Since around Dec 7, 2000, (the date I installed Spamassassin [a really great spam-catcher I must say!] on my mail server) I have received around 650 spam messages.
By the way, spamassassin is really really good. I have not had any mail that was personal get flagged as spam, (only a few list-serv messages) and out of all those spams, about 5, certainly less than 10 spam messages actually made it through without being flagged as spam!
If you get a chance, try spamassassin. It uses razor, and many of the RBL lists, as well as key-words. Plus it's really configurable, to match your prefs.
I'm probably going to install spamassassin on several of my clients mail servers to block spam site-wide.
They clearly do damage. I don't actually know what they do to humans, but they certainly damage some animals!
Sure, the tort system does some odd things sometimes. But that's the price of making a market economy work. Frankly, I think that the tort system works lots better than people think. But, since you always hear about the horror stories, you don't think it works at all.
Think McDonalds and the famous coffee case. From what I can tell, McDonalds was serving Coffee at like 150-160 degrees F. No one can drink it anywhere near that hot, so there's simply reason to serve it that hot. They were repeatedly warned. They then scalded a lady, who sued to recover a portion of her medical costs. McDonalds flat refused. When the jury heard all this, they really didn't like McD's and screwed them. - But what we hear, is some stupid lady spilled hot coffee and burned herself, and then won x millions for her stupidity. It isn't a true reflection of the case!
Asbestos, probably was known by the manufactureres to cause serious problems. But they tried to supress any evidence that there was any problem. When you get to court, and seem to be hiding things, and trying your best to keep the good guy down, the jury suspects something. Then, you may lose even though you shouldn't. That's too bad, but you get what you give. If you're evasive and sharp in all your dealings, you're going to get it back someday.
I don't think we really know about Agent Orange. There hasn't been any really clear studies that came to any real conclusion that I'm aware of...but that said, not knowing, and knowing that it's not ARE NOT THE SAME!
I would agree that the lawyers in class action suits generally abuse the class. But what to do? I don't generally see companies being victimized by the suits. I much more often see the victims being victimized. Lets take a class action suit. The Iomega suit. I a portion of the class get to take $25 off the price of my next purchase - of a crappy Iomega product. The company really didn't suffer all that much from their crap drives. The lawers made out, and I didn't get much. (The coupon is valid on Wednesdays from 8:00-8:03a only if you sacrifice the chicken before the goat etc.)
Anyway, I don't see that many cases of suits gone awry, at least in terms of percentages. Sure there are some horror stories, but most are reasonable. I would venture to say, that many people who should be able to utilize the courts are not able to, because of massive disparities in economic status.
So, would you rather the government regulate in a big way, or accept the court system to help the market do the regulation.
You can't have it both ways - A market system, instead of government, AND no court system.
The market is a trial and error marketplace. When a product fails, the market will see the failure - hopefully - and the better product will win. But who compensates those that bought the failure? If you believe in the market system, I think you ought to believe even more in the courts. The courts will make the market system even more effective.
Perhaps you only have a problem with excessive product liability lawsuits? (Frankly, it seems that many more lawsuits are filed by business against business...sot the whole "product liability lawsuit as a problem" thing really seems to lose it's bloom.)
I know that several others have mentioned it, but here's a bit different take.
We all know that when you release DNA modified foods (IE Monsanto et al) you only have to show that no one can prove it causes catestrophic damage. (I know, I'm simplifiying it alot, but that's the general standing.) Since there aren't any really well funded opponents to the technology, then it pretty much sails through. The general rule seems to be...If it's for business, we don't want to hold this up, cause it might cost someone a lot of money. If it might harm someone - well, the market will fix things...
Which brings me to another issue - why do the "market driven" proponents hate the tort/legal system so much? When the system works right, the "market" determines what works by trial and error! So, if you're one of the unfortunate few to pick the wrong one, you're injured (loss of funds, health etc.) and others learn from your unfortunate mistake. It's the ones injured by the "market" process that need the legal system the most, and also the ones that deserve it the most too! So, if you love the market, then you really should love the legal system too. It's the only way a true market can be fair - or do you not care that those who you "learned" from are uncompensated Guinea Pigs?
