that things worked just fine -- all the time.
We don't need the FCC, we need more individuals getting together, pitching in a few grand, hiring managers, and competing with the old powerful regimes. Unfortunately, it isn't available. We can't do it. We can't compete. The market doesn't work efficiently when there are barriers to entering the market, and the ONLY barrier is government regulation. Raising $1billion is easy; the machete you need to cut through red tape is nearly non-existent.
Has anyone actually come out against stem cell research?
As far as I know, only the "King of Spammers" has said that he is opposed to Federal funding of stem cell research, and would vote against any bill that proposed any Federal regulation of it.
Other than that, AFAIK, all the other candidates are as ambiguous on that issue as all the other issues: just pandering for votes from both moderates and fanatics, answering no one in the process.
ACtually, 3D Realms has had Duke Nukem Forever available via bittorrent for a few years now. They're only seeding 99.9% of it, though, with the remaining .1% in the .EXE missing.
About 15,000 trolls asking for someone to please seed the entire thing.
Thanks for making me feel like I've wasted 1/3rd of my years reading slashdot.
Sad, but I do remember when I finally registered here (after months of lurking, I'd say), I felt like my UID was _really_ late compared to a lot of the 4-digits that were posting.
Wonder where they all went. Can't be jobs (have always had one). Can't be wives (been with the same gal for 12 years off and on). Can't be families (watch my mentally retarded BiL 4 days a week). Can't be sports (geeks don't play them). WoW maybe?
I submitted this post in 1997 when I used the slashdot id suntory. I can't believe the admins are THIS slow. It still was a bad conference then.
...because my clock says December 19, 2007. Is it April 1st already???
No wonder the malls are dead.
1. I accept that it the current law, but I believe the law is wrong. My reasoning for it is that the Internet is internationally accessible, and it should be the consumer's responsibility to conform to local and State laws.
2. To a point, I do agree. I don't believe inciting violence through speech is applicable. If it is, our government is the biggest criminal.
3. Yelling "fire" on private property should be regulated by the property owners, not the police. If I say "No yelling fire in a non-emergency" I should be able to file a civil lawsuit against loss of income, damage, and injury caused by someone breaking my rule. The government should not abridge speech on private property, or on public property.
4. There are a LOT of situations where this has happened. My dates may be off, and I really should start a website dedicated to it, but here's what I can recall:
4a. Appalachian School of Law in Virginian, around January 2002. Crazed shooter killed 2 or 3 people. Two students ran to their cars, got their guns, and subdued the shooter. If they waited for police, how many more people would be dead? Cops did nothing.
4b. Santana High School in Santee, California, around 2001. Crazed shooter on rampage. Off-duty cop has his gun, and stops the shooter. No one else was allowed to carry a gun on the property. Why?
4c. Pearl High School, Pearl Mississippi, around 1997. Some crazed shooter went on a rampage. The Principal heard the shots, ran to his car, grabbed his gun, and subdued the shooter.
There are more tales that I've written about, and I really need to make an index site of them.
The idea that fistfights turn into wild west gun rampages is illogical. It doesn't happen. I gave up my guns maybe a year ago because of a slashdot writer here jdavidb who gave me a reasonable debate on why a Christian should never use force. Until them, I armed myself regularly in Las Vegas and Dallas, two cities I do a lot of business in. I'd meet MANY people who were armed, and I never heard once about them going on rampages. If you've never shot a gun, you can't comment on it. It's very VERY difficult to pull the trigger on a human being. While in Chicago, I stopped two robberies near my office (in a nice neighborhood) just by brandishing my weapon with the lock still on. Both times the probably armed robbers took off, and when police arrived, they looked the other way about me having an illegal weapon (you can't arm yourself in Chicago).
