MAC addresses are configurable.
My point is, you have to be careful who you hire and then give them the resources to get their work done. In corporate IT, users are the customers, not the adversaries.
Yes, I am aware that MAC addresses are configurable. In fact, I use LAA (Locally Administered Addresses) for a number of purposes. Most of my users wouldn't know a MAC address if it came up and bit them.
Then again, I don't (at least not right now) work for a technology vendor. I have done so in the past and it adds additional dimensions to the IT management environment. In those circumstances, technical people will be given wide latitude to manage and implement on their own workstations and on development/engineering networks. I've been on both sides of that and, as a rule, that arrangement works well. On a production network however, I stand by my original statement: "Users *will* keep their greasy little paws off of *my* servers."
It is very important to hire trustworthy people. However, even scrupulously honest and reasonable people can do non-optimal things because they don't understand the implications of their actions. Anyone (other than appropriate IT staff) installing a sniffer has moved out of the realm of "non-optimal" to "potentially criminal."
I work for a large law firm and lawyers are notorious for thinking they know better than everyone else. At the same time, they need to generate billable hours, which limits their interest in running IT for themselves. That certainly doesn't stop them from making "helpful" suggestions. The solution here, just like any professional services environment, is for IT to get the bullshit out of the billable resource's way to give them more time to do their job -- generating revenue.
If you wanted to make a point about end-users being customers, then you should have said so in the first place. That is, of course, quite correct. I treat my customers with respect and do everything I can to exceed their expectations. Most of the time, I succeed. However, that has to be a two way street. Sometimes users do stupid things (as do IT people). I've had users forwarding confidential emails to personal email accounts, abusing the network and all manner of dumb stuff. The appropriate way to handle this is to discuss the issue calmly with said customer, gather their requirements and determine an appropriate solution.
That said, when a user tries to do an end run around IT, it's usually because they're doing something they know is inappropriate, has a huge ego, and/or isn't getting the appropriate support from IT. None of these are good reasons for circumventing the IT process for all the reasons detailed by me and other folks on this thread.
My language was colorful and certainly doesn't reflect how I would address my customers. However, you (and the OP for that matter) aren't my customers. The ire expressed by many on this thread is understandable, mostly because the few bad apples who go outside the IT process are the first ones to blame IT for the failure of the rogue implementation that the user spent significant time trying to hide from IT.
All in all, a well management environment and a responsive IT staff can head off these issues 95-99% of the time.
Your eloquent response didn't answer the question. Would this prevent someone from running a packet sniffer?
That depends. On my network, unless your MAC address is configured to access the production network, you get kicked to the guest network with all the access to the Internet you like -- but no access to my production network. As such, you could absolutely connect a sniffer and, if it suited you, you could capture all the broadcast and multicast traffic you wanted *on the guest network*.
However, the network policies where I work aren't nearly as paranoid as I'd like them to be. If I had my druthers, any unapproved device plugged in to the network would get no access at all, in which case a sniffer would be completely useless.
Then again, if (and it seems that it is at OP's place of business) you're not using some form of NAC, then yes you could plug a sniffer into the production network. However, in a switched network (assuming the switch port in question isn't trunked), all you would see is broadcast and multicast traffic, plus any unicast traffic directed at you.
N.B., this applies only to a snffer such as Wireshark. Using other tools in conjunction with the sniffer, coupled with knowledge of the network you're hacking could net you much, much more.
They didn't buy it, they don't maintain it, they don't use it. Let them scan it and check everything over, but don't give them login credentials.
Unfortunately it's just another IT department with a God complex.
I think not. If you want to put something on my network, I need to approve it *before* you connect it to my LAN. We get root/Administrator/whatever and you get user access to the application only -- certainly not console access. If you don't want us to have access, then don't put it on our network. That's not a god complex -- We're *responsible* when something goes wrong, not you. We're expected to make it go when it breaks, not you. When bad things happen it's our fault, not yours. As such, users *will* keep their greasy little paws off of *my* servers. Period.
If the OP's IT staff has a problem (e.g., they're morons or provide crappy service to their customers) then they should fix the problem, not start their own IT infrastructure.
The IT folks at the OP's site should implement NAC. That'd fix his wagon but good.
