Oh please. Like in your private emails and informal talks with your colleagues are super precise with your words. Next you'll be telling me that when you said, "Jim fucked the code," you literally meant that Jim printed up the code, drilled a whole in the middle of the stack papers, and proceeded to penetrate it with his penis,...
...If an iPhone were a closed system, like the iPod Nano, it would be unreasonable for the government to force Apple to support developers. However, the iPhone is programmable. What's new here is how Apple regulates software that can run on the computers their customer's buy (an iPhone is a computer). I think companies should be barred from limiting what programs I run on any generic programmable computer I own. Any computer where programmers are encouraged to create 3rd-party software should have the ability to run such software without interference from evil companies...
I completely agree that it's silly that Apple limits customers from running what they want to run. However, it's my opinion that this should be Apple's choice. I also believe that it should be your choice to not buy Apple's iPhone. Why should it be a fundamental right for you to run any software that you want on a programmable device? Is it a grave injustice that you are forced to endure, or do you just feel that you deserve legal entitlement to using a great product any way you want at the expense of Apple's freedom?
The same argument goes for video game consoles. These could easily be designed as general purpose computing devices - and made to be user-programmable. However, they are hindered by nearly identical restrictions as the iPhone. Why can't those companies try to protect their own revenue streams? Further, why can't another company develop a device that will compete by allowing users to program their own?
In other news, I objected to a wind farm cos I was worried about the flying saucers crashing into it...
Oh geeze, not this FUD again... Look, yes, flying saucer crashes were a problem with some older, ill-conceived wind farms. But with a little planning, and modern designs, this is essentially a non-issue for the wind farms of today. The most important thing is not to put cattle, sheep, or drunken hillbillies underneath the windfarms so the aliens aren't attracted to them. Next is the design itself. The old scaffolding ones didn't look like anything important to the aliens. The new single-pole ones were designed to look like an alien arm raised up. And a raised arm with all three digits spinning in a circle is a very rude gesture and it's traditional to ignore the offender. So the problem solves itself.
Yeah - but none of these new modern designs have undergone peer reviewed studies of their effect on Don Quixote copycats. Until that happens, I don't think that anyone can be reasonably assured of their safety.
Not only could this replace revenue lost from decreased gasoline consumption this wwould allow us to have variable tax rates on various roads. Higher congestion could lead to higher taxes encouraging people to car pool, use mass transit, etc.
Right - but why does this make sense on a federal level? Would we just be taxed for interstate highway use? I'd rather see this on the state level. Further, if a system were made mandatory for all vehicles, would the door be open for states to put their own use taxes in place. I dunno - this just sounds like an ability to add more tax to an existing tax ($0.185/gal), and remove some of the tax incentives for driving economical cars.
Another concern is the potential for abuse. A system to track people's travel and whereabouts? I'm sure that the intention is only to use this for taxation purposes, but I'd estimate that once a system like this were in production, it would take 6 months until the data until this system is used for some kind of law enforcement purposes. I hate to be one of those "slippery slope" people...but the idea of this scares me.
in the US, a Sprint Simply Everything plan (includes Unlimited data use) is around $1000.00 cheaper a year to have.
When will you idiots stop acting like tethering is allowed on any US carrier. SPRINT DOES NOT ALLOW TETHERING with smart-phones. Neither does any other us carrier. Sprints everything plan explicitly says tethering is not allowed.
Funny you should say that. My work smart-phone is an AT&T device, and it tethers to my laptop. Further, AT&T (a US carrier) allows tethering with smart phones.
You know, it's one thing to be wrong (which you clearly are). It's another to call people idiots (which isn't cool). But to be both wrong and call people idiots makes you look like...well you figure out what that makes you look like.
I've homebrewed WinMO phones too. The major difference is due to the fact that it's an M$ product it's APIs aren't open, they're buggy and overall the devices run slower and are less customizable.
Your open API argument is silly, since MSFT's APIs are open, and 3rd party apps don't require approval from MSFT to run (like Apple does). Apple designed a very nice device with a beautiful interface, but Apple's policies are anti-consumer.
Modern DVD drives read at ~32MB/s, which is pretty hard to get on your average USB flash drive. Theoretical top end would be ~50MB/s (due to usb overhead), and most flash drives do NOT hit that-- check newegg reviews for some of the faster drives to see what is considered fast.