When criminals know you're armed, they'll generally go elsewhere where people aren't armed. I feel FAR safer in the ghetto in Texas than in the ghetto in Chicago. Las Vegas was never a worry for me when I was armed, and even now it isn't because I know many locals are armed. My first stop after a plane trip was to Wal*Mart to pick up ammo, and the taxi drivers ALWAYS knew why I asked to go there. I even feel safe walking down dark roads at 3am, because the criminals tend to know that the locals won't hesitate to shoot first if they're threatened.
Schools should NOT be gun free zones. I find it ridiculous that principals and teachers can't arm themselves to subdue a crazed gunman. The times that there were armed individuals, deaths were reduced or prevented entirely. The times that rampages continued, it took cops a long time to get to the scene and try to stop the incident.
First, your experience tells us nothing why you believe this. Great, you buy $3000 of ink a week, but from this it doesn't seem like you've though that maybe the ink could be cheaper, or if there's a better way.
I do the research. HP doesn't prevent me from going online, and looking for cheaper ink. They may make it difficult to use cheaper ink, but that's their prerogative and I see NO reason to make it illegal. People are free to tell others that HP makes it hard to use third party ink (which, by the way, they don't!). You are free to not buy HP's product if you don't want to. As long as government doesn't REQUIRE you to buy HP products, then other companies can, and will, make competitive products.
By the way, innovation is the best way for companies to compete, not collusion. Secondly, collusion is bad for the consumer, and it's illegal. Gas is about $3 a gallon where I am. What if ExxonMobil and Ford conspired so that you could only use Ford gas in your Ford car? Now what if every other car maker did the same thing because it increased their profits? Who loses out? The little guy. People pay $3000 a week for ink, the retailers each get $100 million, and then HP rakes in billions on ink alone. Shouldn't I be able to chose my gas or my ink?
Collusion shouldn't be illegal, because in the long run it hurts producers who collude more than consumers. Competition will always appear when demand is available. Someone will ALWAYS say "I can do that cheaper," unless governments puts in obstacles to prevent competition (see: sugar industry, corn industry, gasoline refinery industry, etc).
If Ford and ExxonMobil conspired to prevent you from using gas from a competitive market, they'd BOTH go under quickly. People would stop buying Fords. Exxon would lose business in the gas they created that would only work with Fords. There is NO reason to create laws to prevent this as the market always provides for penalties to companies that collude. You should be able to choose your ink if the market provides alternatives. The market always provides alternatives, in every market, for every item and service, except where government says they can't. It isn't corporations that limit your choice, its government that does. Why is sugar so expensive? Why is the price of peanuts higher than what it costs to grow and distribute? Government-mandated limits on the market.
There's convenience and then there is gouging. I may need ink NOW, but asking someone to pay $30 face to face when I can buy one for $3 online is gouging. Also, there's marketing, and refilled cartridges are designed to be hard to refill and not give as good quality. HP makes sure of that. Their marketing works to make it sound like refilled cartridges are a bad investment and encourage only using theirs, and if your printer breaks while using a refilled cartridge, they'll blame the cartridge without even bothering to troubleshoot.
In my town, we have NO office supply stores. None. Walgreens sells a few brands of cartridges, but other than that -- no one sells even paper. I'm opening a store to sell paper and ink, using the profits to pay for my non-profit overhead. Guess what? My ink cartridges will be $10 more than Office Depot. My reams of paper will be double in price. Why? Because I can. It's not gouging if no one else wants to sell the product. If I am the only source, I SHOULD charge more because there is a risk that the market may not exist, or that I may sell out of a product before I can restock. It's like gas-gouging in a gas-shortage. Gas retailers SHOULD gouge if they have no idea when they'll be replenished. They have to pay to keep the doors open and the employees paid without knowing when they'll be restocked. The price should naturally go WAY UP if supply is way down, just so they can meet their overhead during the unknown future. It's not gouging, it's a supply-and-demand response to what the market can't provide easily.
Are you nuts??? That's exactly how the
How do you know if a bank has this insurance or not? And why is FDIC insurance a scam?
