The principle of pragmatism. Do what gets results. If it happens to be a relatively right wing notion involving setting up a market for competition, fine. If regulation of that market is necessary to prevent abuse, fine as well.
If a market isn't appropriate because there is no financial incentive for something to occur and yet that action brings benefits to society substantially in excess of the required investment, then do it through a government funded program.
Moderates choose to balance individual rights with societal benefits rather than completely stressing one over the other, and various preferences for finding a balance exist.
Moderates accept that not only do the ends not justify the means, but that ideologically-justified "means" are useless or counter-productive if they can never achieve the desired ends.
For an example of ideologically-justified means, see Prohibition and its current equivalent.
For a left wing example, the communist manifesto of one party and "to each according to his needs and from each according to their ability to provide" completely ignores fundamental facets of human nature that make such an organization at best an easily perturbed metastable state.
Moderates are definitionally people who have no principles.
What a load of crap. definition of moderate or
another
Moderates are "definitionally" people whose views and principles aren't extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean they have no principles. Now, some "moderate" politicians may fit your definition because they're trying to make the most people happy to get elected, but it's not at all impossible to be moderate and principled. Your argument is one promoted by the extremists who want to make themselves appear palatable when their positions aren't.
I think you're confusing folks who aren't on one end of the artificial and absurd left-right scale with people who are always equivocating on policy.
No, you are. And being one of the former, I take offense at being lumped in with the latter.
I suspect the efficiency of this tool would be much reduced in say Miami or LA in the middle of the summer, when anybody coming in late for their flight is going to be hot, sweaty, anxious (at potentially missing their flights), and with high body heat, pulse and breathing. Parents stressed keeping track of 3 or more kids. What, you think terrorists aren't going to be willing to sacrifice 3 kids when some are raised from an early age to admire suicide bombers?
But frankly it would be easier to just have somebody sabotage the A/C in any East Coast or Southern airport during the middle of the summer and nearly everybody would be triggering this thing because of the heat/humidity and the resulting stress. Can you imagine having to shut down multiple airport because their A/C was sabotaged? And if they didn't shut down the airports, then the terrorists could sneak a whole bunch of people onto planes through a system that was reliant on this tool.
The fact is, software businesses are easy to make when you keep the source to yourself. Most smart guys can bring in 1m + per year easily with a decent product selling to enterprise. Why would you open source it if you then had to sell services? Who wants to do that for the rest of your life, rather than doing little for the money + selling services. I can't understand why you don't get it. And I think it's open source in general!
Oh we totally get it, but we look at it from the point of view of the consumer/client corporation. Slavery and indentured servitude look great from the point of view of the slaveowners/indenture contact owners, but it shouldn't be surprising that a regular fee-for-labour contract is more appealing to the servants if they can get a choice. In the software industry, possibly more than any other industry, vendors try to lock customers to their products in a form of servitude and rent-payment. Any reasonably competent manager of a customer firm should avoid those terms if any competitive and non-binding alternatives exist.
They have the visibility, reputation, and deep pockets to survive a monopolistic battle with e-Bay, and it would give them
a) a portal for ad space
b) a key venue for an entry into the financial transactions sector
Microsoft is looking for a) and was trying to get into b) a few years back with their whole MS wallet deal. Back then it wasn't the time or the place (and their initial implementations had sucky security, surprise, surprise). But as eBay/Paypal try to rake more from their current users and alienate them, it opens doors that were closed.
Google Auctions and Google [Micropayments|Bank] would probably give Steve B. a heart attack.
I would like to also say "Apple Auctions", optionally bundled with iTunes music store, but that's unlikely since it doesn't fit with Apple's corporate image of providing premium value through design and quality.
"I will randomly pack a few valueable items into one of 500 lots of near worthless items" buy a lot of lots and hope you get lucky!
Dang! That's the solution to the credit crisis! Sell all those mortgage bonds on eBay where there's already a lot of suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heager customers for that type of product.