I dont think it will take much longer from DVD, and will possibly be faster.
You're talking about sequential read speeds. Access times for optical media is significantly higher than flash media, which can make actual read time faster. Also, USB 2.0 can read at 480 Mb/s, which is 60 MB/s, not 50. While there's not a lot of very fast SDHC media out there, it's out there. In my experience an install from high speed SDHC (Class 6, Extreme III/IV) is significantly faster than using optical media.
There is lots of documentation out there regarding fast installs from optical media. It has become an increasingly popular method of install, with netbooks (sans optical drives) gaining popularity.
The ELF is on the terrorist group list for a reason, they've done stuff that's maimed and killed people. They are a real bunch of assholes hated by pretty much every other non-affiliated environmental group.
Actually, ELF has never maimed or killed anyone. I totally agree that ELF are a bunch of assholes, but I'm not about to accuse them of doing something that they have never done. Do you have any information to support this position, or is this just an assumption?
Heck simple truth was all cars in the US in the 70s where pretty gutless.
Minor correction. All cars in the US starting at about 1973 were gutless. Prior to emissions regulations, 1975 CAFE regulations, and changes in consumer demand after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, cars were quite powerful. I do agree with your point, however. After this, it took manufacturers a long time to develop better motors that met emissions restrictions and still deliver respectable HP & Tq.
And there goes Apple's monopoly. I can't say this is a bad thing, it gives users another option, without severely damaging Apple.
I think that it remains to be seen whether or not if Apple will take this lying down. I honestly don't know the details of Apple's agreements with hardware/software. However, I'm not sure whether or not jailbreaking an iphone is any different than modding an Xbox/other console (from a legal perspective). I'd guess that Apple can cite the DMCA and kill jailbreaking and any associated services, one way or another. The phones are set up by default to restrict users to only install apple-approved and licensed software. It doesn't seem any different from the way a video game console works. They may go after the end-users (ala Hughes with modchips), publishers of the jailbreak data (ala MPAA/DVDCCA with DeCSS), or issue a C&D against the Underground App store, Cydia (also similar to DeCSS). Remember that with the iPhone App Store, Apple has a pretty impressive revenue stream to protect. IANAL, but my guess is that with a vested financial interest, and what appears to be proven legal grounds - it is likely that Apple will quickly steamroll this, and any resistance will be futile. (Yes - I did just semi-unintentional geeky Star Trek reference.)
I'll also add the disclaimer that just because it's the law doesn't make it ethically right. I firmly believe that people should be able to do what they wish with the hardware they buy (short of, for example, using the hardware as a bludgeon to beat unsuspecting people over the head). OTOH, as cool and innovative as I think that the iPhone is, rather than risk violating the terms of service, I just won't buy their device. Instead, I'll continue to use my old technology and wait for a more "free" device to hit the market.
One piece of advice that I give to any sysadmin or tech before opening a new office/datacenter: Estimate the amount of cable ties that you will need -- then triple it. You can never have enough cable ties. Velcro/hook & loop is very nice because it is reusable, and it won't slice up your arms like cut-off zip ties can (some telcos actually explicitly ban zip-ties for this exact reason - many techs have to use wax string).
Otherwise, all of the best cable management that I've encountered tends to be made for rack-mounting. Get some hooks from your local hardware store, and then develop a system to coil, bundle, and otherwise tie off your excess cable. Hang the excess coils/bundles from the hooks under your desk or otherwise out of sight. That should keep your desk looking pretty enough. Also, if you have a lot of excess USB cable for small devices, try a USB hub and buy shorter USB cables.
Till it dies off.. then we might get another dead zone.
When algal blooms die off, oxygen is used to decompose the algae which creates hypoxic conditions.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
Ofcourse I didn't RTFA... maybe this isn't a harmfull kind.