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of research. If you've followed my banking info (take a look at my latest site, Full Reserve Banking where I am theorizing on the actual process of my utopian bank), you know that I don't keep a lot of money in cash-denominated accounts. Almost all of my dollar savings are in some sort of full-reserve structure, such as a laddered CD. I only do this to keep my money partially interest-bearing, but still accessible on a monthly basis.
My favorite banks are generally credit unions, but they're also hard to navigate. More often than not, a simple letter to the bank requesting their D&O policy and underwriters beyond that policy will grant you all you need to know. Read the D&O policy, most of the time it's scary. You'd be surprised what people AREN'T protected against.
The reason that I feel FDIC is a scam is the way it's based. A very, VERY close friend of mine is the General Manager of a very large bank at one of their largest branches. When a bank fails to redeem deposits, FDIC doesn't step in right away. Instead, other member-banks within the system (meaning, competitor banks generally) will bail out the failed bank. The FDIC will likely never make a payment. There are historical precedents of FDIC bailouts, but they're really complicated.
The one bailout I investigated thoroughly was incredibly complicated. From my recollection, it went like this:
1. Depositors felt bank was unstable (all fractional reserve banks are illiquid, of course)
2. Depositors withdrew deposits (savings, checking, CDs, etc)
3. Bank ran out of funds.
4. Federal Reserve would not loan bank capital due to bank not having assets to borrow against.
5. Bank ruptured (bankruptcy).
6. FDIC stepped in, competitor banks loaned the bank money against their own reserves.
7. Bank still ruptured more.
8. FDIC stepped in, and made bank re-capitalize assets. New recapitalization allowed a private company to purchase the banks remaining illiquid assets at well below market value. FDIC then used taxpayer dollars to redeem the rest of the depositors.
So what we have here is competitors forced to start the bailout process. That failed. Then, the FDIC required that the bank price up all their assets (anything they've loaned against, buildings, etc). Let's say that the bank owed depositors $1 billion. The bank had $60 million in cash, and $800 million in assets. Savers want their $1 billion. The bank pays out the $60 million it has, and then has to sell assets to other banks, or call in the loans. They are still short, so the FDIC has other banks pay out depositors, who then increase their demand for money. Now, $100 million has been paid out, leaving $900 million in receipts, and still only $800 million in illiquid assets. Mr. Insider says he'll pay $600 million for those assets, and there are rarely big bids for those assets. FDIC requires failed bank to sell the $800m in assets for $600m, and uses taxpayer funds to pay the other $300m to depositors.
It's a scam. There's no insurance money set-aside really. The fractional reserve ratio is abnormally low, but the banks believe that depositors won't rush to withdraw money at the same time. Of course, that is starting to happen. And instead of finding a buyer for the bank's assets, no one comes to the table because many of those assets are falling in value fast (think, housing bubble crash).
It's an ugly situation. I wrote it up simpler than reality, but you get the gist of the situation.
I _have_ found a relatively full reserve bank, in the Middle East, in a country that we're still allowed to send money to. Their actual reserves are around 80%, but it's better than 9% or 6% or whatever the FedRes requires now. The risk is that the bank's chartering country may be considered an enemy in the future, which means the assets wou
...is building your reputation and experience to the level that a CEO or other top-level manager understands your talent, combined with understanding the need for security as part of their company's overhead.
Being passionate is great. But that is a small part of the demand that employers have for a security professional. If they don't understand the demand, there is no supply in this case, pertaining to that particular employer.
We have many customers with great security needs, but they were not aware of them until we briefed them on it. In some cases, we specifically turned down contracts because they lacked security. In other cases, we negotiated to REMOVE some security burdens because the customer was wasting their money, shooting off big words that didn't pertain to their industry.
It is rare that I meet a security professional without passion. It isn't rare when I meet one who doesn't have the business skill to sell their job security to their employer. I've also met my share of security professionals (W2) who are so embedded in their network(s) that they're ignorant of other security flaws that are evident to a consultant. Passion doesn't necessarily mean efficient.