Well, this "parody" page sounds like a case of cyber bullying to me, rather than somebody whistle blowing on the principal's pecadillos (which if it were the case, would be properly handled with, at worst, an anonymous phone call to the local police), or a legitimate parody page. A legitimate parody page would be comparing an overbearing principal to a Dilbert PHB, or a micromanaging boss from The Office. Parody exaggerates behavior. I think a lot of judges would agree that implying career-ending criminal behavior, even in a so-called "parody", crosses the line from parody to libel if there is no evidence to back that implication.
If this was a case of cyber-bullying, then the student or some of their acquaintances could have a pre-existing pattern of cyber-bullying other students and school faculty which may have managed to fly under the radar until now. That kind of pattern would make it easier to establish malice.
Anyways, I would hope that if a principal finds out that a student is beating up other students for lunch money - even if it happens off school grounds - that the perpetrator could still be suspended. i.e. actions off school campus that have significant operational repercussions on the school campus are still within the purview of school discipline. I don't see cyber-bullying as significantly different and I sure as heck don't believe it should be covered by "freedom of speech". The funny thing is that the global nature of the internet changes things. If there's a single student or faculty staff that has a smart phone with data/internet connection that can display the web page while on school grounds, then it's arguable the speech is taking place on school grounds and subject to school disciplinary action.
Personally I think the principal should have counter-sued with a defamation of character lawsuit and then offered to drop it in a settlement if the student was willing to drop his challenge to the school suspension and pay court costs for the principal and school board.
the offending site may be disrespectful, immature, bigoted, and distasteful, but it does not warrant censorship or punitive actions since it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights or pose a threat to the principle, the school, or the community.
Now, that's where your reasoning breaks down. If the principal is guilty of the acts the parody accuses him of, then hopefully he'll be investigated and sufficient evidence will be gathered to charge and convict him. Breach of trust if nothing else since it's inappropriate for a teacher or principal to make sexual advances to people under their authority.
But if he's not guilty, then the student has damaged he principal's reputation. Some people will automatically assume that where there's smoke, there's fire. For somebody in the education community, that kind of accusation can be career-ending. So yeah, it certainly encroaches on somebody's rights and on the proper functioning of the school
Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of harming others through that speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, yadda, yadda.
Yeah, it doesn't make too much sense to me either.
Maybe since the engine would have to be running anyways, it would need to overcome the piston momentum and the friction forces in the engine. The engine braking drives the gas compression so that, instead of working to keep the pistons idling, the transmission picks up that load and the computer adjusts the fuel mixture accordingly and you burn less? But since you're downshifting, initially the engine is going to rev higher, which I think would more than offset that.
Engine braking saves wear and tear on the brakes, especially on long hills, possibly at the expense of more wear and tear on the clutch/transmission. But I've never hear of it as improving fuel consumption.
My friend Bill said that the first time he and a friend went to see the original Die Hard, at an early point in the movie where the Mercedes Benz is first seen spotted aggressively changing lanes in traffic, he and his friend looked at each other and said "Germans."
A few weeks ago I saw a Mercedes Benz drive across the Burrard Street bridge in a similar aggressive manner. So in a joking reference (because we live in Vancouver where Mercedes-driving Asians are much more common) I told my wife "an Asian who thinks they're German". But sure enough, when we got to the light at the end of the bridge, the driver was a female Caucasian with, uhm, Teutonic facial bone structure.
Gnash your teeth. Gnash doesn't work for web sites that test for and require the absolute latest Flash release, but it seems to work well enough for YouTube. It's what I'm using at home with Firefox on Ubuntu Hardy.
Isn't that why ID is repeatedly accused of not being science--it produces no testably distinguishable results from "evolution unguided"
No. ID is repeatedly accused of not being science because it proposes an (unnecessary) supernatural actor, where the existence of that supernatural actor can be neither proven nor unproven.
My personal opinion why, even if you were willing to posit the possibility of a supernatural actor, ID is a non-starter?
Evolution says that organisms will incrementally develop features and characteristics that make them more successful in their environment, as a result of natural selection (until the environment changes unfavourably and they either adapt or perish). There is no reason for ID's supernatural actor to have such a constraint in the genetic manipulations it "makes". For instance, you would think that with all the tween and older females who think cats (and kittens) with wings are a neat (kawaii!!) concept, that ID's creator might have arranged it, but there seems to be none either in the fossil record or walking around. Generally, apart for the really really old stuff, everything we have found in the fossil record has an identifiable probable ancestor.
