For the record, most traffic laws aren't designed to protect you - most are designed to protect other people from your actions.
Speeding laws? Keep bystanders from being hit when you lose control. DUI laws? Same thing. Seatbelt laws? That one's iffy, but you could argue that it's designed to keep kids safe from idiotic parents.
It's great that YOU'RE willing to take the risk someone might get away with a crime (and great that you can view it with such reckless abandon). But why should other people have to face those same risks?
There's really nothing new here except that what cops used to have to do by hand has now been automated. Not like they've changed any laws, they're just automating the enforcement of old laws. Why is that so bad?
Life does inherently contain risk, and I don't want a Homer J. Simpson making the town so safe that I can't have any fun anymore. However, I also don't want idiots running red lights because they're late for their date (whoops, Slashdot, they're late for delivering their pizza then) and running down some kid who started to walk when the white light told him to.
That's a wonderful thought, but terribly one-sided. Yes, there have been times when unions were important and useful, fighting for workers rights (when Henry Ford ordered his Pinkerton security guys to shoot the assembled laborers, for example, I believe it showed just how badly a union was needed to stand up for their rights).
However, a union is not by it's nature automatically a good thing. I saw a story not too long back how a group of kids in a Colorado school set up a volunteer project to pick up trash and clean up the area. However, a union instantly objected to this free labor, saying it was the job of their members and these well-intentioned students were taking away their work.
In another instance, the teachers union around here went on strike last fall. The school board offered them a 15 percent pay raise over the next three years (something that I, in a field I would consider to require far more skills than elementary education - IT security - can barely hope to achieve without a little job hopping). The union rejected it, eventually accepting an offer for 27 percent over three years. That seems like quite a bit more than cost of living to me - just simple greed.
Remember as well that the more an employee costs, the more the end product costs. If "everyone" is unionized, more money is being spent on direct fees as well as indirect (union dues, benefits, etc). In the end, product/service cost goes up as well... and your hypothetical everyone-is-happy society never quite materializes.
Unions are a good idea gone bad. They have their place, but I sure as hell hope its nowhere near me.
Personally, I'd rather fend for myself and not have to pay the union a major chunk of my salary like GM employees do. The job market may be rough, but I'm skilled enough and have done enough networking that finding a new job poses no real difficulty - if I don't like what my employer does, I'll find a new one.
It's bad enough that I've got the government doing what it thinks is best for me, I don't need a union doing the same.
It seems to me that using personal equipment at work is a bad idea anyway, and not really a battle you should fight. If there's a need for you to receive pages/text messages from your applications, then your employer should provide you with the equipment.
Not only is this protecting you from costs incurred by the job, but it's protecting your employer in the event that you should leave or be terminated (as you would presumably turn in your equipment, you would no longer be receiving notifications about the state of company resources blah blah blah).
Besides, given the lack of cell-phone repsonsibility demonstrated by my coworkers, I would think that banning cell phones would be conducive towards a better work environment (when a neighbor leaves his cell phone on his desk, the ringing is bad enough... but the incessant voice mail notifications can get really annoying!).
None of their residential customers should be sending email directly from a dymamic IP address.
Oh really? I do. For one, my OBSD box sends daily log files to my work address directly. Yes, I could relay the mail instead, but I don't... and I don't think there's a real good reason for me to do so.
Back on the topic, I'm glad Comcast did this. If I managed to get infected by a virus/worm/attacker, I'd want my box cut off from the 'Net too. As long as we keep making life simple for the people that do these things, we keep bending over....
I take exception to the "seems fair" label that Pudge tacked on. This is the last site I would have expected to support something like that... do you also believe that CD-Rs should cost more "in case" they are used for piracy? After all, we should be compensating Microsoft "in case" someone copies their software....
Alan LeBovidge predicted the state may eventually be able to track so much financial information on individuals that the state could complete the citizens' returns for them.
If I thought they could get it right, I'd be all about that. No more accountants, no more paperwork, just pay my freaking taxes and be done with it.