That's an excellent point - and I was going to visit this idea until I read your post. It would be very interesting to see a study on the local ecosystem, and if there are any issues with nutrient runoff nearby from local human population, logging, or agriculture (the usual suspects for nutrient loading and algal blooms). I found it dubious that a quote in the article seemed to indirectly point to global climate change as a cause (the quote was "...as a result of global change"). Seems like it's so easy to scapegoat that as the villain responsible for any malignant ecological change without the need for any, you know, real science. (It's also easier to get grants when a hypothesis or grant proposal's title suggests an agenda-based search for a causal link between phenomena X and global climate change)
The phenomena that most commonly leads to algal blooms, anoxic water columns, and ultimately a dead zone (or fish kill) is known as eutrophication. I spent my first years of undergrad (literally) knee deep in poo studying nutrient loading in water tables...ultimately leading to eutrophication. What a great wake-up call for me to get the hell out of the natural sciences. Poo stinks almost as much as academic bureaucracy and begging for grants!:)
Might have been 2 accidents in 127 missions, but if you look at it in terms of distance it is very safe... (This is how airline statistics are made to look safe...) IE: 127 flights, at say 100 orbits each. Each orbit is roughly 36000 kilometres. -> 3600000 * 100 * 127 = 457,200,000. Therefore one accident per 225 million kilometres. This sounds relatively safe to me!
Commercial air travel is made to look safe? You seem to imply that commercial air travel is not as safe as one common metric suggests. Just because deaths per million miles travel is used doesn't mean that flights per fatal crash is not. Try this out: as of 2008, only 0.47 hull losses per million commercial flights. Sounds pretty safe to me.
Crazy people claim that NASA forged all those moon landing videos and photos (missing stars etc.) They have to refine their theory now it seems (maybe NASA forged these pictures as well)...
Pssh. NASA put the landers on the moon after they faked the manned landings. To further the incredibly elaborate hoax, NASA obviously developed the technology to put unmanned crafts on the moon well after the landings. The current LRO was designed to photograph these unmanned crafts to further the fraud. The footprints were made by a rover. To top it all off, Netcraft confirms all of my findings.
There are so many questions about the moon landings that the only scientific conclusion is that the manned landings starting in 1969 were an obviously elaborate hoax. The logic is so simple:
Ask a couple of questions that don't have an immediately apparent answer
???
Proof of a wildly elaborate hoax. To hell with Occum's razor.
Anyone who disagrees with me is either crazy, ignorant, or a NASA co-conspirator.
(Disclaimer, if you need a disclaimer to know that I'm being sarcastic, you're a putz.)
However, I don't think that corporations want anything. It's people who run (and work for) corporations who want or don't want things. People want to do the right thing, and corporate culture is usually generated from the executives down. Some people don't care about doing the right thing, some people do. I've worked for good companies with great management. I've worked for not-so-good companies with not-so-good management. I do know that my experience isn't necessarily indicative of the real ratio of good:terrible companies (or management), or even if bad management runs across the vast majority of businesses. I do, however, understand your point, and I respect where you're coming from. I guess that I've just worked for enough good companies that I'm not quite as cynical about business.
You've made the classic mistake of assuming corporations have any motivation to do the right thing, as opposed to the profitable thing. They don't give a rat's ass who is using this hack. All they care about is the price of their shares. If keeping a dangerous vulnerability semi-secret for a few more months will help their share price, they don't really care how many people get screwed over. Think of it this way: if their ATMs were electrocuting people at random, they would do a cost benefit analysis to figure out the likely damages awarded at trials, and compare that to the cost of fixing the problem. If fixing the problem were more expensive, the company would happily go on killing people. You think they care about your freaking finances?
I believe that you're making a mistake of assuming that all corporations are run this way. Check out the service-profit chain. Some companies care about keeping their customers happy (I think that not electrocuting/killing them falls under this category) and realize that a happy customer affects their bottom line in a positive way. Not all companies are run well, but even with plenty of evidence that some companies are poorly run, I still believe that there are plenty of companies out there who want to do the right thing.
If it gives out free money, only harming the company which didn't seem to care, then no, don't give them any more time.
If the hack gives them access to innocent people's account details, and they'd be out money, and/or time fighting the bogus withdrawals, then yes, give them time to fix it.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or attack you, but I see this kind of response pretty regularly and have a slightly different opinion.
I believe that stealing from a corporation isn't necessarily any more OK than stealing from an otherwise innocent person. Just because a bank is a corporation, does that mean that the people working for the corporation aren't innocent people? What if a rash of these hacks causes sufficient losses the corporation that is must lay off otherwise innocent employees who had nothing to do with the negligence? What if the fed has to bail them out? Those tax revenues have to come from people (and businesses), right? Even if an insurance company indemnifies the bank, the bank's insurance premiums are likely to increase, and the bank doesn't eat that. Those costs will be passed onto their customers one way or the other.