Back to the issue at hand - what serious tests are the FDA going to require for something like this? How long will the test run? I'd hate to use a product like this, and find out in ten years that my right eye was irreparably damaged, and in my later years of life I'd loose vision from that eye! I'd bet that the requirements for testing and use are quite a bit less than we'd all assume. Lastly, I'd bet that any company that releases such a device will put the manufacturer and the seller in a shell corp, to limit the liability losses. They won't hold many assets, and will pass revenue and such to the parent. 15 years from now, provided there is some problem, good luck suing the company - they just paid out huge bonuses to the execs and went out of business.
If you think the above is poppy-cock, go do some research about the IUD Dalcon Shield. The manufacturer (who was really regulated by the FDA) got a horrible product into the market, and didn't care when it irreparably damaged many many women - many couldn't have children after their problems!
The idea's cool and all, but the real killers are in the details. How much testing is done. Who peer reviews it. How often must they report problems to the FDA, and what problems do they have to report? These and many other details will significantly impact the safety of the device. Finally, what legal liability the company might risk, will also impact how informal they are with the testing and implimentation.
I wouldn't be using the product myself for any period of time, until I understood the impacts of the following, and knew where the company stood.
Yeah, I know...I used to be in IS, and we did get all the goodies. Part of the perks of being IS, but it isn't fair either. I can guarantee that virtually all these IT joes will get a pass on the filtering etc.
It's not good, and it really helps IT to understand what everyone else suffers, to eat your own dogfood, but that generally won't happen.
Ok, it looks like the editors (read MODERATORS) have been modding once again.
Well, cheers!
Mr Editor...slashdot will take care of itself mostly - it would be wise to either quit moderating, but if you insist, then allow yourselves to me MetaModerated.
Where do you think they got the nukes in the first place.
I'd bet that the know-how came from the US, either directly or indirectly. What to do about it now...who knows, but IMHO the US put Israel where it is now, and we've CAUSED many of the problems in the region today.
I think I heard a bit about this on NPR on Friday - it sounds very interesting.
The first step to systematically destroying your enemy, is to de-humanize him. As soon as you don't see him/her as a "real" person, but someone EVIL/Different/Stupid/UnWorthy etc, it's really easy to kill or destroy them. The opposite is also true. As soon as you have to kill your enemy and you see him as brother/mother/sister/wife, then you have a much harder time overcoming the natural compassion we all have.
Hopefully both sides can come to see each other as human, as one who deserves compassion. Then we might see a change.
In other news, Canada executed a nuclear attack on a new Oligopoly Redmondia. Rumors have it that the anti-ballastic defences were controlled by Windows, and expierenced a serious plug and play problem just before launch.
Well, I think what the poster wants to point out, is that in a numerical sense, the palestinians are much worse off. I think they're getting the shaft in lots of other ways too...
For every Isreali that dies, something like 4 palestinians die.
Both sides are acting like kids in a sandbox - "You hit me first!" "No you did." "Make him stop first" etc.
Frankly, I think we (the US) should take our millitary aid, and leave the Israelies to duke it out with sticks and rocks - just like the palestinians. (But we won't because that would destabilize the region, and cheap oil would vanish - I don't think we care a bit about the Israelis at all...) Then, it might actually make both sides stop and think about how neither would be able to win. Finally they might grow tired of fighting endlessly, and actually learn to live together. Right now, both sides are the bad guys. Killing isn't the solution. Unfortunatly, I don't know what is, I just have some ideas.
Perhaps I'm niave, but it sure looks to me as if the US is prolonging the problem, and doesn't care, because it hasn't threatened our supply of oil yet.