Begin hidden conservative agenda:
Of course, it'd be even easier for them to do if they implemented a flat tax across the board.:)
Anyone who's actually read about the variants of this virus, or examined an infected machine, knew as much almost a week ago. And since we're all geeks here, we've all done that, right? Where's the story?
Yeah, this is kind of troll, and I apologize. But while Slash often puts up stories I don't find interesting, they rarely put up old news!
Mod down as appropriate. This deserves no higher than a 2.
Just because webservers get "r00ted" every day doesn't mean the perpetrators shouldn't be convicted. As a matter of fact, the FBI does do what it can for Internet crimes, but the sad fact is that they only have so much manpower, and there's an awful lot of script kiddies out there who think it's cool to hate "the man" and "hack" computers.
I like hacking, myself. I also like trying to crack systems (mine, my friends, that sort of thing). I'm not skilled, but I enjoy it. But I'm not dumb (or rude) enough to try to crack a system that I don't have permission for. That's a crime that translates to the real world as vandalism, theft, or possibly worse.
If someone came by and spraypainted your car windows, would you be upset? Yah, guess what - billionaires would get upset about it too. Things like this have nothing to do with money, unless it's some childish buffoon who's jealous that s/he doesn't have as much money as his/her target.
I had a similar thought... till Star Wars Galaxies went beta. It cost me 10 bucks to enter the third beta (which I can't talk about due to NDA, so don't anyone ask). I thought long and hard, but finally decided that I was bored, it was only ten bucks, why not give it a whirl?
Now, I did my fair share of bug reporting for the short amount of time I actually played, and I was stunned when I spoke to several friends who said they have never bothered to submit a bug report on anything. They simply wanted to play the game, and didn't want to wait for it to be released. If something went wrong, well, a simple restart of the application fixed it, so why waste time reporting it?
That opened my eyes a bit. If the beta testers are just in it to have fun, what good does that do Sony? Out of a group of four of us, I was the only one who submitted bug reports.
Given that, I can understand why they charge. My friends are playing a game they're enjoying, and I think it's fair to expect them to pay for it (it does cost Sony resources to allow them into the game). Admittedly, not everyone is like that, but what percentage is?
That aside, I definitely got pissed off when I read about the first expansion. The game's not even out yet and they're already planning an expansion? Money grubbing #$@^%@s....:)
As if "more laws" was a viable solution to anything. Do you realize just how few of our laws are obeyed anyway? Or just how many millions of pages these laws cover? I don't know what you're doing, but I'm sure you're breaking the law in some form or fashion right now.
More laws is not the answer. Simpler laws would result in better enforcement and thus better protection.
I've been an Everquest player for 9 months now, give or take, and just hit the vaunted 60th level (btw, they raised the cap to 65 with the last expansion:).
Unfortunately, I see all too much of this sort of opinion while I'm in game. It blows my mind how often people will complain/whine/rant about how horrible Sony is, how terribly their class has been nerfed, how worthless the GMs are... all while still paying for this game.
I don't believe that each and everyone of you is addicted to EQ. Maybe a few of you are (if so, your problem isn't caused by Sony - as stated by someone else, you simply latched on to their product as an outlet for your psychological problems), but most people probably enjoy the game. I know I do. Sure, I get burned out sometimes (I recommend taking a break from it - hell of a cure), but when I start playing it again, I *like* it. And for those of you whom this article is trying to scare away - what the hell, try it before you judge it. If you don't like it, don't give them anymore of your money!:-)
As for Sony not listening to customer feedback... well, firstly there have been many instances when they have. Look over some of the much maligned Absor's posts in the past - he'll occasionally point out this or that feature that was implemented by popular request. Unfortunately, though, many of us make unreasonable requests, whether we think them to be or not. Sure, we necroes would love a resurrection spell that doesn't require essence emeralds - but such a spell would likely change the dynamics of the game in a drastic way. Making one class more powerful makes the rest less so by comparison, at which point you have more angry customers. Therefore, I've got no objections to Sony being VERY selective in which suggestions they implement.
I can understand part of the intent of this article (warning away possible addicts) even if I don't agree with it. But there was just way too much corporate-america bashing (as is, unfortunately, very common on this otherwise excellent site) for my taste. Quit blaming the company - if you don't like the game, stop.