It doesn't make sense to me that an "intelligent designer" would limit himself to changes in a simple hierarchy instead of playing around with multiple inheritance. If an ID designer understands enough about genetic design to do one, he should be able to do the other. And yet we don't find large-scale de-novo chimaeras (small exchanges of DNA/genes in bacteria can be explained by retro-virus activity). Even organisms like the platypus have a traceable ancestry that can be explained through parallel evolution.
So ID isn't just non-science, it's nonsensical.
Eh don't hate artists because of him. Apart for some egotists like the guy from Metallica, artists generally want their art to be experienced and appreciated by as many people as possible and are happy to just make a healthy living at it (i.e put food on the table and a roof over their head). The GP is probably a shill for either the RIAA, MPAA, GOP, or CPoC (Conservative Party of Canada) trying to astroturf to support the party line.
Most artists are OK, It's the bottom feeders that rip everyone off by creating artificial scarcity that you need to be angry with.
A bunch of administrative scripts in Redhat are written in perl and python. Don't know if it's still the case, but a few years ago, it used to be that if your upgraded to the version from the next major release, some of them would break. So you could live with the current state of things, or you could rev the O/S.
It's called stability through configuration management. Sometimes it's a bit frustrating, but in 99% of cases, it's a win.
Given that after 9/11 polls showed many (the majority?) Americans were indifferent at best about terrorist suspects being tortured I'm not sure how well Obama could counter such an ad.
I would be interested in seeing these poll results since
Most interrogation experts criticize torture as ineffective because the information that is extracted is unreliable
A number of interrogation experts were quite vocal about the previous point to whover would be willing to listen
The whole point of the Fox show 24 was to sell torture to USA citizens as a valid tool against terrorism using hypothetical "in-extremis" situations
The prisoner mistreatment and torture that was performed at Abu-Ghraib caused a huge scandal and was widely unpopular (not just worldwide but in the states as well), to the extent that the administration disavowed responsibility and blamed it on "bad apples"
Your claims don't seem to match events, so unless you can point to actual poll results, your claim sounds like the usual GOP apologist and revisionist whitewash to me. Now if that was a typo and you meant GOP pols., I'll believe you.
Criminal blame won't make a difference unless it automatically applies at the top corporate level. Otherwise, lower-level grunts will be served up as sacrificial lambs.
The only method that can be used to justify to management having appropriate security expenditure is to attach a solid price tag to bad security practices to offset the price tag of good practices. That means large and immediate monetary penalties for loss of information (indexed for inflation of course). That way management won't decide to risk fighting any class-action lawsuits for 10 years until they can retire, leaving their successors to deal with the mess.
If you can lay out to management "You have 100,000 accounts, and a security breach is going to cost you $X and your current practices have a high chance of a security breach in the next few years", it's a lot more concrete than if I talk about the historic average cost of security breaches in unrelated industries (based on contacting stakeholders, PR, etc., after a breach). Put a solid price tag on it and companies will either adjust, or go under faster and prevent further loss of client information due to continued poor practices.
Well, that happens when every time somebody tries place a legal framework to protect people from abuse, everybody complains about not wanting a nanny state. Ironically enough, it's usually the same people who complain about a nanny state and over-regulation who also demand tort-reform and want to limit lawsuits.
Now some of them are genuine entrepreneurs who are frustrated with red-tape and the high cost of liability insurance. But you just have to look at the history of corporatism to realize that a good proportion are the psychopaths who want to have a free rein to screw over suckers^H^H^H^H^H^Htheir fellow man. Most other developed countries have realized that but the US seems to keep on needing to re-learn that every generation.
Well, it's all based on actuarial categories, so elderly card players fall into one of two actuarial categories: elderly meetings, and card players. With the possible involvement of loan sharks and people being under stress from risking large amounts of money, card games are probably a fairly high risk actuarial category. And old people are more prone to accidents when meeting in unfamiliar surroundings (bad eyesight, poor muscle strength and coordination). Sure, because they are sitting instead of moving about, the biggest risk for those elderly card players is probably a card paper cut, but the activity falls under the same category.