Of course, if the ATM manufacturer indemnifies the bank from any losses due to hacking, then it's on that company...they've done nothing about an issue that they were aware of. It may be a slightly different story, but somewhere along the line, an innocent person will have to pay in some capacity. In any case, my point is that just because a person steals from a company, it's not automatically OK. Someone is still likely to get hurt.
Also, even in negligence, nobody deserves to be hurt. I know that you didn't say that; but I wanted to throw that out there too.
Anyway, like I said; I'm not trying to be pedantic, insulting, or otherwise start a flame war with you. I just have a slightly different opinion.
I heard about that... that's some scary shit. Like how if you breath it, it will kill you damn fast. Apparently it feels a lot like drowning.
Although it is controversial, I heard about it being used for torture. Some would argue that DHMO is only used for enhanced interrogation techniques, though.
I prefer to think of it as Indulgence. Like buying a pardon from the Catholic Church for your sins against God, Carbon Offsets are forgiveness from the Church of Al Gore for your sins against Gaia.
Does that mean that people who think that indulgences are BS will start a new country? Perhaps the Protestant States of America?
Then again, it won't take long for the PSA/prostate jokes to get old.
So I guess they will have exemptions for older cars, cars that have value in original condition and adding/changing something will reduce value, etc.
For example - what would happen to the value of my all original '65 Porsche 356 if a hole was cut in the dash, another in the body for the antenna, etc? Not to mention running whatever they design off of a 44+ year old 6v electrical system...
Just like other federal auto regulations (like emissions, safety, etc), your 356 will most likely be exempt. You haven't had to add a cat, EGR, shoulder-belt, third brake-light, rear seat belts, OBD, etc. This won't be any different
My guess is that the fed will mandate GPS devices in new cars over the next few years, and will start taxing based on the readings 10 years later.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh please. Like in your private emails and informal talks with your colleagues are super precise with your words. Next you'll be telling me that when you said, "Jim fucked the code," you literally meant that Jim printed up the code, drilled a whole in the middle of the stack papers, and proceeded to penetrate it with his penis,...
Pahahahahaha!
...If an iPhone were a closed system, like the iPod Nano, it would be unreasonable for the government to force Apple to support developers. However, the iPhone is programmable. What's new here is how Apple regulates software that can run on the computers their customer's buy (an iPhone is a computer). I think companies should be barred from limiting what programs I run on any generic programmable computer I own. Any computer where programmers are encouraged to create 3rd-party software should have the ability to run such software without interference from evil companies...
I completely agree that it's silly that Apple limits customers from running what they want to run. However, it's my opinion that this should be Apple's choice. I also believe that it should be your choice to not buy Apple's iPhone. Why should it be a fundamental right for you to run any software that you want on a programmable device? Is it a grave injustice that you are forced to endure, or do you just feel that you deserve legal entitlement to using a great product any way you want at the expense of Apple's freedom?
The same argument goes for video game consoles. These could easily be designed as general purpose computing devices - and made to be user-programmable. However, they are hindered by nearly identical restrictions as the iPhone. Why can't those companies try to protect their own revenue streams? Further, why can't another company develop a device that will compete by allowing users to program their own?
Yes, but does it coincide with the industrial revolution? Does it fit the hockey stick model?
I'll be first in line to pay for the #TWAT CHannel!
Awwww yeah. (#) Pound twat. Sign me up.
In other news, I objected to a wind farm cos I was worried about the flying saucers crashing into it...
Oh geeze, not this FUD again... Look, yes, flying saucer crashes were a problem with some older, ill-conceived wind farms. But with a little planning, and modern designs, this is essentially a non-issue for the wind farms of today. The most important thing is not to put cattle, sheep, or drunken hillbillies underneath the windfarms so the aliens aren't attracted to them. Next is the design itself. The old scaffolding ones didn't look like anything important to the aliens. The new single-pole ones were designed to look like an alien arm raised up. And a raised arm with all three digits spinning in a circle is a very rude gesture and it's traditional to ignore the offender. So the problem solves itself.
Yeah - but none of these new modern designs have undergone peer reviewed studies of their effect on Don Quixote copycats. Until that happens, I don't think that anyone can be reasonably assured of their safety.