Without the management on board, your job will suck, even if you're passionate about it. Here's a place where being proactive will keep you employed. Being reactive will get you canned. Passionate or not.
...but in the meantime, they've made their money. In essence, the Lone Ranger rides in after the girl has already been run over by the train, and then chases down Snidely Whiplash (I'm blending kids' TV, so sue me) and tells him not to do that again or it might cost him. Markets work best where there is transparency, and this type of collusion is a blatant deception to the customer. As the parties involved have no incentive for competition, these types of deals will continue. Why argue over bread crumbs when we all can have a loaf?
But that is the beauty of a market economy unrestrained by regulations that actually PREVENT competition from fixing short term flaws such as collusion or monopolistic tendencies. Yes, in the short run one individual or a group of individuals may make a large amount of money. Yet overall, in a relatively unregulated market, other individuals are able to compete, especially if they are more efficient at providing that particular good or service in the long run. People think that one company can buy all the competitors, but it doesn't happen. Standard Oil, the socialists "go-to" monopoly, actually tried this, but overall they had to continuously LOWER their prices as their new competition was more efficient. If you plot the price of fuel from Standard Oil over their "worst" years that they bought up competition, their price went lower and lower. As they lowered their prices "monopolistically," new competition would go EVEN LOWER. Standard Oil couldn't compete, so they bought the competition to learn the ways to be even cheaper. Then they'd lower prices again (good for consumers), and new competition would find an even cheaper way to provide fuel. Eventually, Standard Oil's sheer size made them uncompetitive, and they lost a lot of market share before Congress took a peek at their practices.
Collusion is a VERY big deal, though maybe you don't think it affects you (though it does). Collusion is what allowed Enron to happen. If you allow it to go unpunished, it spreads. Why are CDs still so expensive after 20+ years? The media costs next to nothing, there's minimal problems with breakage, and shrinkage protection is substantially better due to inexpensive technology. Either we have collusion, or an example of the market taking an exceptionally long time to fix the problem. (Has it?)
Err, no. Enron did NOT happen because of market forces. Enron happened for one reason: government got itself involved, keeping market forces OUT of Enron's way. Seriously, that's why Enron happened - the people who promised to protect you ended up just protecting their own profits. William L. Anderson covers the Myths about Enron quite nicely, so I don't have to repeat it all. If we kept the State out of the energy situation, the market forces of competition would help consumers almost instantly.
Maybe it's not your life that's affected; you may have a decent paying job, but it does affect those at the bottom. In this case, it's printer ink, which is a small enough expense for most people. Imagine, however, if it was like this for everything. Imagine all the grocery stores in town decided to set minimum prices, and then used their influence on the zoning board to prevent other grocers from opening. Eventually the monopoly would probably be broken, but in the meantime, you've paid the price, and you will never get that money back from the market.
Let's repeat this exact poster's quote again, but let's look at the guilty party:
Maybe it's not your life that's affected; you may have a decent paying job, but it does affect those at the bottom. In this case, it's printer ink, which is a small enough expense for most people. Imagine, however, if it was like this for everything. Imagine all the grocery stores in town decided to set minimum prices, and then used their influence on the zoning board to prevent other grocers from opening. Eventually the monopoly would probably be broken, but in the m
That is if you trust this figure.... ... Gartner is not the most relaible source, and how did they come up with this estimate, when the victims mostly will not tell people they were scammed, and the banks will not release their losses ...
Still doesn't effect me. The minute I heard about phishing, I sent an email to all my friends and family explaining it in detail. This goes back years ago. So far, not a single person I know, not a single customer I work with (out of thousands of users) and not a single person I've heard of from any friends, family or client has been phished or scammed.
Let's say conservatively that 5000 people are in that circle. I did my job informing them. They protected themselves with simple software available for YEARS. Why should I be penalized because other people did not take the time to learn how to properly and safely use the tools they're using? A guy cuts his fingers off with a circular saw, and from now on I have to buy overly safe circular saws? Someone crashes their car into the median fence on an icy day because they didn't train themselves on how to see and deal with black ice?