I was involved with a WCS dance club executive. When we held dances, our liability insurance was very high. Even though WCS is a very grounded dance and our dances were dry, we probably got put in the same actuarial category as (liquor-)licensed university student dances and open bar wedding receptions.
In both cases, there really isn't enough demand for that type of activity to warrant its own actuarial category so the organizers get screwed by being placed in a category with much higher average risk.
Best solution: you place an invalid (but valid looking) name in the first position so that those people stupid enough to vote for an invalid randomly generated name don't have their votes count. Now if that name actually wins, that's tough. As a fall back plan, I would say fake a news report of the assassination or plane crash of the fake Pres/VP and say you have to redo the election. Or give it to the speaker of the House since at least s/he managed to get elected.
Many Catholics have left the Church and then cited their morals as being different - explicitly so.
Sure, but many lapsed Catholics still have a personal set of morals which is largely based on the Judeo-Christian tradition found in the Bible. Even if they reject certain tenets of Catholicism on things like abortion, ordained women, homosexuality, etc. they still believe in heaven, hell, Jesus, etc. There are some who completely reject the Judeo-Christian faiths and become atheists, agnostics, or Deists, and turn to secular humanism. But many just reject the authority of Rome or their local priest (or preacher/rabbi/mullah etc. for other denominations) and specific policy decisions handed down by the papal office and work out their own interpretation of the Bible. Those "heretics" in effect are still using a set of rules created by an oligarchy, that of the early church leaders who decided which gospels made it into the official version, even if they perform their own customized interpretation and filtering on the results.
Thus I would say that I disagree with your affirmation.
The root is in the emotions, not the source.
Often the source remains the same, the only difference is that some people notice the more egregious portions of the self-interested additions supported by the oligarchy and reject those because they find them inconsistent with the changing environment. But the same people will still continue to accept the less extreme inconsistencies in the moral system that they have been indoctrinated with. The emotions arise after noticing the inconsistency, even if the process of noticing happens subconsciously. The emotions come from the internal conflict between the recognition of the inconsistency and the denial of that recognition by the "moral" conditioning.
If your morals are strongly influenced or based on your community's, and the largest portion of that community follows the precept of a particular religious leader or group, then your "morals" are still religiously based, even if it's secondhand. If your morals are derived from philosophical examination of base principles, like secular humanism for instance, then I would argue that what you have is an ethical system, not a moral one. So while you may not have influence in imposing your morals, this I think supports my argument that some people have no problems imposing their morals on others if they can convince enough people to adopt their moral system.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be part of your moral system. One dictionary definition is:
"Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong"
Now to me, most of those "standards of right and wrong" are based on religious sources. Ethical decisions are more nuanced because they can vary based on the individual situations and participants, and the probable outcomes for participants from behaviours and actions. They tend to coincide on many issues like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" because the negative outcomes are very consistent across the majority of situations.
However they can diverge in some situations when conditions have changed due to modern capabilities such as prophylactics and contraceptives, statistical social science studies tracking the relative development of wanted and unwanted children, and the force projection and kill ratios of nuclear warfare.
Then why is it considered by many for sex between two men to be immoral? The ancient Greeks had no problem with it.
That specific morality "for many" is based on a 2000+ year old religious text in its various incarnations used by Abrahamaic religions and on other religious beliefs. That ancient Greeks, who practiced a different religious system of beliefs before being conquered by Rome, strengthens the argument that the bias is a religiously-based moralistic choice rather than an ethical one.
There are no ethical reasons against same sex relationships. However, due to the higher risk of STD transmission, there are ethical reasons against unprotexted sex with multiple partners (as with hetero sexual sex, but higher due to the higher risk of disease transmission in anal sex).
It used to be unethical to practice usury, now thats the standard.
It depends on your definition of usury.