Not only could this replace revenue lost from decreased gasoline consumption this wwould allow us to have variable tax rates on various roads. Higher congestion could lead to higher taxes encouraging people to car pool, use mass transit, etc.
Right - but why does this make sense on a federal level? Would we just be taxed for interstate highway use? I'd rather see this on the state level. Further, if a system were made mandatory for all vehicles, would the door be open for states to put their own use taxes in place. I dunno - this just sounds like an ability to add more tax to an existing tax ($0.185/gal), and remove some of the tax incentives for driving economical cars.
Another concern is the potential for abuse. A system to track people's travel and whereabouts? I'm sure that the intention is only to use this for taxation purposes, but I'd estimate that once a system like this were in production, it would take 6 months until the data until this system is used for some kind of law enforcement purposes. I hate to be one of those "slippery slope" people...but the idea of this scares me.
>
in the US, a Sprint Simply Everything plan (includes Unlimited data use) is around $1000.00 cheaper a year to have.
When will you idiots stop acting like tethering is allowed on any US carrier. SPRINT DOES NOT ALLOW TETHERING with smart-phones. Neither does any other us carrier. Sprints everything plan explicitly says tethering is not allowed.
Funny you should say that. My work smart-phone is an AT&T device, and it tethers to my laptop. Further, AT&T (a US carrier) allows tethering with smart phones.
You know, it's one thing to be wrong (which you clearly are). It's another to call people idiots (which isn't cool). But to be both wrong and call people idiots makes you look like...well you figure out what that makes you look like.
I've homebrewed WinMO phones too. The major difference is due to the fact that it's an M$ product it's APIs aren't open, they're buggy and overall the devices run slower and are less customizable.
Your open API argument is silly, since MSFT's APIs are open, and 3rd party apps don't require approval from MSFT to run (like Apple does). Apple designed a very nice device with a beautiful interface, but Apple's policies are anti-consumer.
Modern DVD drives read at ~32MB/s, which is pretty hard to get on your average USB flash drive. Theoretical top end would be ~50MB/s (due to usb overhead), and most flash drives do NOT hit that-- check newegg reviews for some of the faster drives to see what is considered fast. I dont think it will take much longer from DVD, and will possibly be faster.
You're talking about sequential read speeds. Access times for optical media is significantly higher than flash media, which can make actual read time faster. Also, USB 2.0 can read at 480 Mb/s, which is 60 MB/s, not 50. While there's not a lot of very fast SDHC media out there, it's out there. In my experience an install from high speed SDHC (Class 6, Extreme III/IV) is significantly faster than using optical media.
There is lots of documentation out there regarding fast installs from optical media. It has become an increasingly popular method of install, with netbooks (sans optical drives) gaining popularity.
The ELF is on the terrorist group list for a reason, they've done stuff that's maimed and killed people. They are a real bunch of assholes hated by pretty much every other non-affiliated environmental group.
Actually, ELF has never maimed or killed anyone. I totally agree that ELF are a bunch of assholes, but I'm not about to accuse them of doing something that they have never done. Do you have any information to support this position, or is this just an assumption?
Heck simple truth was all cars in the US in the 70s where pretty gutless.
Minor correction. All cars in the US starting at about 1973 were gutless. Prior to emissions regulations, 1975 CAFE regulations, and changes in consumer demand after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, cars were quite powerful. I do agree with your point, however. After this, it took manufacturers a long time to develop better motors that met emissions restrictions and still deliver respectable HP & Tq.
And there goes Apple's monopoly. I can't say this is a bad thing, it gives users another option, without severely damaging Apple.
I think that it remains to be seen whether or not if Apple will take this lying down. I honestly don't know the details of Apple's agreements with hardware/software. However, I'm not sure whether or not jailbreaking an iphone is any different than modding an Xbox/other console (from a legal perspective). I'd guess that Apple can cite the DMCA and kill jailbreaking and any associated services, one way or another. The phones are set up by default to restrict users to only install apple-approved and licensed software. It doesn't seem any different from the way a video game console works. They may go after the end-users (ala Hughes with modchips), publishers of the jailbreak data (ala MPAA/DVDCCA with DeCSS), or issue a C&D against the Underground App store, Cydia (also similar to DeCSS). Remember that with the iPhone App Store, Apple has a pretty impressive revenue stream to protect. IANAL, but my guess is that with a vested financial interest, and what appears to be proven legal grounds - it is likely that Apple will quickly steamroll this, and any resistance will be futile. (Yes - I did just semi-unintentional geeky Star Trek reference.)
