that might be a better analogy - its like using your neighbors
garden hose to water your lawn. Afterall, the tap is not
locked. Likewise the cost of the 'service' is similar and you
using some one day for your lawn is not likely to be noticed.
Using the water, however, requires physical tresspassing on the property. Regardless of whether or not the tap is locked, in order to connect a hose or open the valve, the physical property must be entered. So regardless of the legality of the use of the water (which is usually a public utility -- in many localities, it is not metered), the act of physically trespassing is a crime. I can't say that these are equal to using unprotected, open wi-fi.
In the case of the story, using someone else's unprotected wireless may be more akin to Joey Jo-Jo Jr. Shabbidu running a hose out to the (public) street, and turning the water on. When I pass by and take a drink from the tap, Joey calls the cops and has me arrested. The water utility then issues a press release calling it theft...making some lame analogy to Microsoft and IP theft.
This whole thing stinks. I hope that Benjamin Smith beats the snot out of this and sets a real legal precedent. If he was using the Wi-Fi connection to commit a crime, then he should be charged with that crime. Use of an open Wi-Fi service (in and of itself) does not constitute a crime providing that it is open, and no warnings were issued that it was a private network. IANAL.
It is more like running a splitter and a cable and stealing your neighbors cable TV. Or running an extension cord to a backyard outlet and stealing power. Or perhaps a cordless phone. People accept that they have to pay for electricity, phone, but the internet should be free?
That analogy doesn't really work either. Splitting off cable TV for a neighbor's house generally violates the cable company's ToS. Power is a metered service. Both of these also require physical tresspassing to access. The fact that it is a wireless transmission is important, because with wireless, physical tresspassing is not required.
Phone service is generally metered as well. Internet service is not metered. I'm not sure that your analogies apply in this case.
Unless Verizon itself tells you, you do NOT know. Period. Otherwise, they should (first of all) not be allowed to cut off your service for hacking your phone, and (second) should be required to give you a full (including all fees) refund if you return it and cancel your service, since it's a defective phone.
You do not know, period? What is that supposed to mean? Verizon didn't have to tell me anything, and I know what's up with their service. If someone is an asshole, are they required to tell you before shaking your hand? It sounds like you feel like you deserve something extra.
/me pats you on the head
Before you buy stuff, do your homework. Not everybody is a victim all of the time. If you don't like Verizon, don't buy their services. Should VZW tell its customers that it disables certain advertised features. Sure. Does that mean that nobody was able to find out? A simple Google search for 'Verizon Bluetooth' turned up a whole lot. That tells me that claims of ignorance were mostly bogus, and most of the customers who complain or hack want to be able to set their own terms.
You're not doing anything to convince me. I understand both sides of the argument. However, I don't agree with your take.
Also, they failed to mention that they had crippled it before he bought it.
I'll say right off that I'm totally conflicted by this. The phone-crippling stuff is bullshit. I hope that Verizon gets theirs, bigtime. That being said...there are two sides to this, and your argument has some holes.
I'm sure that he knew that his phone was crippled before he bought it. Who didn't know that Verizon crippled their equipment? It's pretty widespread knowledge, and there is a class-action lawsuit pending against VZW. Further, I believe that employees at Verizon stores are required to inform you of the 15-day trial period...if not, it's in writing. Did he have his phone for 15 days before he bothered to figure out that it didn't do what he wanted? I find it difficult to believe that he was ignorant, didn't read his license agreement, wasn't informed about the 15-day trial period, and didn't find out that his phone didn't do what he wanted until after that 15-day trial period. With the above being said, he doesn't have a right to diddly squat in this case. It's Verizon's network, and Verizon can do what they want with it. Since there is plenty of competition, he can take his business elsewhere.
Doesn't this whole thing stink of someone feeling like they deserve something from a company when they actually don't? Isn't the better thing for him to do is to take his business to a different provider?
While I'd like to see the malware authors screwed at every turn, this ruling actually makes sense, and creates a precedent in the right place.
Since WhenU's software is installed on the client machine, content is not altered on the 'target' servers. It's only altered before it hits the client. This reminds me of the C&D letters sent from dumbass CEO offices to sites like the 'Dialector', where sites would be translated into a different dialect. Caselaw like this will shut down the threats like these.
I'm hoping that malware fighters will target unfair and illegal EULA's, as well as click-thru licensing next. That is the dangerous stuff, far more dangerous than modifying content before it hits the screen of a client machine (or even popping stuff up). I think that a ruling against the latter sets a bad precedent.
You have on the one hand a peer reviewed, falsifiable, reproducible study...