Not everybody is happy with the payday loan people and loan sharking is still not legal. The "any interest is proscribed usury" definition tends to be the religious moral one. The ethical one is that some expectation of interest for the loaning of capital to begin new projects is acceptable, but that the expected return must be proportional to the risk and should not result in de-facto indentured servitude for the lendee.
Generally I would have to say that ethics are derived based on an expectation of fairness and balance between individual and societal needs.
Morality claims to be the same thing - and often coincides - but is imposed by a religious oligarchy who may include their self-interest foremost.
The first rule of computer security is that you don't trust everyone else to be good guys that follow the rules. The second rule of computer security is that some of the people who are inside your organization's primary defense perimeter may be or become untrustworthy.
I think it's funny that it's a reporter for an IT focused paper, not a more general newswire like AP or Reuters, who had their passwords sniffed.
Slashdot Mirror
The principle of pragmatism. Do what gets results. If it happens to be a relatively right wing notion involving setting up a market for competition, fine. If regulation of that market is necessary to prevent abuse, fine as well.
If a market isn't appropriate because there is no financial incentive for something to occur and yet that action brings benefits to society substantially in excess of the required investment, then do it through a government funded program.
Moderates choose to balance individual rights with societal benefits rather than completely stressing one over the other, and various preferences for finding a balance exist.
Moderates accept that not only do the ends not justify the means, but that ideologically-justified "means" are useless or counter-productive if they can never achieve the desired ends.
For an example of ideologically-justified means, see Prohibition and its current equivalent.
For a left wing example, the communist manifesto of one party and "to each according to his needs and from each according to their ability to provide" completely ignores fundamental facets of human nature that make such an organization at best an easily perturbed metastable state.
What a load of crap. definition of moderate or another Moderates are "definitionally" people whose views and principles aren't extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean they have no principles. Now, some "moderate" politicians may fit your definition because they're trying to make the most people happy to get elected, but it's not at all impossible to be moderate and principled. Your argument is one promoted by the extremists who want to make themselves appear palatable when their positions aren't.
No, you are. And being one of the former, I take offense at being lumped in with the latter.
I suspect the efficiency of this tool would be much reduced in say Miami or LA in the middle of the summer, when anybody coming in late for their flight is going to be hot, sweaty, anxious (at potentially missing their flights), and with high body heat, pulse and breathing. Parents stressed keeping track of 3 or more kids. What, you think terrorists aren't going to be willing to sacrifice 3 kids when some are raised from an early age to admire suicide bombers?
But frankly it would be easier to just have somebody sabotage the A/C in any East Coast or Southern airport during the middle of the summer and nearly everybody would be triggering this thing because of the heat/humidity and the resulting stress. Can you imagine having to shut down multiple airport because their A/C was sabotaged? And if they didn't shut down the airports, then the terrorists could sneak a whole bunch of people onto planes through a system that was reliant on this tool.
What a waste of money.
Oh we totally get it, but we look at it from the point of view of the consumer/client corporation. Slavery and indentured servitude look great from the point of view of the slaveowners/indenture contact owners, but it shouldn't be surprising that a regular fee-for-labour contract is more appealing to the servants if they can get a choice. In the software industry, possibly more than any other industry, vendors try to lock customers to their products in a form of servitude and rent-payment. Any reasonably competent manager of a customer firm should avoid those terms if any competitive and non-binding alternatives exist.
Microsoft Auctions. Or Google Auctions Beta.
They have the visibility, reputation, and deep pockets to survive a monopolistic battle with e-Bay, and it would give them
a) a portal for ad space
b) a key venue for an entry into the financial transactions sector
Microsoft is looking for a) and was trying to get into b) a few years back with their whole MS wallet deal. Back then it wasn't the time or the place (and their initial implementations had sucky security, surprise, surprise). But as eBay/Paypal try to rake more from their current users and alienate them, it opens doors that were closed.
Google Auctions and Google [Micropayments|Bank] would probably give Steve B. a heart attack.
I would like to also say "Apple Auctions", optionally bundled with iTunes music store, but that's unlikely since it doesn't fit with Apple's corporate image of providing premium value through design and quality.