I'll also add the disclaimer that just because it's the law doesn't make it ethically right. I firmly believe that people should be able to do what they wish with the hardware they buy (short of, for example, using the hardware as a bludgeon to beat unsuspecting people over the head). OTOH, as cool and innovative as I think that the iPhone is, rather than risk violating the terms of service, I just won't buy their device. Instead, I'll continue to use my old technology and wait for a more "free" device to hit the market.
Screw that. I'll miss Vista like I miss genital warts.
One piece of advice that I give to any sysadmin or tech before opening a new office/datacenter: Estimate the amount of cable ties that you will need -- then triple it. You can never have enough cable ties. Velcro/hook & loop is very nice because it is reusable, and it won't slice up your arms like cut-off zip ties can (some telcos actually explicitly ban zip-ties for this exact reason - many techs have to use wax string).
Otherwise, all of the best cable management that I've encountered tends to be made for rack-mounting. Get some hooks from your local hardware store, and then develop a system to coil, bundle, and otherwise tie off your excess cable. Hang the excess coils/bundles from the hooks under your desk or otherwise out of sight. That should keep your desk looking pretty enough. Also, if you have a lot of excess USB cable for small devices, try a USB hub and buy shorter USB cables.
Till it dies off .. then we might get another dead zone.
When algal blooms die off, oxygen is used to decompose the algae which creates hypoxic conditions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)
Ofcourse I didn't RTFA... maybe this isn't a harmfull kind.
That's an excellent point - and I was going to visit this idea until I read your post. It would be very interesting to see a study on the local ecosystem, and if there are any issues with nutrient runoff nearby from local human population, logging, or agriculture (the usual suspects for nutrient loading and algal blooms). I found it dubious that a quote in the article seemed to indirectly point to global climate change as a cause (the quote was "...as a result of global change"). Seems like it's so easy to scapegoat that as the villain responsible for any malignant ecological change without the need for any, you know, real science. (It's also easier to get grants when a hypothesis or grant proposal's title suggests an agenda-based search for a causal link between phenomena X and global climate change)
The phenomena that most commonly leads to algal blooms, anoxic water columns, and ultimately a dead zone (or fish kill) is known as eutrophication. I spent my first years of undergrad (literally) knee deep in poo studying nutrient loading in water tables...ultimately leading to eutrophication. What a great wake-up call for me to get the hell out of the natural sciences. Poo stinks almost as much as academic bureaucracy and begging for grants! :)
Might have been 2 accidents in 127 missions, but if you look at it in terms of distance it is very safe ... (This is how airline statistics are made to look safe ...) IE: 127 flights, at say 100 orbits each. Each orbit is roughly 36000 kilometres. -> 3600000 * 100 * 127 = 457,200,000. Therefore one accident per 225 million kilometres. This sounds relatively safe to me!
Commercial air travel is made to look safe? You seem to imply that commercial air travel is not as safe as one common metric suggests. Just because deaths per million miles travel is used doesn't mean that flights per fatal crash is not. Try this out: as of 2008, only 0.47 hull losses per million commercial flights. Sounds pretty safe to me.
(Yes, I am replying to my own post.) Here is clear evidence that the moon landings were a hoax. ;)
Crazy people claim that NASA forged all those moon landing videos and photos (missing stars etc.) They have to refine their theory now it seems (maybe NASA forged these pictures as well)...
Pssh. NASA put the landers on the moon after they faked the manned landings. To further the incredibly elaborate hoax, NASA obviously developed the technology to put unmanned crafts on the moon well after the landings. The current LRO was designed to photograph these unmanned crafts to further the fraud. The footprints were made by a rover. To top it all off, Netcraft confirms all of my findings.
There are so many questions about the moon landings that the only scientific conclusion is that the manned landings starting in 1969 were an obviously elaborate hoax. The logic is so simple:
Anyone who disagrees with me is either crazy, ignorant, or a NASA co-conspirator.
(Disclaimer, if you need a disclaimer to know that I'm being sarcastic, you're a putz.)