No device (mobile devices and laptops on my guest wireless network don't count) gets on my network without the explicit knowledge and approval of IT *first*. That's how it's supposed to be. Not because we like to annoy users, but because if we know about it, we can (gasp!) monitor and support it. We can also make sure it's not going to interfere with other network traffic or cause problems for other applications.
i've seen way too many rogue implementations over the years and, for the most part, they were far more problematic than any systems we knew about. Invariably it was IT's fault of course. "So what if I didn't tell you that we hired consultants to install this Sun cluster and a half-dozen workstations eight months ago. Those consultants were costing way too much money so I fired them. But now it's broken! Fix it! How should I know what the root password is? You're IT! Figure it out!"
I'm sure the above paragraph will sound painfully familiar to many.
This isn't very original, but consider a world where life was fair and just and all the horrible things that happen to people happened because they actually deserved them. A pretty frightening thought, isn't it?
As such, I recommend taking great comfort in the general unfairness of the world.
I was born and raised here and while I've traveled quite a bit around the US, I haven't found anyplace I like better -- mostly because of the car culture.
I don't own a car (and to date, never have) and if I need to go somewhere (almost anywhere outside of NYC) where I need a car, I just rent one.
At the same time, that's also the reason that community advisories go out when it's discovered that I'll be driving in a certain area:)
Which doesn't go where I need to be, when I need to be there or leave there.
In fact, they cut the bus line that went near my workplace. Never mind that the public transport route from home to the job involves 3 transfers and takes 2+ hours while the drive is 25 minutes. And I can go out for lunch or run errands. Or basically be something more productive than a cog in a machine.
And there's the problem in a nutshell.
In the United States (the place with which I have the most experience), cars aren't just vehicles. Cars have become an extension of an individual's personal space. As several people have pointed out, it's not about safety it's about control.
In 2004, a former classmate who lives 1500 miles away from where we went to high school actually drove her car to come to our reunion. When I asked her why she didn't fly -- especially since driving is so much more dangerous than flying. She said that despite the statistics (of which she had at least a passing knowledge) she preferred to drive because she *felt* more in control.
As for the public transportation infrastructure, there are many places just like St0rmShad0w's locality where, from a practical standpoint, public transportation is infeasible or even non-existent.
Where does this extreme short-sightedness come from?
IMHO, it's a result of decades of marketing by the auto industry, aided by government subsidies and the efforts of such stellar jackasses as Robert Moses:
[Robert Moses'] works remain extremely controversial. His critics claim that he preferred automobiles to people, that he displaced hundreds of thousands of residents in New York City, uprooted traditional neighborhoods by building expressways through them, contributed to the ruin of the South Bronx and the amusement parks of Coney Island, caused the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants Major League baseball teams, and precipitated the decline of public transport through disinvestment and neglect. [emphasis added]
The upshot is that, self-driving cars are anathema to Americans -- right up there with public transportation. Not because of any inherent benefits, but because of the marketing of automobiles, horrible community planning and (we knew this was coming) the US's extensive efforts to keep the price of oil down over the past 50 years.
Cars are tools and should be treated as such -- not as status symbols and prized possessions. If (and that's a big 'if') we can learn that lesson, we may actually be able to create viable, sustainable communities which are not dependent on the individual death traps we call our cars.
If find it amusing that you call medium term 2-5 years. I would call medium term till i am about 50 (20 years) and long term when i retire, so about 40 years. Yet if i am talking about things like energy security, long term is 100+ years.
One of the reasons i like the Long Now foundation.
I agree with you. Planning for the future should be considered done in terms of decades and generations.
However, there's something called "context." Since you apparently haven't heard of such a thing, I'll elucidate using the current topic of discussion:
As was mentioned several times, public corporations think in terms of quarterly profits and quarter over quarter growth. Just to make sure "quarter" isn't another one of those concepts you don't know about, a quarter is three months.
Given that these corporations think in three month time frames, in the "context" of this discussion three months, IMHO, can be considered the "short term." As such, it's not such a great leap to call 2-5 years the medium term. Get it now?