Witness Oregon - we've passed (TWICE) a death with dignity act. It allows terminally ill residents to request from a doctor (with a 2nd opinion, and only if the physician feels the person making the request isn't mentally unstable) a lethal perscription when they have 6 months or less to live.
Republicans are very wary of pissing off their right wing so called "religous" base.
[I digress madly here, so if you want the short version, skip the next section!] I say so called, because their religeon as far as I can tell, is trying to get the state to "improve" the morality of its' citizens. [Before you get all foamy at the mouth, I am a conservative protestant abstraction too.] What's so utterly absurd about this, is that people choose to take the steps to a higher spiritual morality - the state doesn't influence anything. Harranging your citizens or outlawing what you see as immoral behavior won't improve the spiritual lives of those around you. A spiritual experience is what I choose FOR MYSELF - no one can "help" me choose it. The only encouragement that I can see that might be appropriate, is that of a close friend, of whom I ASK about spiritual issues. Notice that this is MY CHOICE to investigate spiritual avenues. [End of wild digression! Sorry...]
I just wish the Republican party would slink back to being a conservative economic policy group, that generally supports a laise fair policy. Get out of the religous/moral stuff - it's not doing you or the country any good. Plus, it just gets us more and more Rep candidates that are extreme, because they're the only ones who get through the primaries.
Anyhow, I'll cease ranting, but it generally seems that both parties will take whatever stance they want, as long as it's convienient at the time.
The professionalism and training of real law enforcement officers is far beyond what you'd find with security guards. Well, I'm not too impressed with the police forces of our nation - trained they generally are - professional? only some - and the bad ones taint the whole force. (Not to mention, it seems the good cops never want to hunt down the bad ones, and end up protecting them - to their own detriment.)
That said, the rent-a-cop's are lots worse, though we don't usually have the rent-a-cops shooting mentally ill people because they were a "threat" to the officer!
Frankly, it seems to really hinge on staff at the top that want results. Look at the post-office. In all my dealings with them in the last 15 years or so, it's gotten lots better. I believe that this is largely because of an individual at or near the top that wants the job done right. He demands good performance from those directly under him, and they do the same, and so on until you reach the employees at the bottom. It's a law I follow - see crap at the employee level? Give the company one chance to fix it. If you don't get much response, you can be sure it's straight from the top. Find another vendor...
Well wait and see how the new airport security works. With Herr Ashcroft at the helm, I'm worried about how things will work. There doesn't seem to be a bunch of accountability in any of the justice department arms, and I suspect there will be little here too. (On a side note, it's funny how we keep giving law enforcement more and more power - but never seem to add the responsibility to go with it. I.E. You get additional powers for wire-tap (pen and trace) but if we find you used it wrong, you loose your job, and you'll never work in law enforcement in the US again - ANYWHERE! Until the consequenses of bad behavior cost the people who do it heavily, we'll continue to see law-enforecement abuse. Heck, if I could get away with it, I'd probably be guilty too...)
I think that far and away, when the security responsibility and cost lies with the airlines, the temptation is too strong...
When the Gvmt runs the security program, but it's paid for by the airlines, then the tendency to go real cheap isn't there.
This is an area that the airlines have shown themselves to be unworthy. Will the Gvmt do better? Time will tell.
The result may be no better, but at least the conflict of interest isn't there.
You and I are both jaded - I find the whole political (rep and dems) to be TOTALLY SCUMMY and the hope I used to have that the small guy might get a break has been totally lost.
No, when they get Federalized, we HOPE that the end result isn't the winner of the cheapest bid.
The airlines want cheap security. So, you get cheap workers. As long as the airlines are doing the work, and paying the wages, the pressure is to keep wages down. Low wages, poor workers, high turn-over (You know that turn-over was really high 100%+ for airline security staff last year don't you?)
See Pay is low, and turnover high-- 500% at one airport-- and their training is often minimal. Federal inspectors have repeatedly been able to easily get weapons and potential bombs past them. (This is from a PBS study done before 9/11/2000)
The old security system was a race to the bottom. Airlines didn't really care about security. They just wanted us to feel better.