Personally, I spent many a long hour playing Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, TradeWars, and a host of other games to ever malign EQ for being a timesink.
It's things like this that make me a Microsoft man! I run Internet Explorer, so I'm not the least bit afraid of there being any spyware involved... especially since I connecct to Windows Update and transmit my complete system information and every relevant bit of information on a frequent basis to make sure that I have latest "bug fixes"!!!!
Have any of ya'all ever read Code by Larry Lessig? It was probably reviewed here on Slash, but I'm too lazy to check. Anyway, at one point in that text, Larry makes the point that the requirement for a warrant before searching is something that has evolved over time, not something that was intended by the founding fathers. Originally, a cop could walk into your house and search at will - but if he didn't find anything, then he could be found guilty of trespass in a civil court. The warrant was intended to protect the officer from lawsuits, NOT the suspect from the officer.
Over time, people have become so fearful of big brother and so over-protective of their privacy that the intent of a warrant has changed connotation. However, people forget this. When you make an argument for e-mail privacy and the like, don't automatically assume that the police are in the wrong - just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so!
As well as a software engineering degree, you might consider a degree in Telecommunications and Networking. Purdue University (my school) offers such a degree as part of our Computer Technology Department. Although to my knowledge, it's one of the few in the country (and also the best), this degree offers me the chance to play with routers and other fun networking equipment while providing basic business and programming background. Of course, I spent two years in honors CS before deciding I didn't want to program the rest of my life, so I've got a strong background in that as well...:)
Just something to consider, anyway - it's a relatively tough program to get into, but it provides a good basis for people wanting to go into fields such as Systems/Network Administration.
Isn't this the kind of thing people get upset at Microsoft for? Yes, I'm sure Micrsoft keeps it secret longer, and I'm sure people will tell me that Microsoft wouldn't fix their code at all if they didn't have to, but it seems to me that I've more than once seen on Slashdot posts complaining how Microsoft wants to "shush" bugs/security holes until they have time to fix them. And now we discover that Linux distro vendors do the same thing? Seems to me a few zealots should do some thinking about this...
I once e-mailed my Senator (Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin) with regards to the Ashcroft nominations. Even though I was a Republican asking him to vote against his party's preference (which he eventually did) I received a very pleasant reply showing that someone had read my message, at the least (it referenced my note). However, I think it's unreasonable to expect those guys to respond to every message they receive - do you have any idea just how many e-mail they get in a day?
The Gene Roddenberry series (actually, an excellent show if you manage to follow it EVERY week) has been doing the whole ficticious web site thing for several years. I remember the first time I checked out www.efc.com and found links to both the Talon view of our world and the Resistance opinions, as well as semi-nuetral little Auger (well, he was at the time, anyways)... Anyways, I think that's an execellent use of the web, until the Internet becomes so cluttered with those sites that you don't know what reality is anymore... but then, when was the last time you were able to say with authority that anything you found on the web (slashdot excluded, of course:) was accurate???:-)
"You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever! And when they get in, I'll be back, with all my criminal buddies!" -- SideShow Bob
People complain about 31337 script kiddies who launch denial of service attacks - but I think some websites are more likely to complain about Slash than DOS. Check out the host server of one of those links above (www.railgun.org has already put us in today's log:).
http://halluc.snakeden.org/ (something to the effect of being/.ed and trying to find a mirror).
Go Geeks!
Had I (and others like me) not voted for Bush, Gore would have won by a significant amount. Even though Bush lost, I know that had just a few more people like me voted, we would have won - 6000 is a fairly insignificant number. I have done my part, and feel proud about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Poor journalism? At a the Times? Never! All their reporters are ethical, honest, hardworking folks!
I can't wait to see what happens when they discover newsgroups. Man, their heads will pop. ;)
For the record, most traffic laws aren't designed to protect you - most are designed to protect other people from your actions.
Speeding laws? Keep bystanders from being hit when you lose control. DUI laws? Same thing. Seatbelt laws? That one's iffy, but you could argue that it's designed to keep kids safe from idiotic parents.