I see this all the time on Slashdot but I don't see why it's a bizarre idea that companies want to grow. Many companies want to grow because it makes them more efficient
[snip]
So in (oversimplified) summation - growth is what stockholders want to see. So public companies want to make their shareholders happy.
You are 100% correct Schnell. However, that doesn't mean that the results are a net benefit to society.
The ever-present push for growth drives down wages, drives up inflation and, in general, makes things more difficult for the vast majority who get their income from wages and not investments.
Those who would disagree and say things like "A rising tide raises all boats." or "We all benefit when the richest get richer." seem to have very short memories. Ronald Reagan called it "Trickle-Down Economics." Those of us who experienced it first hand called it "Pissing on the poor."
Don't get me wrong. Our capitalist system can (and has) work(ed). It has raised millions out of crushing poverty and improved the lives of even the worst off among us. But when almost 15% WSJ, USDA of the US population requires government assistance (food stamps) to get enough to eat while the richest 3% control more and more of our capital and resources, something is wrong and we need to fix it.
IMHO, creating incentives for corporations to think, at a minimum, in the medium (2-5 years) term rather than focus exclusively on quarterly gains, should be part of such a fix.
I live in NYC (yes, the place so nice they named it twice) and according to Microsoft, the closest store to me is in Chicago. For you geographically challenged types, that's 790 miles
That's one hell of drive to the mall! Assuming I even own a car (which I don't).
McCain, however, after his rightward lurch during the election would probably have gone to war with Iran, would have appointed right-wing nutjobs to the EPA, Department of the Interior, etc., and would have emboldened the Republican party for generations --"look how much we screwed the country up with Bush, and we still got re-elected, we can do anything!" So he was still worth voting for.
He [Ralph Nader] ruled out the possibility that he would prevent a Democratic victory in 2008.
“Not a chance,” he said. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form.”
-Ralph Nader on whether he will prevent a Democratic win in the 08 election. (New York TImes)
It wasn't a landslide, but then the Republicans had their secret weapon: Sarah Palin
Bart: When I grow up I want to be in the Betty Ford Center!
Marge: Well you better start saving now, it's very expensive!
Lisa: Shh! They're strapping down Liza Minelli.
Perhaps the correct phrasing should be, "Sadly, this is what slashdot has devolved into – Yet Another Troll Site."
Perhaps you're correct. However, I'd point out that this thread now has over 400 comments. If the intent is to generate discussion, I'd say it was successful -- even if half the comments go something like:
Why the hell is this posted here? This is so obviously designed for a troll's fantasy land!"
I'd suggest that those who flame about putting this kind of thing up on the front page spend less time flaming and more time modding articles from the firehose up and down.
I hate to say it, but this is why it's never going to change. As the advertising industry has known for years, and as Coca-Cola bases its business model on, changing the minds of the masses is simply a matter of spending enough money.
As long as people consume entertainment that they don't pay for (such as television, radio, and most websites for that matter) people are going to consume advertising, opening a portion of their minds to the highest bidder. As long as people freely offer their minds to the highest bidder in exchange for a sitcom, phony partisan "news" report or video of a cat falling off a TV, the ones with the most money (read: the establishment) is going to have the most influence the masses.
The only thing that might change that is if people start starving or otherwise feeling primal physical discomfort as a result of the establishment / status quo keeping on doing what they're doing. That's a possibility, but not one that I hope for.
That's exactly correct. Political campaigns have been using the same techniques (with similar goals) as consumer products advertisers for at least the last 15 years. The primary goal is "Top of mind" (or unaided) awareness [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Top_of_mind_awareness].
When the consumer (in this case, the voter) knows the name of the brand (candidate), they are much more likely to buy (vote) that brand (candidate) at the supermarket (polling place) than a brand (candidate) they've never heard of.
I keep using consumer product advertising language above because the same techniques are being used in both scenarios. Do you research what brands of yogurt have the best ingredients, the most nutritional value or utilize the most environmentally sound production techniques before going to the store to buy yogurt?
I'm guessing that for most people, the answer is "no." I'm also guessing the same goes (at least for a large chunk of the electorate) for political candidates. The big difference is that you can read the ingredients on a container of yogurt at the supermarket. You don't have a similar ability for candidates at polling places.