...n the other hand you have something called a study with none of the above features...
Are you referring to specific studies, or just saying that everyone who is not on your side is obviously politically motivated?
If you don't think that both extremes of this debate are politically motivated, you're gonna have to pass that thing over here and give me a hit too.
How many self-described environmentalists can actually have a rational discussion about global warming? If somehow, conclusive evidence were released showing that humans have nothing to do with global warming, and it is simply a climate trend, how many self-dubbed ecologists would be pleased by this news? How many would fight to the end as if this were a dogmatic debate?
The oil industry groups are just as bad as the environmentalists at smearing their version of the truth around. They've all got something to prove, and don't seem to care about finding a greater truth -- it's not science from either 'side', it's opinion. Science doesn't take sides. How can the press present two balanced sides when you've got horse crap in one hand, and bull crap in the other?
There's alot of paranoia going around, huh? Yeah, if you knowingly break the law under company orders, you're still breaking the law, but criminal charges for something like this are generally unlikely. In cases like this, businesses are usually held responsible...and the business will look for an employee scapegoat. At this point, I should probably get the IANAL out of the way...so IANAL.
Here's what I'd do, send a written meno to your boss and his/her boss. Make sure that they get it, and make sure that you save a copy for yourself. In the memo, make it clear that you are unsure of the legality of what you are doing, but you will move forward on their orders under the assumption that the manager who assigned you to do the work obtained the proper licenses (list their name). Also note your objection to this in the case that the proper licenses are not in place. This will take care of the CYA part. Now, the burden is on them.
Don't call the BSA if you still want to work there. Those guys are dicks, and they'll surely audit your company, and you will be the guy doing all the work. It will make your life very difficult. You will have to prove that you purchased every license for every piece of BSA software on every machine in your company. It's a sucky process, and in the end, the BSA typically waive any charges if your company buys all of their missing licenses and promises not to screw up again. To complicate matters, your company will have a pretty good idea that you called the BSA on them (since you've already raised a small stink).
On the other hand, if you're really pissed that they put you in that position in the first place...don't install the software and find another job. I still wouldn't call the BSA on them, because I've got a thing about not burning bridges (and again, they'll probably put two and two together to have an idea that it was you who blew the whistle). I'm sure that they'll eventually get theirs without your intervention.
Yep -- I think that we're on the same page. I'm not sure what the cure is for click-happy users who just want their content now (regardless of what they have to agree to or run in order to get it). I really don't think that there is an adequate technological solution available, and I'm not sure that technology is the answer. It's all about the user.
Hmm. If either one broke into mine all they'd find are MP3s and installed software. Oh yeah and some e-mail that would be of interest to nobody but myself and the sender.
*sigh* It's not necessarily your data that you should be concerned about. It's the fact that someone else now owns your computer, and you have no idea how it is being utilized. It can become a a 0-day warez site, an IRC server, a child porn server, or worse. It could be part of a chain of computers used to crack other systems/networks, it could become a portscan drone, or part of a botnet -- spweing spam from your computer or maybe be part of a massive DDoS. The fact is that you don't know what it will be used for...and if it is used for something like child porn or some kind of espionage, the burden of proof is on you to show that you didn't know anything about it, and the feds will take your computer for an undisclosed amount of time as evidence. On a more community-related note, owned systems used for spamming and other malicious activity are a burden on all of us. We're all in this together, and this is about far more than someone finding your data.
Club racers often use bullet (or lipstick) cameras for recording different angles of in-car video. They are cheap, relatively tough, and can go in (or on) places where camcorders can't go.
Those cameras take all kinds of abuse from racers -- loading and unloading along with the vibration and jarring of a practice session, qualifying, and a race. Most folks seem to use DV cameras for input but if you like, you can record directly to a laptop computer (providing that you have the proper inputs and a sufficiently speedy hard drive). Do a Google search on 'bullet camera'. They're cheap, and you can buy a few spares in case you break one on the road.
I don't see that. I see people throwing out solutions without showing that they put any thought into it. When questioned about the details they freak out about it.
That sounds eerily like how our leadership behaves. Solutions without much thought, but freaks out when questioned about it.
I'm with you that whining about out government without any forethought is a pretty bad idea. I would say that the Michael Moore conspiracy theories erode at the credibility of those who use them to whine. However, one does not need to propose a solution to recognize and discuss a problem. For example: I don't know if a better way to have a fair criminal justice system in the USA, but I can see that ours is broken.