It's great that YOU'RE willing to take the risk someone might get away with a crime (and great that you can view it with such reckless abandon). But why should other people have to face those same risks?
There's really nothing new here except that what cops used to have to do by hand has now been automated. Not like they've changed any laws, they're just automating the enforcement of old laws. Why is that so bad?
Life does inherently contain risk, and I don't want a Homer J. Simpson making the town so safe that I can't have any fun anymore. However, I also don't want idiots running red lights because they're late for their date (whoops, Slashdot, they're late for delivering their pizza then) and running down some kid who started to walk when the white light told him to.
My two cents.
As usual the article spins the system as something positive to battle crime.
And as usual, Slashdot spins the system as something evil that's going to cause the world to end.
That's a wonderful thought, but terribly one-sided. Yes, there have been times when unions were important and useful, fighting for workers rights (when Henry Ford ordered his Pinkerton security guys to shoot the assembled laborers, for example, I believe it showed just how badly a union was needed to stand up for their rights).
However, a union is not by it's nature automatically a good thing. I saw a story not too long back how a group of kids in a Colorado school set up a volunteer project to pick up trash and clean up the area. However, a union instantly objected to this free labor, saying it was the job of their members and these well-intentioned students were taking away their work.
In another instance, the teachers union around here went on strike last fall. The school board offered them a 15 percent pay raise over the next three years (something that I, in a field I would consider to require far more skills than elementary education - IT security - can barely hope to achieve without a little job hopping). The union rejected it, eventually accepting an offer for 27 percent over three years. That seems like quite a bit more than cost of living to me - just simple greed.
Remember as well that the more an employee costs, the more the end product costs. If "everyone" is unionized, more money is being spent on direct fees as well as indirect (union dues, benefits, etc). In the end, product/service cost goes up as well... and your hypothetical everyone-is-happy society never quite materializes.
Unions are a good idea gone bad. They have their place, but I sure as hell hope its nowhere near me.
www.lancemcgrath.com Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Personally, I'd rather fend for myself and not have to pay the union a major chunk of my salary like GM employees do. The job market may be rough, but I'm skilled enough and have done enough networking that finding a new job poses no real difficulty - if I don't like what my employer does, I'll find a new one.
It's bad enough that I've got the government doing what it thinks is best for me, I don't need a union doing the same.
www.lancemcgrath.com Nothing to see there, move along.
It seems to me that using personal equipment at work is a bad idea anyway, and not really a battle you should fight. If there's a need for you to receive pages/text messages from your applications, then your employer should provide you with the equipment.
Not only is this protecting you from costs incurred by the job, but it's protecting your employer in the event that you should leave or be terminated (as you would presumably turn in your equipment, you would no longer be receiving notifications about the state of company resources blah blah blah).
Besides, given the lack of cell-phone repsonsibility demonstrated by my coworkers, I would think that banning cell phones would be conducive towards a better work environment (when a neighbor leaves his cell phone on his desk, the ringing is bad enough... but the incessant voice mail notifications can get really annoying!).
Just my 2c.
Corbets
None of their residential customers should be sending email directly from a dymamic IP address.
Oh really? I do. For one, my OBSD box sends daily log files to my work address directly. Yes, I could relay the mail instead, but I don't... and I don't think there's a real good reason for me to do so.
Back on the topic, I'm glad Comcast did this. If I managed to get infected by a virus/worm/attacker, I'd want my box cut off from the 'Net too. As long as we keep making life simple for the people that do these things, we keep bending over....
Corbets
I take exception to the "seems fair" label that Pudge tacked on. This is the last site I would have expected to support something like that... do you also believe that CD-Rs should cost more "in case" they are used for piracy? After all, we should be compensating Microsoft "in case" someone copies their software....
Just my 2 cents, take it or spit on it.
If I thought they could get it right, I'd be all about that. No more accountants, no more paperwork, just pay my freaking taxes and be done with it.