Where has personal responsibility gone to? You screw up, you deal with the consequences, you teach your kids, family and friends what happened. If you misuse a service and get defrauded, prepare for it in the future through one of the DOZENS of insurance plans that protect you, or learn what mistake you made. Duh.
Can't happen. Everyone that has replied to my original post says that government speeds up the breaking down of monopolies, but that is not true. So far, no one in my life has named one business "monopoly" that was NOT aided by government in becoming the most powerful force in that sector, and then broken down by government before competition destroyed their top tier position.
Standard Oil -- provided lower prices EVERY YEAR. By the time that government actually brought legislation against Standard Oil, the competition already beat them out of the top position, even the top 5.
Microsoft -- by the time the IE "disbanding" was finished, Firefox was already on its way up. Even with IE "stuck" in the OS, many users found ways to replace the browser without problems.
Samsung, et al Memory -- The monopoly collusion fell apart when consumers realized that RDRAM was more expensive than SDRAM. The lawsuit came years after RDRAM already fell to 5% of the market or less.
In every "monopoly" case I've research, the market of competition has destroyed the monopolist. Years later did government want a little cash for helping the monopoly survive, so they sue the already losing ex-monopolist as the final nail. Too late, though. Consumers were helped by competition.
The one area that MAYBE was a monopoly was Ma Bell, and they were granted that status by government, so they weren't a monopoly, they were part of government completely. Beyond that, the only current monopolies are the 2 oil refiners (granted monopoly status by government), the few peanut growers (granted monopoly status by government), sugar farmers (granted monopoly status by government), and possibly a few other niche areas, which also exist as monopolies because of status granted by government.
All other temporary monopolies fell because of competition.
You're the first person I've heard that actually thinks the prison system is perfect. You ever hear of repeat offenders, people breaking their parole, or the overcrowding of jails?
Doesn't matter to me. If the law decides to release them, they're not criminals anymore. I don't agree with the law or the justice system, but it's a fact: if you're a criminal, you've commmitted a crime. You do time in jail based on serving enough time and punishment to balance the crime's effect on society. I personally don't believe in the public justice system as I believe private and competitive feedback systems (like eBay) combined with negative outcome insurance would do a better job of providing justice for bad actions. No need for courts or jails.
Since MOST people I've visited in prison harmed no one (no crime against an individual or their property was committed), I don't believe in the term "criminal" except in situations where myself, or someone I actually know, has been physically harmed or robbed from. If someone is judged "guilty" in a case that is titled "The People of _____ versus Criminal," I definitely do not judge them as criminals. The People can not sue an individual as an individual can not commit a crime against "the People." Crimes are committed against other individuals, or their property, or not at all.
Aha, so let's say you pay $10/month for your "calamity" insurance - which means over the last 5 years you've paid $600 for it and counting. Might as well drop the insurance and learn your $10 lesson with the rest of the "morons".
Err, no. I only bank with banks that provide extra insurance over their D&O policy. If you are familiar with banking regulations and laws, D&O protects banks from a lot of fraudulent activities that the banks can generally ignore. SOME banks have extra D&O insurance. If they have no D&O-violation payouts, the insurance is VERY cheap per deposit. On $100,000 on deposit, the insurance might be $3 a year if the bank has no history of D&O violations. No big deal. I won't deal with big banks that have large legal teams and no extra D&O insurance, ever. We even surcharge customers for writing us checks from banks without extra D&O insurance. It's a nice way to inform people of the risk they take.
I also don't bank at FDIC-insured banks, since it's also a scam on depositors. No thanks.
Phishing doesn't concern me. Identity theft doesn't concern me. Privacy of records doesn't concern me. You can protect yourself very well already, you just need to spend a little bit of time navigating the laws and regulations. It is those dastardly things that force me to do so, whereas in a more free economic market I'd just hire an insurance company to write a policy covering what I want. Today, I have to deal with the bank's insurer, as private privacy protection insurance has too many loopholes and offer little to no protection. D&O insurance is the only way to deal with these issues.