The new system might not be better, but for different reasons. Personally, I think it will be, but that's just my opinion.
The personnel they can command will be better, and the ability to fire workers that don't perform will be better. Generally, treat your workforce better - get better performance.
As a matter of fact, I'll bet you're a COMMUNIST PINKO who uses GPL software TOO HUH! I'm Dictator for Life Gates (Used to be General Gates, till I bought the presidency like Jeb's brother - but rather prefer the new title - President has such a limp ring to it!) and I don't want to hear that you're threatening the very economy by not consuming, and giving away things free! I mean, where would cappitalism be if I couldn't force you to work for me for a pittance, take your works, and make millions - not to mention what I can do to the consumers too!
You're going to destroy capitalism!
I'll even bet you complained about the DMCA too didn't you?!?! And the All American (TM) RIAA, and the Apple Pie (TM) MPAA! Did you know you're EVIL - we have ways to deal with you!a
I'll just have to call in my thought policeman Herr Ashcroft and make sure that you're properly programmed. (That's part of that wonderful "for-the-children" legislation SSSCA - I mean I have to protect my IP, so you're required to be programmed to "respect" my IP
Just stand right there, the men in black will be here shortly - resistance is futile.
The city did provide a decent location for the company to have it's offices. It had to provide schools police, etc.
You may argue that these costs are covered some other way, and I might even agree with you, but the city does provide many things for the company.
Companies (and the rest of us) want it both ways. Provide me a great place to live - no pollution, friendly people, good schools, open space, parks, recreation, low crime, chicks in thongs (oops I digress) and I don't want to pay.
These things cost money. Someone has to pay. If you live there, or have a business there, you should have to pay too.
I think this idea, though it may not be a good one is a way to help allocate costs to those that are there, even if they find a way to shift the monetary activity elsewhere.
The (IIRC antitrust) school settlement was valued by MS at over a billion dollars. Never mind that it's cost was very minimal - it was mostly software. MS complained bitterly about having to provide hardware - claiming that providing software was the same value.
I'm not sure I disagree with your point, but it does seem ironic that these same companies who oppose said taxation, use the "valuation" of their products to look good when they give it away, or have their copyright protections infringed.
It's clear that when it's to their advantage to talk about the IP as a real asset with real valuation they do. When the tax man rolls by, they rush out screaming that they couldn't possibly value said IP for tax purposes!
What hypocrites! [Sheesh!]
I do think there are some reasons to tax IP. Since we're moving to a service and knowledge base economy, then the tax laws ought to move to tax the activity. Tying tax law to physical assets rather than IP makes this quite difficult. Lastly, said companies want the government to protect their IP, but not tax it too?
This is a subject I would need to think about more, but I do believe that there would be a fair way to tax IP.
Cheers!
Re:Wasn't this already solved in the Sony case?
on
EFF Takes Bnetd Case
·
· Score: 2
That road you built, well, it doesn't check to make sure that all cars travelling on it are NOT stolen.
We're going to sue your ass because you didn't make sure that a stolen car couldn't be driven on your road.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure I have some scores well into the 30's...
I'll check...
Cheers!
Since around Dec 7, 2000, (the date I installed Spamassassin [a really great spam-catcher I must say!] on my mail server) I have received around 650 spam messages.
By the way, spamassassin is really really good. I have not had any mail that was personal get flagged as spam, (only a few list-serv messages) and out of all those spams, about 5, certainly less than 10 spam messages actually made it through without being flagged as spam!
If you get a chance, try spamassassin. It uses razor, and many of the RBL lists, as well as key-words. Plus it's really configurable, to match your prefs.
I'm probably going to install spamassassin on several of my clients mail servers to block spam site-wide.
Cheers!
Thanks!
Well said, and you're not alone in your thinking. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Thanks again!
Cheers!
PCB's harmless?