Dang! That's the solution to the credit crisis! Sell all those mortgage bonds on eBay where there's already a lot of suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heager customers for that type of product.
Well, this "parody" page sounds like a case of cyber bullying to me, rather than somebody whistle blowing on the principal's pecadillos (which if it were the case, would be properly handled with, at worst, an anonymous phone call to the local police), or a legitimate parody page. A legitimate parody page would be comparing an overbearing principal to a Dilbert PHB, or a micromanaging boss from The Office. Parody exaggerates behavior. I think a lot of judges would agree that implying career-ending criminal behavior, even in a so-called "parody", crosses the line from parody to libel if there is no evidence to back that implication.
If this was a case of cyber-bullying, then the student or some of their acquaintances could have a pre-existing pattern of cyber-bullying other students and school faculty which may have managed to fly under the radar until now. That kind of pattern would make it easier to establish malice.
Anyways, I would hope that if a principal finds out that a student is beating up other students for lunch money - even if it happens off school grounds - that the perpetrator could still be suspended. i.e. actions off school campus that have significant operational repercussions on the school campus are still within the purview of school discipline. I don't see cyber-bullying as significantly different and I sure as heck don't believe it should be covered by "freedom of speech". The funny thing is that the global nature of the internet changes things. If there's a single student or faculty staff that has a smart phone with data/internet connection that can display the web page while on school grounds, then it's arguable the speech is taking place on school grounds and subject to school disciplinary action.
Personally I think the principal should have counter-sued with a defamation of character lawsuit and then offered to drop it in a settlement if the student was willing to drop his challenge to the school suspension and pay court costs for the principal and school board.
See and raise the whiny punk.
Now, that's where your reasoning breaks down. If the principal is guilty of the acts the parody accuses him of, then hopefully he'll be investigated and sufficient evidence will be gathered to charge and convict him. Breach of trust if nothing else since it's inappropriate for a teacher or principal to make sexual advances to people under their authority.
But if he's not guilty, then the student has damaged he principal's reputation. Some people will automatically assume that where there's smoke, there's fire. For somebody in the education community, that kind of accusation can be career-ending. So yeah, it certainly encroaches on somebody's rights and on the proper functioning of the school
Free speech does not mean freedom from the consequences of harming others through that speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater, yadda, yadda.
They are "Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall"
Yeah, it doesn't make too much sense to me either. Maybe since the engine would have to be running anyways, it would need to overcome the piston momentum and the friction forces in the engine. The engine braking drives the gas compression so that, instead of working to keep the pistons idling, the transmission picks up that load and the computer adjusts the fuel mixture accordingly and you burn less? But since you're downshifting, initially the engine is going to rev higher, which I think would more than offset that. Engine braking saves wear and tear on the brakes, especially on long hills, possibly at the expense of more wear and tear on the clutch/transmission. But I've never hear of it as improving fuel consumption.
My friend Bill said that the first time he and a friend went to see the original Die Hard, at an early point in the movie where the Mercedes Benz is first seen spotted aggressively changing lanes in traffic, he and his friend looked at each other and said "Germans." A few weeks ago I saw a Mercedes Benz drive across the Burrard Street bridge in a similar aggressive manner. So in a joking reference (because we live in Vancouver where Mercedes-driving Asians are much more common) I told my wife "an Asian who thinks they're German". But sure enough, when we got to the light at the end of the bridge, the driver was a female Caucasian with, uhm, Teutonic facial bone structure.
Gnash your teeth. Gnash doesn't work for web sites that test for and require the absolute latest Flash release, but it seems to work well enough for YouTube. It's what I'm using at home with Firefox on Ubuntu Hardy.