Begin hidden conservative agenda: Of course, it'd be even easier for them to do if they implemented a flat tax across the board. :)
Anyone who's actually read about the variants of this virus, or examined an infected machine, knew as much almost a week ago. And since we're all geeks here, we've all done that, right? Where's the story?
Yeah, this is kind of troll, and I apologize. But while Slash often puts up stories I don't find interesting, they rarely put up old news!
Mod down as appropriate. This deserves no higher than a 2.
I'd read Slashdot. I'll bet they get all kinds of great ideas from us! :)
Just because webservers get "r00ted" every day doesn't mean the perpetrators shouldn't be convicted. As a matter of fact, the FBI does do what it can for Internet crimes, but the sad fact is that they only have so much manpower, and there's an awful lot of script kiddies out there who think it's cool to hate "the man" and "hack" computers.
I like hacking, myself. I also like trying to crack systems (mine, my friends, that sort of thing). I'm not skilled, but I enjoy it. But I'm not dumb (or rude) enough to try to crack a system that I don't have permission for. That's a crime that translates to the real world as vandalism, theft, or possibly worse.
If someone came by and spraypainted your car windows, would you be upset? Yah, guess what - billionaires would get upset about it too. Things like this have nothing to do with money, unless it's some childish buffoon who's jealous that s/he doesn't have as much money as his/her target.
I had a similar thought... till Star Wars Galaxies went beta. It cost me 10 bucks to enter the third beta (which I can't talk about due to NDA, so don't anyone ask). I thought long and hard, but finally decided that I was bored, it was only ten bucks, why not give it a whirl?
:)
Now, I did my fair share of bug reporting for the short amount of time I actually played, and I was stunned when I spoke to several friends who said they have never bothered to submit a bug report on anything. They simply wanted to play the game, and didn't want to wait for it to be released. If something went wrong, well, a simple restart of the application fixed it, so why waste time reporting it?
That opened my eyes a bit. If the beta testers are just in it to have fun, what good does that do Sony? Out of a group of four of us, I was the only one who submitted bug reports.
Given that, I can understand why they charge. My friends are playing a game they're enjoying, and I think it's fair to expect them to pay for it (it does cost Sony resources to allow them into the game). Admittedly, not everyone is like that, but what percentage is?
That aside, I definitely got pissed off when I read about the first expansion. The game's not even out yet and they're already planning an expansion? Money grubbing #$@^%@s....
As if "more laws" was a viable solution to anything. Do you realize just how few of our laws are obeyed anyway? Or just how many millions of pages these laws cover? I don't know what you're doing, but I'm sure you're breaking the law in some form or fashion right now.
More laws is not the answer. Simpler laws would result in better enforcement and thus better protection.
I've been an Everquest player for 9 months now, give or take, and just hit the vaunted 60th level (btw, they raised the cap to 65 with the last expansion :).
:-)
:-)
Unfortunately, I see all too much of this sort of opinion while I'm in game. It blows my mind how often people will complain/whine/rant about how horrible Sony is, how terribly their class has been nerfed, how worthless the GMs are... all while still paying for this game.
I don't believe that each and everyone of you is addicted to EQ. Maybe a few of you are (if so, your problem isn't caused by Sony - as stated by someone else, you simply latched on to their product as an outlet for your psychological problems), but most people probably enjoy the game. I know I do. Sure, I get burned out sometimes (I recommend taking a break from it - hell of a cure), but when I start playing it again, I *like* it. And for those of you whom this article is trying to scare away - what the hell, try it before you judge it. If you don't like it, don't give them anymore of your money!
As for Sony not listening to customer feedback... well, firstly there have been many instances when they have. Look over some of the much maligned Absor's posts in the past - he'll occasionally point out this or that feature that was implemented by popular request. Unfortunately, though, many of us make unreasonable requests, whether we think them to be or not. Sure, we necroes would love a resurrection spell that doesn't require essence emeralds - but such a spell would likely change the dynamics of the game in a drastic way. Making one class more powerful makes the rest less so by comparison, at which point you have more angry customers. Therefore, I've got no objections to Sony being VERY selective in which suggestions they implement.