They clearly do damage. I don't actually know what they do to humans, but they certainly damage some animals!
Sure, the tort system does some odd things sometimes. But that's the price of making a market economy work. Frankly, I think that the tort system works lots better than people think. But, since you always hear about the horror stories, you don't think it works at all.
Think McDonalds and the famous coffee case. From what I can tell, McDonalds was serving Coffee at like 150-160 degrees F. No one can drink it anywhere near that hot, so there's simply reason to serve it that hot. They were repeatedly warned. They then scalded a lady, who sued to recover a portion of her medical costs. McDonalds flat refused. When the jury heard all this, they really didn't like McD's and screwed them. - But what we hear, is some stupid lady spilled hot coffee and burned herself, and then won x millions for her stupidity. It isn't a true reflection of the case!
Asbestos, probably was known by the manufactureres to cause serious problems. But they tried to supress any evidence that there was any problem. When you get to court, and seem to be hiding things, and trying your best to keep the good guy down, the jury suspects something. Then, you may lose even though you shouldn't. That's too bad, but you get what you give. If you're evasive and sharp in all your dealings, you're going to get it back someday.
I don't think we really know about Agent Orange. There hasn't been any really clear studies that came to any real conclusion that I'm aware of...but that said, not knowing, and knowing that it's not ARE NOT THE SAME!
I would agree that the lawyers in class action suits generally abuse the class. But what to do? I don't generally see companies being victimized by the suits. I much more often see the victims being victimized. Lets take a class action suit. The Iomega suit. I a portion of the class get to take $25 off the price of my next purchase - of a crappy Iomega product. The company really didn't suffer all that much from their crap drives. The lawers made out, and I didn't get much. (The coupon is valid on Wednesdays from 8:00-8:03a only if you sacrifice the chicken before the goat etc.)
Anyway, I don't see that many cases of suits gone awry, at least in terms of percentages. Sure there are some horror stories, but most are reasonable. I would venture to say, that many people who should be able to utilize the courts are not able to, because of massive disparities in economic status.
So, would you rather the government regulate in a big way, or accept the court system to help the market do the regulation.
You can't have it both ways - A market system, instead of government, AND no court system.
Government OR Market with recourse in the courts.
Cheers!
So, how do you propose to regulate the market?
Government regulation?
The market is a trial and error marketplace. When a product fails, the market will see the failure - hopefully - and the better product will win. But who compensates those that bought the failure? If you believe in the market system, I think you ought to believe even more in the courts. The courts will make the market system even more effective.
Perhaps you only have a problem with excessive product liability lawsuits? (Frankly, it seems that many more lawsuits are filed by business against business...sot the whole "product liability lawsuit as a problem" thing really seems to lose it's bloom.)
Cheers!
I know that several others have mentioned it, but here's a bit different take.
We all know that when you release DNA modified foods (IE Monsanto et al) you only have to show that no one can prove it causes catestrophic damage. (I know, I'm simplifiying it alot, but that's the general standing.) Since there aren't any really well funded opponents to the technology, then it pretty much sails through. The general rule seems to be...If it's for business, we don't want to hold this up, cause it might cost someone a lot of money. If it might harm someone - well, the market will fix things...
Which brings me to another issue - why do the "market driven" proponents hate the tort/legal system so much? When the system works right, the "market" determines what works by trial and error! So, if you're one of the unfortunate few to pick the wrong one, you're injured (loss of funds, health etc.) and others learn from your unfortunate mistake. It's the ones injured by the "market" process that need the legal system the most, and also the ones that deserve it the most too! So, if you love the market, then you really should love the legal system too. It's the only way a true market can be fair - or do you not care that those who you "learned" from are uncompensated Guinea Pigs?