If you find this disturbing and wrong, you're not alone. However, until we can level the playing field WRT getting voices heard, the candidates with the most money will almost always win the day. With few exceptions (e.g, Steve Forbes, Michael Bloomberg) this means that those who raise the most money will win the most elections. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," no?
Have you gotten your meals out of dumpsters and supplemented them by shoplifting?
Have you gone days and days without a shower because you had no place to take one? Slept in parks and alleyways?
I'm guessing the answer is "no."
Well, I have. And you know what? I survived by doing what I had to do and through the kindness of people who had nothing to gain by helping me. Without those people I would be dead and we wouldn't be having this pleasant conversation.
I learned that nobody owes me anything. I get what I get because I work hard for it. As it should be.
What is more, I try to help people. Why? Because it's the right and ethical thing to do. I don't judge people by what they have or how they live or paint whole societies with a broad brush. I go by what people do and what they say.
We live in an unequal world. It's not right and it breaks my heart to know that many people have short, harsh, brutal lives. But I can't make everything better.
I can't stop the oil companies from raping the Earth, or bankrupt the corrupt corporate executives who happily endorse screwing the most vulnerable among us to pad their own pockets, or jail the scumbags who commit atrocities in the name of my home.
I can, however, treat my fellow humans with respect and kindness. I can lead by example.
What do you do? You hate on others. Usually, that's a sign that you hate yourself.. Do you feel inadequate in some way? Didn't your mommy love you enough? Did some sociopath scumbag abuse you as a child?
As my late sister used to say, "hurt people hurt people," and she was (and is) right.
I care a great deal about people wherever they are. Because people are (which is the whole point you're missing) on the whole, decent, and if given the chance, kind, caring, and willing to do the right thing. As such, they are worthy of the same.
You say that Americans think the world owes them something. I'm sure some (but not most) of us do. And those are the people who wouldn't call the police if they saw someone's house being broken into. Sound familiar?
The problems we have come from people like you. With your "Fuck you Jack! I'm alright." attitude. We have a word for people like you: sociopaths.
Whether you're a poor sociopath or a rich sociopath, it really doesn't matter.
The saddest part is that you don't realize that you and the people like you *are* the problem.
When you are rich it's no personal risk to yourself to help a poor person but when you are poor there is great personal risk to yourself to help a rich person.
Please explain the risk you take by supporting the social contract of the society you live in. That is your duty as a citizen of your society, just like jury duty or voting.
Then again, I suspect that someone as selfish as you thinks society owes you.
That's because the $1/song is a nonsense number people like to make up. That's a decent estimate of the price to buy (ok, buy a license, I hate that legalese as much as anyone) a song legally, which is completely unrelated to the penalty under the law for copyright violation. It shouldn't be $150k or $130k or whatever it is, but it also shouldn't be the same as the price for doing the legal thing in the first place because then there is zero deterrence in the penalty.
A very good point. I'm all for deterrence and totally get the idea of punitive damages.
I just thought it an interesting idea to draw out the ridiculousness of the claimed "damages" in this way.
That said, even if we go with what the law allows (let's take the larger of your two figures) that's still 50,000.000 individual instances of infringement.
Let's even assume that only 100,000 users are responsible for 80% of that.
In order to actually *prove* (rather than infer based on a few representative cases -- and if I were the defense, I'd make every effort to force the plaintiffs to prove each and every instance) only 100,000 cases of infringement could take decades and, IMHO they'd be lucky to actually prove 10% of the individual instances of infringement.
I say that because of the complexity of identifying who actually did what, especially years later.
Of course, like the overwhelming majority of civil lawsuits, this case will almost certainly never go to trial.
I guess I didn't need the hyperbole to showcase how ridiculous this lawsuit is. Thanks for calling me on it Security Guy.
Assuming (conservatively) $1.00 per song that means that every computer owner would have to have downloaded 50,000 songs to make the numbers come out right.
That ignores that many people have more than one computer. It also ignores that a large percentage of those 1.5 billion computers are owned and managed by organizations both public and private, many of whom block p2p activities like Limewire.
Just for fun, let's assume that it's really a billion infringing users. If this were true, We'd all need bigger hard drives, to store those 67,000 songs each.