No. ID is repeatedly accused of not being science because it proposes an (unnecessary) supernatural actor, where the existence of that supernatural actor can be neither proven nor unproven. My personal opinion why, even if you were willing to posit the possibility of a supernatural actor, ID is a non-starter? Evolution says that organisms will incrementally develop features and characteristics that make them more successful in their environment, as a result of natural selection (until the environment changes unfavourably and they either adapt or perish). There is no reason for ID's supernatural actor to have such a constraint in the genetic manipulations it "makes". For instance, you would think that with all the tween and older females who think cats (and kittens) with wings are a neat (kawaii!!) concept, that ID's creator might have arranged it, but there seems to be none either in the fossil record or walking around. Generally, apart for the really really old stuff, everything we have found in the fossil record has an identifiable probable ancestor. It doesn't make sense to me that an "intelligent designer" would limit himself to changes in a simple hierarchy instead of playing around with multiple inheritance. If an ID designer understands enough about genetic design to do one, he should be able to do the other. And yet we don't find large-scale de-novo chimaeras (small exchanges of DNA/genes in bacteria can be explained by retro-virus activity). Even organisms like the platypus have a traceable ancestry that can be explained through parallel evolution. So ID isn't just non-science, it's nonsensical.
Eh don't hate artists because of him. Apart for some egotists like the guy from Metallica, artists generally want their art to be experienced and appreciated by as many people as possible and are happy to just make a healthy living at it (i.e put food on the table and a roof over their head). The GP is probably a shill for either the RIAA, MPAA, GOP, or CPoC (Conservative Party of Canada) trying to astroturf to support the party line.
Most artists are OK, It's the bottom feeders that rip everyone off by creating artificial scarcity that you need to be angry with.
A bunch of administrative scripts in Redhat are written in perl and python. Don't know if it's still the case, but a few years ago, it used to be that if your upgraded to the version from the next major release, some of them would break. So you could live with the current state of things, or you could rev the O/S. It's called stability through configuration management. Sometimes it's a bit frustrating, but in 99% of cases, it's a win.
I would be interested in seeing these poll results since
Your claims don't seem to match events, so unless you can point to actual poll results, your claim sounds like the usual GOP apologist and revisionist whitewash to me. Now if that was a typo and you meant GOP pols., I'll believe you.
Criminal blame won't make a difference unless it automatically applies at the top corporate level. Otherwise, lower-level grunts will be served up as sacrificial lambs. The only method that can be used to justify to management having appropriate security expenditure is to attach a solid price tag to bad security practices to offset the price tag of good practices. That means large and immediate monetary penalties for loss of information (indexed for inflation of course). That way management won't decide to risk fighting any class-action lawsuits for 10 years until they can retire, leaving their successors to deal with the mess. If you can lay out to management "You have 100,000 accounts, and a security breach is going to cost you $X and your current practices have a high chance of a security breach in the next few years", it's a lot more concrete than if I talk about the historic average cost of security breaches in unrelated industries (based on contacting stakeholders, PR, etc., after a breach). Put a solid price tag on it and companies will either adjust, or go under faster and prevent further loss of client information due to continued poor practices.
Well, that happens when every time somebody tries place a legal framework to protect people from abuse, everybody complains about not wanting a nanny state. Ironically enough, it's usually the same people who complain about a nanny state and over-regulation who also demand tort-reform and want to limit lawsuits.
Now some of them are genuine entrepreneurs who are frustrated with red-tape and the high cost of liability insurance. But you just have to look at the history of corporatism to realize that a good proportion are the psychopaths who want to have a free rein to screw over suckers^H^H^H^H^H^Htheir fellow man. Most other developed countries have realized that but the US seems to keep on needing to re-learn that every generation.
Well, it's all based on actuarial categories, so elderly card players fall into one of two actuarial categories: elderly meetings, and card players. With the possible involvement of loan sharks and people being under stress from risking large amounts of money, card games are probably a fairly high risk actuarial category. And old people are more prone to accidents when meeting in unfamiliar surroundings (bad eyesight, poor muscle strength and coordination). Sure, because they are sitting instead of moving about, the biggest risk for those elderly card players is probably a card paper cut, but the activity falls under the same category.
I was involved with a WCS dance club executive. When we held dances, our liability insurance was very high. Even though WCS is a very grounded dance and our dances were dry, we probably got put in the same actuarial category as (liquor-)licensed university student dances and open bar wedding receptions.
In both cases, there really isn't enough demand for that type of activity to warrant its own actuarial category so the organizers get screwed by being placed in a category with much higher average risk.