Back to the issue at hand - what serious tests are the FDA going to require for something like this? How long will the test run? I'd hate to use a product like this, and find out in ten years that my right eye was irreparably damaged, and in my later years of life I'd loose vision from that eye! I'd bet that the requirements for testing and use are quite a bit less than we'd all assume. Lastly, I'd bet that any company that releases such a device will put the manufacturer and the seller in a shell corp, to limit the liability losses. They won't hold many assets, and will pass revenue and such to the parent. 15 years from now, provided there is some problem, good luck suing the company - they just paid out huge bonuses to the execs and went out of business.
If you think the above is poppy-cock, go do some research about the IUD Dalcon Shield. The manufacturer (who was really regulated by the FDA) got a horrible product into the market, and didn't care when it irreparably damaged many many women - many couldn't have children after their problems!
The idea's cool and all, but the real killers are in the details. How much testing is done. Who peer reviews it. How often must they report problems to the FDA, and what problems do they have to report? These and many other details will significantly impact the safety of the device. Finally, what legal liability the company might risk, will also impact how informal they are with the testing and implimentation.
I wouldn't be using the product myself for any period of time, until I understood the impacts of the following, and knew where the company stood.
Cheers!
Well that and Quake 3 are really needed!
Yeah, I know...I used to be in IS, and we did get all the goodies. Part of the perks of being IS, but it isn't fair either. I can guarantee that virtually all these IT joes will get a pass on the filtering etc.
It's not good, and it really helps IT to understand what everyone else suffers, to eat your own dogfood, but that generally won't happen.
Cheers!
Damn! Where do I sign up to be a h4x0r!?
:) (And I'm even married - don't tell my wife about that Linux chick!)
Cheers!
This is not a troll...
In fact, this is closely related.
The only difference seems to be that instead of one good guy, there was only one bad guy.
Cheers!
Ok, it looks like the editors (read MODERATORS) have been modding once again.
Well, cheers!
Mr Editor...slashdot will take care of itself mostly - it would be wise to either quit moderating, but if you insist, then allow yourselves to me MetaModerated.
That'll help keep things fair and reasonable.
But, I'm not holding my breath!
Cheers!
Where do you think they got the nukes in the first place.
I'd bet that the know-how came from the US, either directly or indirectly. What to do about it now...who knows, but IMHO the US put Israel where it is now, and we've CAUSED many of the problems in the region today.
Cheers!
Thanks! A voice of sanity coming out of the dark.
I think I heard a bit about this on NPR on Friday - it sounds very interesting.
The first step to systematically destroying your enemy, is to de-humanize him. As soon as you don't see him/her as a "real" person, but someone EVIL/Different/Stupid/UnWorthy etc, it's really easy to kill or destroy them. The opposite is also true. As soon as you have to kill your enemy and you see him as brother/mother/sister/wife, then you have a much harder time overcoming the natural compassion we all have.
Hopefully both sides can come to see each other as human, as one who deserves compassion. Then we might see a change.
Thanks again!
Cheers!
In other news, Canada executed a nuclear attack on a new Oligopoly Redmondia. Rumors have it that the anti-ballastic defences were controlled by Windows, and expierenced a serious plug and play problem just before launch.
Cheers!
OT again... :)
Well, I think what the poster wants to point out, is that in a numerical sense, the palestinians are much worse off. I think they're getting the shaft in lots of other ways too...
For every Isreali that dies, something like 4 palestinians die.
Both sides are acting like kids in a sandbox - "You hit me first!" "No you did." "Make him stop first" etc.
Frankly, I think we (the US) should take our millitary aid, and leave the Israelies to duke it out with sticks and rocks - just like the palestinians. (But we won't because that would destabilize the region, and cheap oil would vanish - I don't think we care a bit about the Israelis at all...) Then, it might actually make both sides stop and think about how neither would be able to win. Finally they might grow tired of fighting endlessly, and actually learn to live together. Right now, both sides are the bad guys. Killing isn't the solution. Unfortunatly, I don't know what is, I just have some ideas.
Perhaps I'm niave, but it sure looks to me as if the US is prolonging the problem, and doesn't care, because it hasn't threatened our supply of oil yet.