To bring it back to the original topic; as far as the Patriot Act and the proposed expanded powers go, I have a suggestion. Judicial oversight! If this administrative subpeona power is for terrorism or clandestine intelligence use only, the FBI should have to prove it first. How do we know that the FBI is not abusing this power without oversight? The only way we can be safer from abuse is with judicial oversight (which we've had a strong tradition of until recently).
Finally (sorry to argue semantics, but I must), complaining about the country without a good reason does not make one a traitor. Maybe it makes for a stupid person, but stupidity is not treasonous. A traitor can fight against a country for any number of reasons, including good ones. Remember that the first American patriots were also traitors.
Every time I unpack boxes, I wish that I had a stiletto switchblade. To have one on a Leatherman tool that can do everything else I need would just kick ass.
Hardly even a strategy game. Hell, not even real time! Maybe the graphics are decent though, they've obviously found someone willing to pay to watch other people play it.
In about 10 years, it'll make one hell of an xlock screensaver.;)
A) In most of the world (even if not for some animals in Australia) extinctions were timed, as well as we can measure, with the arrival of humans into each region, even though the global climate was changing as a whole
So what you're saying is that by one account, the human race are a bunch of total bastards (environmentally speaking, of course). By another account, the human race are a bunch of total bastards (also environmentally speaking, of course).
So...if the latter is untrue, we're still a bunch of total bastards, right?;)
As for 'level headed' approaches. They're not working.
A few questions: How do you define 'working'? Has DUI increased or decreased in the last 20 years? (not counting for the fact that we've redefined DUI/DWI). How about alcohol related crashes, have they decreased? (Again, not counting the fact that officially, to be an alcohol related crash, someone involved in the crash needs to have some alcohol in their system...like a passenger). So let's go back, not working means what? DUI/DWI and the related injuries/fatalities haven't gone away completely? Do you expect this to be a magic button, or do you think that the people who we should be really worried about will find a workaround? What happens when they do find a workaround? More extreme penalties? More roadblocks? Where does all of that stop?
I'm not willing to simply try anything, regardless of the cost. As someone who rarely ever drinks (and never drives afterward), I'm not willing to shell out $600 for this thing. That penalizes me for others breaking the law. Screw that. We're supposed to be free in the USA. Part of that includes the freedom to break the law, and accept consequences for our actions. We can still have guns, right? In fact, that is defined as a right. Nearly all cars can exceed the speed limit and break the law, right? What do you suggest? More nannying legislation? I have to say that I believe that this legislature is, in large part, to blame for Americans not being able to take responsibility for their own actions. With no common sense left, it's now always someone else's fault for not putting a warning label on something. That makes me ill.
no hard feelings if you hate me for that reason. I don't like being extremist.
LOL! Hate you? I don't even know you. However, I do have a few opinions on the subject (and differing opinions shouldn't make for enemies or hate). I'm just not convinced that this will make any difference, and again, I'm not willing to pay an extra $600 to figure it out.
You mention the aspect of this being like any other standard safety equipment, like brakes, seatbelts, or a windwhield. I have to disagree. I have been racing cars in local and regional events over the past decade, and an old axiom for new drivers who want to modify their car to go faster is: "If you want to make your car go faster, the first thing you should fix is the nut behind the wheel". That thing, of course, is the driver of the vehicle. Equipment like this simply won't fix a driver. It might make you feel a little better, but if someone finds a way to bypass this device (and they will), won't you be in greater danger because you're less prepared for a drunk driver on the road?
In any case, folks with DUI's on their record...I wouldn't scoff at a court order mandating one of these devices. However, for me, I don't drive drunk. I rarely even drink at all. Making me pay an extra $600 for this device is not like brakes or a seatbelt. Those aren't just to prevent criminal activity. They're real safety devices.
A friend of mine came dangerously close to being paralyzed because of a drunk driver. $600 is cheaper than her medical bills.
So how is that reasonable justification for these in every car? I suppose that if everyone got hit by a drunk driver, it would be...and we probably just about all know someone that's been in an ancohol related accident -- but that doesn't mean that we can't take a level-headed approach to the problem. IMO, things like mandating these in every car, highway roadblocks, and mandatory minimums aren't level-headed approaches that will help solve a difficult problem.
The last thing we need is another person who ignored an issue until it happened to someone they loved, and then took it on as a 'crusade', with unbending anger, an appetite for revenge, the need to point a finger at someone, and no understanding for the human side of the equation. I'm not saying that you're that person -- but your logic seems to have you on the fast track to being 'one of them'.
I have the right to drive my car while drunk, so long as it is on my property.