I need to stop now because I'm getting a stitch in my side laughing while thinking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing for him that, in this country, you don't have to prove your innocence.
That's a good one. Did you make that joke up yourself?
Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a brick layer!
FTFY
I need to find a hot chick to hide in a military bunker with.
Get some advice from Donald Fagan on that one
MAC addresses are configurable. My point is, you have to be careful who you hire and then give them the resources to get their work done. In corporate IT, users are the customers, not the adversaries.
Yes, I am aware that MAC addresses are configurable. In fact, I use LAA (Locally Administered Addresses) for a number of purposes. Most of my users wouldn't know a MAC address if it came up and bit them.
Then again, I don't (at least not right now) work for a technology vendor. I have done so in the past and it adds additional dimensions to the IT management environment. In those circumstances, technical people will be given wide latitude to manage and implement on their own workstations and on development/engineering networks. I've been on both sides of that and, as a rule, that arrangement works well. On a production network however, I stand by my original statement: "Users *will* keep their greasy little paws off of *my* servers."
It is very important to hire trustworthy people. However, even scrupulously honest and reasonable people can do non-optimal things because they don't understand the implications of their actions. Anyone (other than appropriate IT staff) installing a sniffer has moved out of the realm of "non-optimal" to "potentially criminal."
I work for a large law firm and lawyers are notorious for thinking they know better than everyone else. At the same time, they need to generate billable hours, which limits their interest in running IT for themselves. That certainly doesn't stop them from making "helpful" suggestions. The solution here, just like any professional services environment, is for IT to get the bullshit out of the billable resource's way to give them more time to do their job -- generating revenue.
If you wanted to make a point about end-users being customers, then you should have said so in the first place. That is, of course, quite correct. I treat my customers with respect and do everything I can to exceed their expectations. Most of the time, I succeed. However, that has to be a two way street. Sometimes users do stupid things (as do IT people). I've had users forwarding confidential emails to personal email accounts, abusing the network and all manner of dumb stuff. The appropriate way to handle this is to discuss the issue calmly with said customer, gather their requirements and determine an appropriate solution.
That said, when a user tries to do an end run around IT, it's usually because they're doing something they know is inappropriate, has a huge ego, and/or isn't getting the appropriate support from IT. None of these are good reasons for circumventing the IT process for all the reasons detailed by me and other folks on this thread.
My language was colorful and certainly doesn't reflect how I would address my customers. However, you (and the OP for that matter) aren't my customers. The ire expressed by many on this thread is understandable, mostly because the few bad apples who go outside the IT process are the first ones to blame IT for the failure of the rogue implementation that the user spent significant time trying to hide from IT.
All in all, a well management environment and a responsive IT staff can head off these issues 95-99% of the time.
Your eloquent response didn't answer the question. Would this prevent someone from running a packet sniffer?
That depends. On my network, unless your MAC address is configured to access the production network, you get kicked to the guest network with all the access to the Internet you like -- but no access to my production network. As such, you could absolutely connect a sniffer and, if it suited you, you could capture all the broadcast and multicast traffic you wanted *on the guest network*.
However, the network policies where I work aren't nearly as paranoid as I'd like them to be. If I had my druthers, any unapproved device plugged in to the network would get no access at all, in which case a sniffer would be completely useless.
Then again, if (and it seems that it is at OP's place of business) you're not using some form of NAC, then yes you could plug a sniffer into the production network. However, in a switched network (assuming the switch port in question isn't trunked), all you would see is broadcast and multicast traffic, plus any unicast traffic directed at you.
N.B., this applies only to a snffer such as Wireshark. Using other tools in conjunction with the sniffer, coupled with knowledge of the network you're hacking could net you much, much more.
They didn't buy it, they don't maintain it, they don't use it. Let them scan it and check everything over, but don't give them login credentials.
Unfortunately it's just another IT department with a God complex.
I think not. If you want to put something on my network, I need to approve it *before* you connect it to my LAN. We get root/Administrator/whatever and you get user access to the application only -- certainly not console access. If you don't want us to have access, then don't put it on our network. That's not a god complex -- We're *responsible* when something goes wrong, not you. We're expected to make it go when it breaks, not you. When bad things happen it's our fault, not yours. As such, users *will* keep their greasy little paws off of *my* servers. Period.