Cheers!
Just like Isreal (or at least Sharone) want to get rid of all palestinians.
Cheers!
Or, if it offends your base...
Witness Oregon - we've passed (TWICE) a death with dignity act. It allows terminally ill residents to request from a doctor (with a 2nd opinion, and only if the physician feels the person making the request isn't mentally unstable) a lethal perscription when they have 6 months or less to live.
Republicans are very wary of pissing off their right wing so called "religous" base.
[I digress madly here, so if you want the short version, skip the next section!]
I say so called, because their religeon as far as I can tell, is trying to get the state to "improve" the morality of its' citizens. [Before you get all foamy at the mouth, I am a conservative protestant abstraction too.] What's so utterly absurd about this, is that people choose to take the steps to a higher spiritual morality - the state doesn't influence anything. Harranging your citizens or outlawing what you see as immoral behavior won't improve the spiritual lives of those around you. A spiritual experience is what I choose FOR MYSELF - no one can "help" me choose it. The only encouragement that I can see that might be appropriate, is that of a close friend, of whom I ASK about spiritual issues. Notice that this is MY CHOICE to investigate spiritual avenues.
[End of wild digression! Sorry...]
I just wish the Republican party would slink back to being a conservative economic policy group, that generally supports a laise fair policy. Get out of the religous/moral stuff - it's not doing you or the country any good. Plus, it just gets us more and more Rep candidates that are extreme, because they're the only ones who get through the primaries.
Anyhow, I'll cease ranting, but it generally seems that both parties will take whatever stance they want, as long as it's convienient at the time.
Makes me want to spit!
Cheers!
The professionalism and training of real law enforcement officers is far beyond what you'd find with security guards.
Well, I'm not too impressed with the police forces of our nation - trained they generally are - professional? only some - and the bad ones taint the whole force. (Not to mention, it seems the good cops never want to hunt down the bad ones, and end up protecting them - to their own detriment.)
That said, the rent-a-cop's are lots worse, though we don't usually have the rent-a-cops shooting mentally ill people because they were a "threat" to the officer!
Frankly, it seems to really hinge on staff at the top that want results. Look at the post-office. In all my dealings with them in the last 15 years or so, it's gotten lots better. I believe that this is largely because of an individual at or near the top that wants the job done right. He demands good performance from those directly under him, and they do the same, and so on until you reach the employees at the bottom. It's a law I follow - see crap at the employee level? Give the company one chance to fix it. If you don't get much response, you can be sure it's straight from the top. Find another vendor...
Well wait and see how the new airport security works. With Herr Ashcroft at the helm, I'm worried about how things will work. There doesn't seem to be a bunch of accountability in any of the justice department arms, and I suspect there will be little here too. (On a side note, it's funny how we keep giving law enforcement more and more power - but never seem to add the responsibility to go with it. I.E. You get additional powers for wire-tap (pen and trace) but if we find you used it wrong, you loose your job, and you'll never work in law enforcement in the US again - ANYWHERE! Until the consequenses of bad behavior cost the people who do it heavily, we'll continue to see law-enforecement abuse. Heck, if I could get away with it, I'd probably be guilty too...)
Cheers!
I think that far and away, when the security responsibility and cost lies with the airlines, the temptation is too strong...
:)
When the Gvmt runs the security program, but it's paid for by the airlines, then the tendency to go real cheap isn't there.
This is an area that the airlines have shown themselves to be unworthy. Will the Gvmt do better? Time will tell.
The result may be no better, but at least the conflict of interest isn't there.
You and I are both jaded - I find the whole political (rep and dems) to be TOTALLY SCUMMY and the hope I used to have that the small guy might get a break has been totally lost.
[Sigh]
Cheers!
No, when they get Federalized, we HOPE that the end result isn't the winner of the cheapest bid.
The airlines want cheap security. So, you get cheap workers. As long as the airlines are doing the work, and paying the wages, the pressure is to keep wages down. Low wages, poor workers, high turn-over (You know that turn-over was really high 100%+ for airline security staff last year don't you?)