Best solution: you place an invalid (but valid looking) name in the first position so that those people stupid enough to vote for an invalid randomly generated name don't have their votes count. Now if that name actually wins, that's tough. As a fall back plan, I would say fake a news report of the assassination or plane crash of the fake Pres/VP and say you have to redo the election. Or give it to the speaker of the House since at least s/he managed to get elected.
Sure, but many lapsed Catholics still have a personal set of morals which is largely based on the Judeo-Christian tradition found in the Bible. Even if they reject certain tenets of Catholicism on things like abortion, ordained women, homosexuality, etc. they still believe in heaven, hell, Jesus, etc. There are some who completely reject the Judeo-Christian faiths and become atheists, agnostics, or Deists, and turn to secular humanism. But many just reject the authority of Rome or their local priest (or preacher/rabbi/mullah etc. for other denominations) and specific policy decisions handed down by the papal office and work out their own interpretation of the Bible. Those "heretics" in effect are still using a set of rules created by an oligarchy, that of the early church leaders who decided which gospels made it into the official version, even if they perform their own customized interpretation and filtering on the results. Thus I would say that I disagree with your affirmation.
Often the source remains the same, the only difference is that some people notice the more egregious portions of the self-interested additions supported by the oligarchy and reject those because they find them inconsistent with the changing environment. But the same people will still continue to accept the less extreme inconsistencies in the moral system that they have been indoctrinated with. The emotions arise after noticing the inconsistency, even if the process of noticing happens subconsciously. The emotions come from the internal conflict between the recognition of the inconsistency and the denial of that recognition by the "moral" conditioning.
If your morals are strongly influenced or based on your community's, and the largest portion of that community follows the precept of a particular religious leader or group, then your "morals" are still religiously based, even if it's secondhand. If your morals are derived from philosophical examination of base principles, like secular humanism for instance, then I would argue that what you have is an ethical system, not a moral one. So while you may not have influence in imposing your morals, this I think supports my argument that some people have no problems imposing their morals on others if they can convince enough people to adopt their moral system.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be part of your moral system. One dictionary definition is:
"Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong"
Now to me, most of those "standards of right and wrong" are based on religious sources. Ethical decisions are more nuanced because they can vary based on the individual situations and participants, and the probable outcomes for participants from behaviours and actions. They tend to coincide on many issues like "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal" because the negative outcomes are very consistent across the majority of situations.
However they can diverge in some situations when conditions have changed due to modern capabilities such as prophylactics and contraceptives, statistical social science studies tracking the relative development of wanted and unwanted children, and the force projection and kill ratios of nuclear warfare.
That specific morality "for many" is based on a 2000+ year old religious text in its various incarnations used by Abrahamaic religions and on other religious beliefs. That ancient Greeks, who practiced a different religious system of beliefs before being conquered by Rome, strengthens the argument that the bias is a religiously-based moralistic choice rather than an ethical one.
There are no ethical reasons against same sex relationships. However, due to the higher risk of STD transmission, there are ethical reasons against unprotexted sex with multiple partners (as with hetero sexual sex, but higher due to the higher risk of disease transmission in anal sex).
It depends on your definition of usury. Not everybody is happy with the payday loan people and loan sharking is still not legal. The "any interest is proscribed usury" definition tends to be the religious moral one. The ethical one is that some expectation of interest for the loaning of capital to begin new projects is acceptable, but that the expected return must be proportional to the risk and should not result in de-facto indentured servitude for the lendee.
Generally I would have to say that ethics are derived based on an expectation of fairness and balance between individual and societal needs.
Morality claims to be the same thing - and often coincides - but is imposed by a religious oligarchy who may include their self-interest foremost.
Heh! Back when I was underage, it was the drummers and not the lead singers that had a tendency to die early.
ACK THPPPT if person two is Bill the Cat.
The first rule of computer security is that you don't trust everyone else to be good guys that follow the rules. The second rule of computer security is that some of the people who are inside your organization's primary defense perimeter may be or become untrustworthy. I think it's funny that it's a reporter for an IT focused paper, not a more general newswire like AP or Reuters, who had their passwords sniffed.