In many states, this is incorrect. This shows, in part, how knee-jerkish our laws have become on this issue. Not only are you (most likely, depending on your state) not allowed to drive drunk on your own property, but as soon as you put the key in the ignition, it is technically DUI/DWI.
Before anyone goes off about freedom being limited, rights, etc... come on. Nobody has the right to drive drunk.
Nobody has a right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Does that mean that you have no problem with submitting to a concealed weapons search every time you leave your house? What about a search for child porn? Nobody has a right to possess or create child porn, how do you feel about submitting to a search for that? What about drugs?...
Hopefully, you see my point. I'm not a criminal, and I do not wish to be treated like one, nor do I wish for the inevitable mandating of these devices -- in the end I'll have to buy one with my new car, and I don't even drink.
This guy goes out and makes a tool that might be able to help the situation and you jump all over it. It does have uses beyond teenage drunk drives you know that right.
Here's what scares me about such devices. At least in the USA, I feel that we've taken on a sort of knee-jerk reaction to DUI. I'm sure that everyone reading this discussion either knows someone who has died from a drunk driving accident, been injured in an alcohol-related crash, or knows someone who knows someone. I'm not trying to brush off or downplay the problem...however, I fear that we've over reacted on this one, and will continue to over react.
Things like highway roadblocks to test everyone (or everyone who looks under 35) are, in my opinion, overkill. Can you think of any other law where police randomly stop you to check that you're not violating the law? Where else does that fly? At best, it's a stretch of what the constitution allows.
So how, then does this device become disagreeable? Personally, I'm concerned that they (or something like it) will eventually be mandated by the federal government for every new vehicle. Do the manufacturers pay for these? Like airbags, they don't. The consumer will have to foot the bill for this potentially mandatory equipment. One way or the other, the consumer foots the bill for everything. Will it matter to the government whether or not I drink? Nope -- I'll have to buy an alcohol-tester car regardless of whether or not I drink alcohol.
So my take: as a standalone product...for jackasses who can't find their own limits (or for people who just want to make extra sure), they seem like a pretty good idea. For people who don't drink...or for people like me who have a drink or two once in a blue moon, there is little point, except fear of something like this becoming mandatory on all new cars.
Don't you ever get tired of looking for ways to blame the parents. You do realize that no matter how much you try to educate someone there is always the possibility that no matter what they will end up doing exactly what you told them not to.
I was gonna end there, but I have to remark on your statement. Parents are tired of taking the blame, and refuse to blame their kids. Because parents are unwilling to assume responsbility, or pass it onto their kids, they blame all kinds of inane shit for what their kids do: video games, movies, TV, modern views on sexuality, the news, even music (and they will sue any of the above, providing that someone in the industry has deep pockets). It's rare to hear that some kid burned their family's house down because he was an asshole, or an error was made in rearing the child. Instead it's Beavis and Butthead's fault for playing with fire in a cartoon. Some people are just assholes. Some people are just raised by assholes. Too many of those assholes blame everything but themselves and their kids. They try to legislate everyone else's freedom away to suit theirs and their kids' lifestyles, as well as their perceptions of why their kids are screw-ups. So yeah, I'll say it -- it's the parents' fault, and it's the kids' fault. It's neither the car's fault for being there, nor is it alcohol's fault for existing.
How come she is suing Yahoo instead of (or in addition to) pursuing her ex-boyfriend? Perhaps because Yahoo has the deepest pockets -- which I find extraordinarily lame.
Perhaps Yahoo could have been more responsive, but it it thait fault that this whole thing happened? I tend to think not. That would be like suing Slashdot (instead of me) because I posted something libelous about you. Like I said...lame.
They can say whatever they want. If anything like this ever passes, whether or not it's art (or speech) is a matter that the courts will have to decide on.
The alt.sysadmin.recovery FAQ covers one angle of this; essentially, if you're a natural sysadmin-type, no matter what job you take, you'll end up fixing your own computer, then other people's, etc. until you've suddenly become a sysadmin again.
Yeah, sys-admining can be a dead-end job (one of the reasons I'm not doing it anymore). Strangely enough, my last sysadmin job was in operations and not IT. After that gig ended, I wound up in IT. I'm wondering how long I'll last here before I burn out. I'm also thinking about doing something automitive as well...but that's for after I get completely burned out on this.
I think that you're onto something about not realizing your potential and depression. I'm not sure that it qualifies as depression, but I get really bummed out when my work isn't challenging enough.