I can understand part of the intent of this article (warning away possible addicts) even if I don't agree with it. But there was just way too much corporate-america bashing (as is, unfortunately, very common on this otherwise excellent site) for my taste. Quit blaming the company - if you don't like the game, stop.
Personally, I spent many a long hour playing Dragon Warrior, Final Fantasy, TradeWars, and a host of other games to ever malign EQ for being a timesink.
Nalaelen Eler
60th Season Warlock on Fenin Ro
Works for quite a few cable ISPs, actually. Um, not that I'd know... I'd never try anything like this!
;-)
Corbets
It's things like this that make me a Microsoft man! I run Internet Explorer, so I'm not the least bit afraid of there being any spyware involved... especially since I connecct to Windows Update and transmit my complete system information and every relevant bit of information on a frequent basis to make sure that I have latest "bug fixes"!!!!
:-)
Corbets
Have any of ya'all ever read Code by Larry Lessig? It was probably reviewed here on Slash, but I'm too lazy to check. Anyway, at one point in that text, Larry makes the point that the requirement for a warrant before searching is something that has evolved over time, not something that was intended by the founding fathers. Originally, a cop could walk into your house and search at will - but if he didn't find anything, then he could be found guilty of trespass in a civil court. The warrant was intended to protect the officer from lawsuits, NOT the suspect from the officer.
Over time, people have become so fearful of big brother and so over-protective of their privacy that the intent of a warrant has changed connotation. However, people forget this. When you make an argument for e-mail privacy and the like, don't automatically assume that the police are in the wrong - just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so!
Flame away!
Corbets
As well as a software engineering degree, you might consider a degree in Telecommunications and Networking. Purdue University (my school) offers such a degree as part of our Computer Technology Department. Although to my knowledge, it's one of the few in the country (and also the best), this degree offers me the chance to play with routers and other fun networking equipment while providing basic business and programming background. Of course, I spent two years in honors CS before deciding I didn't want to program the rest of my life, so I've got a strong background in that as well... :)
Just something to consider, anyway - it's a relatively tough program to get into, but it provides a good basis for people wanting to go into fields such as Systems/Network Administration.
Lance
Isn't this the kind of thing people get upset at Microsoft for? Yes, I'm sure Micrsoft keeps it secret longer, and I'm sure people will tell me that Microsoft wouldn't fix their code at all if they didn't have to, but it seems to me that I've more than once seen on Slashdot posts complaining how Microsoft wants to "shush" bugs/security holes until they have time to fix them. And now we discover that Linux distro vendors do the same thing? Seems to me a few zealots should do some thinking about this...
I once e-mailed my Senator (Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin) with regards to the Ashcroft nominations. Even though I was a Republican asking him to vote against his party's preference (which he eventually did) I received a very pleasant reply showing that someone had read my message, at the least (it referenced my note). However, I think it's unreasonable to expect those guys to respond to every message they receive - do you have any idea just how many e-mail they get in a day?
Just my $.02
Corbets
The Gene Roddenberry series (actually, an excellent show if you manage to follow it EVERY week) has been doing the whole ficticious web site thing for several years. I remember the first time I checked out www.efc.com and found links to both the Talon view of our world and the Resistance opinions, as well as semi-nuetral little Auger (well, he was at the time, anyways)... Anyways, I think that's an execellent use of the web, until the Internet becomes so cluttered with those sites that you don't know what reality is anymore... but then, when was the last time you were able to say with authority that anything you found on the web (slashdot excluded, of course :) was accurate??? :-)
"You can't keep the Democrats out of the White House forever! And when they get in, I'll be back, with all my criminal buddies!" -- SideShow Bob
People complain about 31337 script kiddies who launch denial of service attacks - but I think some websites are more likely to complain about Slash than DOS. Check out the host server of one of those links above (www.railgun.org has already put us in today's log :).
http://halluc.snakeden.org/ (something to the effect of being /.ed and trying to find a mirror).
Go Geeks!
Had I (and others like me) not voted for Bush, Gore would have won by a significant amount. Even though Bush lost, I know that had just a few more people like me voted, we would have won - 6000 is a fairly insignificant number. I have done my part, and feel proud about it.