If the OP's IT staff has a problem (e.g., they're morons or provide crappy service to their customers) then they should fix the problem, not start their own IT infrastructure.
The IT folks at the OP's site should implement NAC. That'd fix his wagon but good.
No device (mobile devices and laptops on my guest wireless network don't count) gets on my network without the explicit knowledge and approval of IT *first*. That's how it's supposed to be. Not because we like to annoy users, but because if we know about it, we can (gasp!) monitor and support it. We can also make sure it's not going to interfere with other network traffic or cause problems for other applications.
i've seen way too many rogue implementations over the years and, for the most part, they were far more problematic than any systems we knew about. Invariably it was IT's fault of course. "So what if I didn't tell you that we hired consultants to install this Sun cluster and a half-dozen workstations eight months ago. Those consultants were costing way too much money so I fired them. But now it's broken! Fix it! How should I know what the root password is? You're IT! Figure it out!"
I'm sure the above paragraph will sound painfully familiar to many.
The world is not fair or just. Good thing too.
This isn't very original, but consider a world where life was fair and just and all the horrible things that happen to people happened because they actually deserved them. A pretty frightening thought, isn't it?
As such, I recommend taking great comfort in the general unfairness of the world.
That is, of course, why I live in NYC.
I was born and raised here and while I've traveled quite a bit around the US, I haven't found anyplace I like better -- mostly because of the car culture.
I don't own a car (and to date, never have) and if I need to go somewhere (almost anywhere outside of NYC) where I need a car, I just rent one.
At the same time, that's also the reason that community advisories go out when it's discovered that I'll be driving in a certain area :)
Which doesn't go where I need to be, when I need to be there or leave there.
In fact, they cut the bus line that went near my workplace. Never mind that the public transport route from home to the job involves 3 transfers and takes 2+ hours while the drive is 25 minutes. And I can go out for lunch or run errands. Or basically be something more productive than a cog in a machine.
And there's the problem in a nutshell.
In the United States (the place with which I have the most experience), cars aren't just vehicles. Cars have become an extension of an individual's personal space. As several people have pointed out, it's not about safety it's about control.
In 2004, a former classmate who lives 1500 miles away from where we went to high school actually drove her car to come to our reunion. When I asked her why she didn't fly -- especially since driving is so much more dangerous than flying. She said that despite the statistics (of which she had at least a passing knowledge) she preferred to drive because she *felt* more in control.
As for the public transportation infrastructure, there are many places just like St0rmShad0w's locality where, from a practical standpoint, public transportation is infeasible or even non-existent.
Where does this extreme short-sightedness come from?
IMHO, it's a result of decades of marketing by the auto industry, aided by government subsidies and the efforts of such stellar jackasses as Robert Moses:
[Robert Moses'] works remain extremely controversial. His critics claim that he preferred automobiles to people, that he displaced hundreds of thousands of residents in New York City, uprooted traditional neighborhoods by building expressways through them, contributed to the ruin of the South Bronx and the amusement parks of Coney Island, caused the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants Major League baseball teams, and precipitated the decline of public transport through disinvestment and neglect. [emphasis added]
The upshot is that, self-driving cars are anathema to Americans -- right up there with public transportation. Not because of any inherent benefits, but because of the marketing of automobiles, horrible community planning and (we knew this was coming) the US's extensive efforts to keep the price of oil down over the past 50 years.
Cars are tools and should be treated as such -- not as status symbols and prized possessions. If (and that's a big 'if') we can learn that lesson, we may actually be able to create viable, sustainable communities which are not dependent on the individual death traps we call our cars.
If find it amusing that you call medium term 2-5 years. I would call medium term till i am about 50 (20 years) and long term when i retire, so about 40 years. Yet if i am talking about things like energy security, long term is 100+ years. One of the reasons i like the Long Now foundation.
I agree with you. Planning for the future should be considered done in terms of decades and generations.
However, there's something called "context." Since you apparently haven't heard of such a thing, I'll elucidate using the current topic of discussion:
As was mentioned several times, public corporations think in terms of quarterly profits and quarter over quarter growth. Just to make sure "quarter" isn't another one of those concepts you don't know about, a quarter is three months.