OK...the dead baby thing smells like bullshit. Unless her nextdoor neighbor was a half a mile away or the EMS response is lightning quick (3-4 minutes), how is it the IP Telco's fault? Wasn't the consumer supposed to read and sign off on the e911 clause of their service agreement? I know I had to explicitly sign off on that (and I read what I signed).
OTOH, it sounds like the legislation itself is pretty balanced. VoIP providers have been pointing fingers at the LEC's for months. The LEC's owned the PSAP's, and wouldn't give the access numbers to the VoIP providers. The regulation seems to mandate cooperation between the two...and provide a mandate that consumers be able to update location information. That sounds fair to me.
The thing that concerns me is when someone from Lubbock, TX takes their ATA on vacation to Spokane, WA and has to call 911. What happens if they fail to update their location? Is it the VoIP provider's fault if the call doesn't get routed properly because the consumer didn't hold up their end of the bargain (like with the dead baby)? Will providers then be required to tack GPS locaters on their ATA's? That means that the consumer foots the bill, and loses another bit of privacy to regulation.
I may be overreacting, but our regulators have made boneheaded calls like this before (see: broadcast flag)...it's worth considering.
Slashdot Mirror
Using the water, however, requires physical tresspassing on the property. Regardless of whether or not the tap is locked, in order to connect a hose or open the valve, the physical property must be entered. So regardless of the legality of the use of the water (which is usually a public utility -- in many localities, it is not metered), the act of physically trespassing is a crime. I can't say that these are equal to using unprotected, open wi-fi.
In the case of the story, using someone else's unprotected wireless may be more akin to Joey Jo-Jo Jr. Shabbidu running a hose out to the (public) street, and turning the water on. When I pass by and take a drink from the tap, Joey calls the cops and has me arrested. The water utility then issues a press release calling it theft...making some lame analogy to Microsoft and IP theft.
This whole thing stinks. I hope that Benjamin Smith beats the snot out of this and sets a real legal precedent. If he was using the Wi-Fi connection to commit a crime, then he should be charged with that crime. Use of an open Wi-Fi service (in and of itself) does not constitute a crime providing that it is open, and no warnings were issued that it was a private network. IANAL.
That analogy doesn't really work either. Splitting off cable TV for a neighbor's house generally violates the cable company's ToS. Power is a metered service. Both of these also require physical tresspassing to access. The fact that it is a wireless transmission is important, because with wireless, physical tresspassing is not required.
Phone service is generally metered as well. Internet service is not metered. I'm not sure that your analogies apply in this case.
You do not know, period? What is that supposed to mean? Verizon didn't have to tell me anything, and I know what's up with their service. If someone is an asshole, are they required to tell you before shaking your hand? It sounds like you feel like you deserve something extra.
Before you buy stuff, do your homework. Not everybody is a victim all of the time. If you don't like Verizon, don't buy their services. Should VZW tell its customers that it disables certain advertised features. Sure. Does that mean that nobody was able to find out? A simple Google search for 'Verizon Bluetooth' turned up a whole lot. That tells me that claims of ignorance were mostly bogus, and most of the customers who complain or hack want to be able to set their own terms.
You're not doing anything to convince me. I understand both sides of the argument. However, I don't agree with your take.
I'll say right off that I'm totally conflicted by this. The phone-crippling stuff is bullshit. I hope that Verizon gets theirs, bigtime. That being said...there are two sides to this, and your argument has some holes.
I'm sure that he knew that his phone was crippled before he bought it. Who didn't know that Verizon crippled their equipment? It's pretty widespread knowledge, and there is a class-action lawsuit pending against VZW. Further, I believe that employees at Verizon stores are required to inform you of the 15-day trial period...if not, it's in writing. Did he have his phone for 15 days before he bothered to figure out that it didn't do what he wanted? I find it difficult to believe that he was ignorant, didn't read his license agreement, wasn't informed about the 15-day trial period, and didn't find out that his phone didn't do what he wanted until after that 15-day trial period. With the above being said, he doesn't have a right to diddly squat in this case. It's Verizon's network, and Verizon can do what they want with it. Since there is plenty of competition, he can take his business elsewhere.
Doesn't this whole thing stink of someone feeling like they deserve something from a company when they actually don't? Isn't the better thing for him to do is to take his business to a different provider?
While I'd like to see the malware authors screwed at every turn, this ruling actually makes sense, and creates a precedent in the right place.
Since WhenU's software is installed on the client machine, content is not altered on the 'target' servers. It's only altered before it hits the client. This reminds me of the C&D letters sent from dumbass CEO offices to sites like the 'Dialector', where sites would be translated into a different dialect. Caselaw like this will shut down the threats like these.