So will mice taking this fat-to-CO2 drug have to pay for extra carbon credits? ;P
Point taken.
However, I don't think that corporations want anything. It's people who run (and work for) corporations who want or don't want things. People want to do the right thing, and corporate culture is usually generated from the executives down. Some people don't care about doing the right thing, some people do. I've worked for good companies with great management. I've worked for not-so-good companies with not-so-good management. I do know that my experience isn't necessarily indicative of the real ratio of good:terrible companies (or management), or even if bad management runs across the vast majority of businesses. I do, however, understand your point, and I respect where you're coming from. I guess that I've just worked for enough good companies that I'm not quite as cynical about business.
You've made the classic mistake of assuming corporations have any motivation to do the right thing, as opposed to the profitable thing. They don't give a rat's ass who is using this hack. All they care about is the price of their shares. If keeping a dangerous vulnerability semi-secret for a few more months will help their share price, they don't really care how many people get screwed over. Think of it this way: if their ATMs were electrocuting people at random, they would do a cost benefit analysis to figure out the likely damages awarded at trials, and compare that to the cost of fixing the problem. If fixing the problem were more expensive, the company would happily go on killing people. You think they care about your freaking finances?
I believe that you're making a mistake of assuming that all corporations are run this way. Check out the service-profit chain. Some companies care about keeping their customers happy (I think that not electrocuting/killing them falls under this category) and realize that a happy customer affects their bottom line in a positive way. Not all companies are run well, but even with plenty of evidence that some companies are poorly run, I still believe that there are plenty of companies out there who want to do the right thing.
No, they don't... but it depends on the hack.
If it gives out free money, only harming the company which didn't seem to care, then no, don't give them any more time.
If the hack gives them access to innocent people's account details, and they'd be out money, and/or time fighting the bogus withdrawals, then yes, give them time to fix it.
I'm not trying to be pedantic or attack you, but I see this kind of response pretty regularly and have a slightly different opinion.
I believe that stealing from a corporation isn't necessarily any more OK than stealing from an otherwise innocent person. Just because a bank is a corporation, does that mean that the people working for the corporation aren't innocent people? What if a rash of these hacks causes sufficient losses the corporation that is must lay off otherwise innocent employees who had nothing to do with the negligence? What if the fed has to bail them out? Those tax revenues have to come from people (and businesses), right? Even if an insurance company indemnifies the bank, the bank's insurance premiums are likely to increase, and the bank doesn't eat that. Those costs will be passed onto their customers one way or the other.
Of course, if the ATM manufacturer indemnifies the bank from any losses due to hacking, then it's on that company...they've done nothing about an issue that they were aware of. It may be a slightly different story, but somewhere along the line, an innocent person will have to pay in some capacity. In any case, my point is that just because a person steals from a company, it's not automatically OK. Someone is still likely to get hurt.
Also, even in negligence, nobody deserves to be hurt. I know that you didn't say that; but I wanted to throw that out there too.
Anyway, like I said; I'm not trying to be pedantic, insulting, or otherwise start a flame war with you. I just have a slightly different opinion.
I heard about that... that's some scary shit. Like how if you breath it, it will kill you damn fast. Apparently it feels a lot like drowning.
Although it is controversial, I heard about it being used for torture. Some would argue that DHMO is only used for enhanced interrogation techniques, though.
I prefer to think of it as Indulgence. Like buying a pardon from the Catholic Church for your sins against God, Carbon Offsets are forgiveness from the Church of Al Gore for your sins against Gaia.
Does that mean that people who think that indulgences are BS will start a new country? Perhaps the Protestant States of America?
Then again, it won't take long for the PSA/prostate jokes to get old.
So I guess they will have exemptions for older cars, cars that have value in original condition and adding/changing something will reduce value, etc.
For example - what would happen to the value of my all original '65 Porsche 356 if a hole was cut in the dash, another in the body for the antenna, etc? Not to mention running whatever they design off of a 44+ year old 6v electrical system...
Just like other federal auto regulations (like emissions, safety, etc), your 356 will most likely be exempt. You haven't had to add a cat, EGR, shoulder-belt, third brake-light, rear seat belts, OBD, etc. This won't be any different
My guess is that the fed will mandate GPS devices in new cars over the next few years, and will start taxing based on the readings 10 years later.