Given that these corporations think in three month time frames, in the "context" of this discussion three months, IMHO, can be considered the "short term." As such, it's not such a great leap to call 2-5 years the medium term. Get it now?
I see this all the time on Slashdot but I don't see why it's a bizarre idea that companies want to grow. Many companies want to grow because it makes them more efficient
[snip]
So in (oversimplified) summation - growth is what stockholders want to see. So public companies want to make their shareholders happy.
You are 100% correct Schnell. However, that doesn't mean that the results are a net benefit to society.
The ever-present push for growth drives down wages, drives up inflation and, in general, makes things more difficult for the vast majority who get their income from wages and not investments.
Those who would disagree and say things like "A rising tide raises all boats." or "We all benefit when the richest get richer." seem to have very short memories. Ronald Reagan called it "Trickle-Down Economics." Those of us who experienced it first hand called it "Pissing on the poor."
Don't get me wrong. Our capitalist system can (and has) work(ed). It has raised millions out of crushing poverty and improved the lives of even the worst off among us. But when almost 15% WSJ, USDA of the US population requires government assistance (food stamps) to get enough to eat while the richest 3% control more and more of our capital and resources, something is wrong and we need to fix it.
IMHO, creating incentives for corporations to think, at a minimum, in the medium (2-5 years) term rather than focus exclusively on quarterly gains, should be part of such a fix.
Not that confused
I live in NYC (yes, the place so nice they named it twice) and according to Microsoft, the closest store to me is in Chicago. For you geographically challenged types, that's 790 miles
That's one hell of drive to the mall! Assuming I even own a car (which I don't).
Well, I guess it's good-bye then.
I was thinking more along these lines instead.
But hey, whatever fries your clams, bud!
McCain, however, after his rightward lurch during the election would probably have gone to war with Iran, would have appointed right-wing nutjobs to the EPA, Department of the Interior, etc., and would have emboldened the Republican party for generations --"look how much we screwed the country up with Bush, and we still got re-elected, we can do anything!" So he was still worth voting for.
He [Ralph Nader] ruled out the possibility that he would prevent a Democratic victory in 2008.
“Not a chance,” he said. “If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form.”
-Ralph Nader on whether he will prevent a Democratic win in the 08 election. (New York TImes)
It wasn't a landslide, but then the Republicans had their secret weapon: Sarah Palin
Bart: When I grow up I want to be in the Betty Ford Center!
Marge: Well you better start saving now, it's very expensive!
Lisa: Shh! They're strapping down Liza Minelli.
Perhaps the correct phrasing should be, "Sadly, this is what slashdot has devolved into – Yet Another Troll Site."
Perhaps you're correct. However, I'd point out that this thread now has over 400 comments. If the intent is to generate discussion, I'd say it was successful -- even if half the comments go something like:
Why the hell is this posted here? This is so obviously designed for a troll's fantasy land!"
I'd suggest that those who flame about putting this kind of thing up on the front page spend less time flaming and more time modding articles from the firehose up and down.
just sayin'...
I disagree. This is exactly the sort of post that should be on the front page it you're trying to stimulate discussion.
This article was posted less than two hours ago, yet it has more than 250 comments already. Seems like a pretty successful Slashdot post, no?
I hate to say it, but this is why it's never going to change. As the advertising industry has known for years, and as Coca-Cola bases its business model on, changing the minds of the masses is simply a matter of spending enough money.
As long as people consume entertainment that they don't pay for (such as television, radio, and most websites for that matter) people are going to consume advertising, opening a portion of their minds to the highest bidder. As long as people freely offer their minds to the highest bidder in exchange for a sitcom, phony partisan "news" report or video of a cat falling off a TV, the ones with the most money (read: the establishment) is going to have the most influence the masses.
The only thing that might change that is if people start starving or otherwise feeling primal physical discomfort as a result of the establishment / status quo keeping on doing what they're doing. That's a possibility, but not one that I hope for.
That's exactly correct. Political campaigns have been using the same techniques (with similar goals) as consumer products advertisers for at least the last 15 years. The primary goal is "Top of mind" (or unaided) awareness [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Top_of_mind_awareness].