I'm hoping that malware fighters will target unfair and illegal EULA's, as well as click-thru licensing next. That is the dangerous stuff, far more dangerous than modifying content before it hits the screen of a client machine (or even popping stuff up). I think that a ruling against the latter sets a bad precedent.
Are you referring to specific studies, or just saying that everyone who is not on your side is obviously politically motivated?
If you don't think that both extremes of this debate are politically motivated, you're gonna have to pass that thing over here and give me a hit too.
How many self-described environmentalists can actually have a rational discussion about global warming? If somehow, conclusive evidence were released showing that humans have nothing to do with global warming, and it is simply a climate trend, how many self-dubbed ecologists would be pleased by this news? How many would fight to the end as if this were a dogmatic debate?
The oil industry groups are just as bad as the environmentalists at smearing their version of the truth around. They've all got something to prove, and don't seem to care about finding a greater truth -- it's not science from either 'side', it's opinion. Science doesn't take sides. How can the press present two balanced sides when you've got horse crap in one hand, and bull crap in the other?
There's alot of paranoia going around, huh? Yeah, if you knowingly break the law under company orders, you're still breaking the law, but criminal charges for something like this are generally unlikely. In cases like this, businesses are usually held responsible...and the business will look for an employee scapegoat. At this point, I should probably get the IANAL out of the way...so IANAL.
Here's what I'd do, send a written meno to your boss and his/her boss. Make sure that they get it, and make sure that you save a copy for yourself. In the memo, make it clear that you are unsure of the legality of what you are doing, but you will move forward on their orders under the assumption that the manager who assigned you to do the work obtained the proper licenses (list their name). Also note your objection to this in the case that the proper licenses are not in place. This will take care of the CYA part. Now, the burden is on them.
Don't call the BSA if you still want to work there. Those guys are dicks, and they'll surely audit your company, and you will be the guy doing all the work. It will make your life very difficult. You will have to prove that you purchased every license for every piece of BSA software on every machine in your company. It's a sucky process, and in the end, the BSA typically waive any charges if your company buys all of their missing licenses and promises not to screw up again. To complicate matters, your company will have a pretty good idea that you called the BSA on them (since you've already raised a small stink).
On the other hand, if you're really pissed that they put you in that position in the first place...don't install the software and find another job. I still wouldn't call the BSA on them, because I've got a thing about not burning bridges (and again, they'll probably put two and two together to have an idea that it was you who blew the whistle). I'm sure that they'll eventually get theirs without your intervention.
Yep -- I think that we're on the same page. I'm not sure what the cure is for click-happy users who just want their content now (regardless of what they have to agree to or run in order to get it). I really don't think that there is an adequate technological solution available, and I'm not sure that technology is the answer. It's all about the user.
*sigh* It's not necessarily your data that you should be concerned about. It's the fact that someone else now owns your computer, and you have no idea how it is being utilized. It can become a a 0-day warez site, an IRC server, a child porn server, or worse. It could be part of a chain of computers used to crack other systems/networks, it could become a portscan drone, or part of a botnet -- spweing spam from your computer or maybe be part of a massive DDoS. The fact is that you don't know what it will be used for...and if it is used for something like child porn or some kind of espionage, the burden of proof is on you to show that you didn't know anything about it, and the feds will take your computer for an undisclosed amount of time as evidence. On a more community-related note, owned systems used for spamming and other malicious activity are a burden on all of us. We're all in this together, and this is about far more than someone finding your data.
Club racers often use bullet (or lipstick) cameras for recording different angles of in-car video. They are cheap, relatively tough, and can go in (or on) places where camcorders can't go.
Those cameras take all kinds of abuse from racers -- loading and unloading along with the vibration and jarring of a practice session, qualifying, and a race. Most folks seem to use DV cameras for input but if you like, you can record directly to a laptop computer (providing that you have the proper inputs and a sufficiently speedy hard drive). Do a Google search on 'bullet camera'. They're cheap, and you can buy a few spares in case you break one on the road.
That sounds eerily like how our leadership behaves. Solutions without much thought, but freaks out when questioned about it.
I'm with you that whining about out government without any forethought is a pretty bad idea. I would say that the Michael Moore conspiracy theories erode at the credibility of those who use them to whine. However, one does not need to propose a solution to recognize and discuss a problem. For example: I don't know if a better way to have a fair criminal justice system in the USA, but I can see that ours is broken.