This is a rather apples-to-oranges comparison. Torrentspy wasn't just selling oil paints (to use your painting example), it was selling kits including paints, brushes, and a "Mona Lisa by numbers" template so you could just fill in the blanks. In fact, from a "how much effort does it require to violate copyright" point of view, they were darn close to just letting you click and receive a newly painted copy of the artwork.
And if this person happened to live in a country with no copyright laws, is it the seller's requirement to actually understand the law in every city, county, state, country and union of countries? The seller is selling an item that may or may not have legal purposes. TorrentSpy may, or may not, be legal or illegal within various government borders. Is it TorrentSpy's requirement to check on each user? I'd say no.
As for the gun analogy, while the murderer clearly bears the final responsibility, if I walk into a gun store and say "what's the best weapon to use if I want to shoot my wife from a distance of 6 feet or less" and they sell me a weapon, they've gone beyond the "we didn't know what he was doing" defense.
Actually, I see no reason for the store owner to NOT sell them a gun, still. It's still the person's responsibility who pulls the trigger. Your verbal comment is vague, too. How do we know the guy wasn't talking about his wife who regularly threatens him from 6 feet or less and wants to be protected against her? As far as I believe, shooting another person is wrong even in self-defense. Yet I don't believe it is the selling party's responsibility to judge what a buyer may or may not do. The act of a crime is a crime. Thinking about the act of a crime should never be a crime, since a person or their property were not harmed.
What Torrentspy had would be akin to a gun store which has shelves of weapons marked "Ideal for Convenience Store Holdup," "Perfect for Penetrating Law Enforcement Bulletproof Vests," and "Just the Thing For Killing Dozens in Your School Lunchroom."
I'd feel safer knowing that these facts were out there. Then I could protect myself better -- as people should take as their personal responsibility. Do police stop convenience store holdups? No. In my town there is a convenient store that has been held up numerous times, until one of the employees shot defensively another would-be robber. That's how you stop people from committing crimes most of the time: making them unaware who is armed and who isn't. I can't understand how the Constitution that says "Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech" can be taken any other way. The government has no right to tell a store owner that they can't sell items with those slogans. The guy who owns the convenient store may well end up buying a gun BETTER than the one that is labeled "Ideal of convenience store holdup." A person who has a home and a family in an area where the police repeatedly kill and maim innocents may want a gun that shoots through bullet-proof vests, to properly defend their family from criminals such as these. While I personally won't shoot back, I also believe in the right to defend your home from intruders: black market criminals, or criminals with badges. And "just the thing for killing dozens in your school uniform" is easily defended against as well: remove the laws preventing teachers and security guards from being armed on campus. We don't hear the reports on how often an armed student or teacher stops a crazed shooter who can get a gun legally, or illegally, regardless of the laws you think are just.
Instead of these categories, Torrentspy had movies, TV shows, etc. How many movies are really released without copyright? How many TV shows? Not many at all, and anybody taking the briefest look at what was in those categories would have their suspicions that they housed copyright material confirmed.
Doesn't matter to me. The act of copying the
Doesn't matter to me, I am insured against all sorts of financial calamity. I also tend not to keep my money in the bank where it makes someone else money, so it's another thing I don't worry too much about.
$3.2 billion. I have to worry about $3.2 billion gross lost due to phishing, and put up with what will amount to billions more in wasted time and energy when Citibank decides to cancel my card while I'm in Europe even though I called them 5 times to let them know exactly where I will be and when. "oh, we thought you gave your number away online."
Let's look at $3.2 billion "lost."
300 million adults in the US x Z = 3,200 million.
Z = $10.66
So we're all fretting over $10.66 each that we lost in a year. Big deal. Nothing to see here. This problem is self resolving.
A few morons will lose a few hundreds, or a few thousand, or maybe even a few tens of thousands. They'll cry. If they are insured against it, they'll get paid back. If they weren't, they're LEARN THEIR LESSON.