See
Pay is low, and turnover high-- 500% at one
airport-- and their training is often minimal. Federal inspectors have repeatedly been able to easily get weapons and potential bombs past them. (This is from a PBS study done before 9/11/2000)
The old security system was a race to the bottom. Airlines didn't really care about security. They just wanted us to feel better.
The new system might not be better, but for different reasons. Personally, I think it will be, but that's just my opinion.
The personnel they can command will be better, and the ability to fire workers that don't perform will be better. Generally, treat your workforce better - get better performance.
Well, you just pass all your expieremental equipment through the X-Ray machine - it shouldn't cause problems...
Sheesh - I try to avoid things that might even remotely cause problems.
This seems like a reasonable request for expieremental 1-off equipment.
Cheers!
As a matter of fact, I'll bet you're a COMMUNIST PINKO who uses GPL software TOO HUH! I'm Dictator for Life Gates (Used to be General Gates, till I bought the presidency like Jeb's brother - but rather prefer the new title - President has such a limp ring to it!) and I don't want to hear that you're threatening the very economy by not consuming, and giving away things free! I mean, where would cappitalism be if I couldn't force you to work for me for a pittance, take your works, and make millions - not to mention what I can do to the consumers too!
You're going to destroy capitalism!
I'll even bet you complained about the DMCA too didn't you?!?! And the All American (TM) RIAA, and the Apple Pie (TM) MPAA! Did you know you're EVIL - we have ways to deal with you!a
I'll just have to call in my thought policeman Herr Ashcroft and make sure that you're properly programmed. (That's part of that wonderful "for-the-children" legislation SSSCA - I mean I have to protect my IP, so you're required to be programmed to "respect" my IP
Just stand right there, the men in black will be here shortly - resistance is futile.
Cheers!
The city did provide a decent location for the company to have it's offices. It had to provide schools police, etc.
You may argue that these costs are covered some other way, and I might even agree with you, but the city does provide many things for the company.
Companies (and the rest of us) want it both ways. Provide me a great place to live - no pollution, friendly people, good schools, open space, parks, recreation, low crime, chicks in thongs (oops I digress) and I don't want to pay.
These things cost money. Someone has to pay. If you live there, or have a business there, you should have to pay too.
I think this idea, though it may not be a good one is a way to help allocate costs to those that are there, even if they find a way to shift the monetary activity elsewhere.
Cheers!
Well, Microsoft sure tries!
The (IIRC antitrust) school settlement was valued by MS at over a billion dollars. Never mind that it's cost was very minimal - it was mostly software. MS complained bitterly about having to provide hardware - claiming that providing software was the same value.
I'm not sure I disagree with your point, but it does seem ironic that these same companies who oppose said taxation, use the "valuation" of their products to look good when they give it away, or have their copyright protections infringed.
It's clear that when it's to their advantage to talk about the IP as a real asset with real valuation they do. When the tax man rolls by, they rush out screaming that they couldn't possibly value said IP for tax purposes!
What hypocrites! [Sheesh!]
I do think there are some reasons to tax IP. Since we're moving to a service and knowledge base economy, then the tax laws ought to move to tax the activity. Tying tax law to physical assets rather than IP makes this quite difficult. Lastly, said companies want the government to protect their IP, but not tax it too?
This is a subject I would need to think about more, but I do believe that there would be a fair way to tax IP.
Cheers!
That road you built, well, it doesn't check to make sure that all cars travelling on it are NOT stolen.
We're going to sue your ass because you didn't make sure that a stolen car couldn't be driven on your road.
[Sheesh Bonehead!]
Cheers!
Hey, is that what's wrong with the Taliban too?
They "performed an illegal operation"?
Damn - I KNEW there was an exlaination!
Well, if they'd just start operation Remo-M-Softo we'd have those EVIL ones in Redmond under control!
Cheers!