To bring it back to the original topic; as far as the Patriot Act and the proposed expanded powers go, I have a suggestion. Judicial oversight! If this administrative subpeona power is for terrorism or clandestine intelligence use only, the FBI should have to prove it first. How do we know that the FBI is not abusing this power without oversight? The only way we can be safer from abuse is with judicial oversight (which we've had a strong tradition of until recently).
Finally (sorry to argue semantics, but I must), complaining about the country without a good reason does not make one a traitor. Maybe it makes for a stupid person, but stupidity is not treasonous. A traitor can fight against a country for any number of reasons, including good ones. Remember that the first American patriots were also traitors.
A stiletto switchblade.
Every time I unpack boxes, I wish that I had a stiletto switchblade. To have one on a Leatherman tool that can do everything else I need would just kick ass.
In about 10 years, it'll make one hell of an xlock screensaver. ;)
I'm under the impression that RH had developers working on legacy. This is incorrect?
You're right, that is an overstatement, my bad.
I wonder what will happen to Fedora legacy support with RH out of the picture?
So what you're saying is that by one account, the human race are a bunch of total bastards (environmentally speaking, of course). By another account, the human race are a bunch of total bastards (also environmentally speaking, of course).
So...if the latter is untrue, we're still a bunch of total bastards, right? ;)
A few questions: How do you define 'working'? Has DUI increased or decreased in the last 20 years? (not counting for the fact that we've redefined DUI/DWI). How about alcohol related crashes, have they decreased? (Again, not counting the fact that officially, to be an alcohol related crash, someone involved in the crash needs to have some alcohol in their system...like a passenger). So let's go back, not working means what? DUI/DWI and the related injuries/fatalities haven't gone away completely? Do you expect this to be a magic button, or do you think that the people who we should be really worried about will find a workaround? What happens when they do find a workaround? More extreme penalties? More roadblocks? Where does all of that stop?
I'm not willing to simply try anything, regardless of the cost. As someone who rarely ever drinks (and never drives afterward), I'm not willing to shell out $600 for this thing. That penalizes me for others breaking the law. Screw that. We're supposed to be free in the USA. Part of that includes the freedom to break the law, and accept consequences for our actions. We can still have guns, right? In fact, that is defined as a right. Nearly all cars can exceed the speed limit and break the law, right? What do you suggest? More nannying legislation? I have to say that I believe that this legislature is, in large part, to blame for Americans not being able to take responsibility for their own actions. With no common sense left, it's now always someone else's fault for not putting a warning label on something. That makes me ill.
LOL! Hate you? I don't even know you. However, I do have a few opinions on the subject (and differing opinions shouldn't make for enemies or hate). I'm just not convinced that this will make any difference, and again, I'm not willing to pay an extra $600 to figure it out.
You mention the aspect of this being like any other standard safety equipment, like brakes, seatbelts, or a windwhield. I have to disagree. I have been racing cars in local and regional events over the past decade, and an old axiom for new drivers who want to modify their car to go faster is: "If you want to make your car go faster, the first thing you should fix is the nut behind the wheel". That thing, of course, is the driver of the vehicle. Equipment like this simply won't fix a driver. It might make you feel a little better, but if someone finds a way to bypass this device (and they will), won't you be in greater danger because you're less prepared for a drunk driver on the road?
In any case, folks with DUI's on their record...I wouldn't scoff at a court order mandating one of these devices. However, for me, I don't drive drunk. I rarely even drink at all. Making me pay an extra $600 for this device is not like brakes or a seatbelt. Those aren't just to prevent criminal activity. They're real safety devices.
So how is that reasonable justification for these in every car? I suppose that if everyone got hit by a drunk driver, it would be...and we probably just about all know someone that's been in an ancohol related accident -- but that doesn't mean that we can't take a level-headed approach to the problem. IMO, things like mandating these in every car, highway roadblocks, and mandatory minimums aren't level-headed approaches that will help solve a difficult problem.
The last thing we need is another person who ignored an issue until it happened to someone they loved, and then took it on as a 'crusade', with unbending anger, an appetite for revenge, the need to point a finger at someone, and no understanding for the human side of the equation. I'm not saying that you're that person -- but your logic seems to have you on the fast track to being 'one of them'.
In many states, this is incorrect. This shows, in part, how knee-jerkish our laws have become on this issue. Not only are you (most likely, depending on your state) not allowed to drive drunk on your own property, but as soon as you put the key in the ignition, it is technically DUI/DWI.
Nobody has a right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Does that mean that you have no problem with submitting to a concealed weapons search every time you leave your house? What about a search for child porn? Nobody has a right to possess or create child porn, how do you feel about submitting to a search for that? What about drugs?...