Problem solved. No laws needed that aren't already there (notably, fraud and theft). No need for more regulation on banks, or more stern restrictions in banking. Let the idiots lose out a few billion over a few years, and then let them learn not to use sites they haven't visited themselves, with confirmed identity. It's not so hard.
At $10.66 per person, it's a non-issue. Move along.
Get yourself a disposable credit "debit" card from any discount store (Wal*Greens, etc). GreenDot is very popular with the black market types. You can even use it on gambling sites, supposedly.
The best part of the disposable cards is that you can cap the spending without fees. If you're buying something for $500, put $500 on it, and don't refill it. A few times a year they have deals where the cards are free as is the first deposit, so pick up a few grand worth of them at various levels and you're set.
From what I know of the people who use them alot (google Rosemont, Illinois), they're also a great way to exchange money without anyone tracking it. Just what I've heard, though.
Are you saying there should be criminal background checks and waiting periods for persons who wish to use copyright-infringement devices?
No, I'm saying I don't agree with criminal background checks. Criminals are in prison. Ex-criminals are those who have done their time, and are now free because the system believes they're not criminals. Pretty simple.
Also, if you think you're smarter than every judge who has ever lived, I'm wondering why you're not trying to become one yourself.
No, thanks. I don't believe in judging someone using the force of the law. Everyone I have met who works in government is projecting their own fears about their own shortcomings, and I think many of the judges are the worst about it. Larry Craig anyone?
Thanks for taking the time with that info!
The Xerox lasers work well, and if you have been privy to their research reports you will know they have better throughput on color than many competitors. The key thing is to get a good deal on their horrible service contracts, but I expect you know that.
The Xerox lasers can't be beat in terms of quality. They're wicked fast (LEDs, not true lasers) at 36ppm, maybe 30ppm color, and about 14ppm color duplex. Nothing compares. The finisher is of great quality, but very slow. The service contracts ARE horrible, but Xerox's President (the actual lady Pres) replaced a bad unit within 24 hours. They paid shipping and even restocked toner and drums. Their service tech who comes out is a complete idiot, but I have all the admin books, and handle MOST maintenance myself. The $1600 3-year contract ($2500 retail?) I paid will cover replacement on a $8000 printer.
However, if quality is not that important - and from your description, I fear it isn't - have you looked at Kyocera? The per page costs are very good and the drums last about 400000 impressions. Technically they lag about a generation behind everybody else, but they do work. We have Kyocera mono and color lasers for evaluation and they seem reliable enough. If this sounds like faint praise, I'm one of those people who values print quality and I rate HP/Canon, Xerox and Oki lasers high on those scores. But I have to show people the Kyocera output alongside the others before most people realise they are not quite as good. And the mono is fine for all normal purposes.
I _need_ 12"x18" sizing, so I'm not sure if Kyocera would work. We have CDW 20 minutes away, so being able to pick up toner or drums is also important during emergency "out of supplies" days. I'm definitely a quality freak, but because what we do is already way better than what the customer is used to, it's only important to me. I actually love HPs better on laser gloss, but Xerox on plain paper is really amazing. We're currently hacking an OLD Phaser 2135 to do actual full-bleed on paper without trimming (got it to work weeks ago, using the transfer belt wiper to pick up the extra toner). The Xeroxes are really open to hacking new features, and we've had a lot of luck getting things working that aren't standard features. My biggest problem with the Xeroxes is that they're not designed by service people. Taking them apart is terrible.
As you might guess, I work for a printing consultancy and I have to be careful what I say, but in general our advice is always consolidate, consolidate.
I agree. I've had a lot of luck consolidating down. We used to have 15 different printers from different suppliers. Now we're cutting down and liquidating the older equipment. Our busiest day this week has us printing almost 26,000 side-equivalents of 8.5x11's in one day. That's almost 6 hours straight for 3 printers. I have to have quick access to parts and supplies on days like that. We're also printing close to 1200 sqft of 50" wide large-format prints (pigment, poypropylene). That's almost 20 hours at "best" mode x 3 printers. Ouch. Christmas, though, busy time for churches.
Oh, and best wishes with your project.
Thanks! I found the market with no competition, because no one would be stupid enough to try to squeeze blood from a turnip. I also get to meet some of the nicest people along with some of the worst fascists. The great part is that I have the supply that they demand, so I can pretty much be open when I disagree with my clients about the way they do business. I have a lot of standards that I won't break, such as "No Hell" on anything I print (I'm a Christian who doesn't believe in Hell or "Satan"), and nothing political if you're a 501(c)3 (in 2008, we won't accept many 501(c)3s possibly because it's hypocritical). I do love working with such variety.
I'm really sick of our Federal system, as most of you know. It's completely ridiculous that law-school educated judges can not read the Constitution, and understand the basic definitions of freedom.
Copyright is a Constitutionally-protected power of government. I understand that. I hate copyright, I would never use it, but I accept it. To infringe on copyright, a person must take someone else's art, and make a copy. That person who paints their own version of a copyright-protected oil painting will use oils and canvas to breach copyright. The oil manufacturer is not guilty. The canvas manufacturer is not guilty. Exxon/Mobil who provided fuel for you to drive to buy the oil and canvas are not guilty. Ford, who provided the car to get to the store to buy oil and canvas are not guilty. The person selling you a book with a license to reprint that oil, is not guilty. You, the person doing the copying, are guilty.
TorrentSpy is like the gun, or the gun manufacturer. The murderer is the person actively aiming the weapon in anger, and pulling the trigger. The person selling the gun shouldn't care what the end user is going to do, other than warn them that they're buying something dangerous. The person making the gun should not be held responsible. The ACT of committing a crime comes from actually committing a crime.
If copyright is moral, and valid, then the person doing the copying should be found guilty. Hosting a torrent is not hosting a file.
If you vote, please vote against retention on every position. Judges need to be kicked out as quick as they're voted in. Vote against incumbents who enforce the law, too (police chief, etc). There's no reason to keep anyone in office long enough to abuse power. All these judges are just power-hungry. They can't understand that copyright is protected by the artist, only against someone else copying the art.
I wish that was the case. The co-op I founded is focused not as a business, but as a co-operative. We only work for churches (and some ministries), and we act like we were just a part of the church. We're an all volunteer staff (no payroll) and the only cost the churches pay are the cost of ink and paper. Maintenance and hardware is paid for by me (out of my real business profits). So most of our cost is to ink.
Why do we buy small amounts? Churches are notorious for paying late. As of today, we have $22,000 in payments over 60 days. And this is at cost. We also do offset press work, also at paper+ink cost. If the churches would pay on time, we'd be able to buy larger quantites and pass the savings on. As it is, that particular market is terrible.
The other big problem with buying larger quantities is storage. Ink sitting in storage costs money (rent of space, utilities to keep humidity and temperature controlled), plus there are added inventory problems. We maintain about 20 printers now (other than the offset). Large format, small format, laser large (13"x19") and one old Versatec (basically a HUGE laser, drums are around 40" long). Trying to keep inventory of ink can be a real pain, but I am working on downsizing our equipment to something standard over the next 36 months. We're moving to all Xerox in terms of laser, and all Epson in small format inkjet, until desktop eco-solvent inks take over (hopefully, soon, dye and pigment inks are idiotic). In terms of large format, we've already ordered a massively big eco-solvent (136" wide) printer, and they already offer 5 gallon drums of the ink, so we're set there.
Lastly, the smallest problem is life of ink. I don't believe that ink itself has a life, as long as you're not concerned about Pantone color charts and exacting calibrations (at our price, they can go pay 4-600% more for that stuff professionally done). But inkjet heads DO fail if they're not installed "soon" although they do tend to last 2-3x their EOL date on the box if sealed.