Hopefully, you see my point. I'm not a criminal, and I do not wish to be treated like one, nor do I wish for the inevitable mandating of these devices -- in the end I'll have to buy one with my new car, and I don't even drink.
Here's what scares me about such devices. At least in the USA, I feel that we've taken on a sort of knee-jerk reaction to DUI. I'm sure that everyone reading this discussion either knows someone who has died from a drunk driving accident, been injured in an alcohol-related crash, or knows someone who knows someone. I'm not trying to brush off or downplay the problem...however, I fear that we've over reacted on this one, and will continue to over react.
Things like highway roadblocks to test everyone (or everyone who looks under 35) are, in my opinion, overkill. Can you think of any other law where police randomly stop you to check that you're not violating the law? Where else does that fly? At best, it's a stretch of what the constitution allows.
So how, then does this device become disagreeable? Personally, I'm concerned that they (or something like it) will eventually be mandated by the federal government for every new vehicle. Do the manufacturers pay for these? Like airbags, they don't. The consumer will have to foot the bill for this potentially mandatory equipment. One way or the other, the consumer foots the bill for everything. Will it matter to the government whether or not I drink? Nope -- I'll have to buy an alcohol-tester car regardless of whether or not I drink alcohol.
So my take: as a standalone product...for jackasses who can't find their own limits (or for people who just want to make extra sure), they seem like a pretty good idea. For people who don't drink...or for people like me who have a drink or two once in a blue moon, there is little point, except fear of something like this becoming mandatory on all new cars.
I was gonna end there, but I have to remark on your statement. Parents are tired of taking the blame, and refuse to blame their kids. Because parents are unwilling to assume responsbility, or pass it onto their kids, they blame all kinds of inane shit for what their kids do: video games, movies, TV, modern views on sexuality, the news, even music (and they will sue any of the above, providing that someone in the industry has deep pockets). It's rare to hear that some kid burned their family's house down because he was an asshole, or an error was made in rearing the child. Instead it's Beavis and Butthead's fault for playing with fire in a cartoon. Some people are just assholes. Some people are just raised by assholes. Too many of those assholes blame everything but themselves and their kids. They try to legislate everyone else's freedom away to suit theirs and their kids' lifestyles, as well as their perceptions of why their kids are screw-ups. So yeah, I'll say it -- it's the parents' fault, and it's the kids' fault. It's neither the car's fault for being there, nor is it alcohol's fault for existing.
How come she is suing Yahoo instead of (or in addition to) pursuing her ex-boyfriend? Perhaps because Yahoo has the deepest pockets -- which I find extraordinarily lame.
Perhaps Yahoo could have been more responsive, but it it thait fault that this whole thing happened? I tend to think not. That would be like suing Slashdot (instead of me) because I posted something libelous about you. Like I said...lame.
They can say whatever they want. If anything like this ever passes, whether or not it's art (or speech) is a matter that the courts will have to decide on.
Yeah, sys-admining can be a dead-end job (one of the reasons I'm not doing it anymore). Strangely enough, my last sysadmin job was in operations and not IT. After that gig ended, I wound up in IT. I'm wondering how long I'll last here before I burn out. I'm also thinking about doing something automitive as well...but that's for after I get completely burned out on this.
I think that you're onto something about not realizing your potential and depression. I'm not sure that it qualifies as depression, but I get really bummed out when my work isn't challenging enough.
OK...the dead baby thing smells like bullshit. Unless her nextdoor neighbor was a half a mile away or the EMS response is lightning quick (3-4 minutes), how is it the IP Telco's fault? Wasn't the consumer supposed to read and sign off on the e911 clause of their service agreement? I know I had to explicitly sign off on that (and I read what I signed).
OTOH, it sounds like the legislation itself is pretty balanced. VoIP providers have been pointing fingers at the LEC's for months. The LEC's owned the PSAP's, and wouldn't give the access numbers to the VoIP providers. The regulation seems to mandate cooperation between the two...and provide a mandate that consumers be able to update location information. That sounds fair to me.
The thing that concerns me is when someone from Lubbock, TX takes their ATA on vacation to Spokane, WA and has to call 911. What happens if they fail to update their location? Is it the VoIP provider's fault if the call doesn't get routed properly because the consumer didn't hold up their end of the bargain (like with the dead baby)? Will providers then be required to tack GPS locaters on their ATA's? That means that the consumer foots the bill, and loses another bit of privacy to regulation.
I may be overreacting, but our regulators have made boneheaded calls like this before (see: broadcast flag)...it's worth considering.