When the consumer (in this case, the voter) knows the name of the brand (candidate), they are much more likely to buy (vote) that brand (candidate) at the supermarket (polling place) than a brand (candidate) they've never heard of.
I keep using consumer product advertising language above because the same techniques are being used in both scenarios. Do you research what brands of yogurt have the best ingredients, the most nutritional value or utilize the most environmentally sound production techniques before going to the store to buy yogurt?
I'm guessing that for most people, the answer is "no." I'm also guessing the same goes (at least for a large chunk of the electorate) for political candidates. The big difference is that you can read the ingredients on a container of yogurt at the supermarket. You don't have a similar ability for candidates at polling places.
If you find this disturbing and wrong, you're not alone. However, until we can level the playing field WRT getting voices heard, the candidates with the most money will almost always win the day. With few exceptions (e.g, Steve Forbes, Michael Bloomberg) this means that those who raise the most money will win the most elections. "He who pays the piper calls the tune," no?
-- If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
01001001 00100000 01110000 01110010 01100101 01100110 01100101 01110010 00100000 01010100
01100101 01100011 01101000 01101110 01101111 00101101 01110111 01100101 01100101 01101110
01101001 01100101 00101100 00100000 01110100 01101000 01100001 01101110 01101011 01110011
Troll.
Have you gotten your meals out of dumpsters and supplemented them by shoplifting?
Have you gone days and days without a shower because you had no place to take one? Slept in parks and alleyways?
I'm guessing the answer is "no."
Well, I have. And you know what? I survived by doing what I had to do and through the kindness of people who had nothing to gain by helping me. Without those people I would be dead and we wouldn't be having this pleasant conversation.
I learned that nobody owes me anything. I get what I get because I work hard for it. As it should be.
What is more, I try to help people. Why? Because it's the right and ethical thing to do. I don't judge people by what they have or how they live or paint whole societies with a broad brush. I go by what people do and what they say.
We live in an unequal world. It's not right and it breaks my heart to know that many people have short, harsh, brutal lives. But I can't make everything better.
I can't stop the oil companies from raping the Earth, or bankrupt the corrupt corporate executives who happily endorse screwing the most vulnerable among us to pad their own pockets, or jail the scumbags who commit atrocities in the name of my home. I can, however, treat my fellow humans with respect and kindness. I can lead by example.
What do you do? You hate on others. Usually, that's a sign that you hate yourself.. Do you feel inadequate in some way? Didn't your mommy love you enough? Did some sociopath scumbag abuse you as a child?
As my late sister used to say, "hurt people hurt people," and she was (and is) right.
I care a great deal about people wherever they are. Because people are (which is the whole point you're missing) on the whole, decent, and if given the chance, kind, caring, and willing to do the right thing. As such, they are worthy of the same.
You say that Americans think the world owes them something. I'm sure some (but not most) of us do. And those are the people who wouldn't call the police if they saw someone's house being broken into. Sound familiar?
The problems we have come from people like you. With your "Fuck you Jack! I'm alright." attitude. We have a word for people like you: sociopaths.
Whether you're a poor sociopath or a rich sociopath, it really doesn't matter.
The saddest part is that you don't realize that you and the people like you *are* the problem.
Okay. I get it now. You're either a sociopath or a troll, either way you're getting ignored from now on. bye!
When you are rich it's no personal risk to yourself to help a poor person but when you are poor there is great personal risk to yourself to help a rich person.
Please explain the risk you take by supporting the social contract of the society you live in. That is your duty as a citizen of your society, just like jury duty or voting.
Then again, I suspect that someone as selfish as you thinks society owes you.
That's because the $1/song is a nonsense number people like to make up. That's a decent estimate of the price to buy (ok, buy a license, I hate that legalese as much as anyone) a song legally, which is completely unrelated to the penalty under the law for copyright violation. It shouldn't be $150k or $130k or whatever it is, but it also shouldn't be the same as the price for doing the legal thing in the first place because then there is zero deterrence in the penalty.
A very good point. I'm all for deterrence and totally get the idea of punitive damages.
I just thought it an interesting idea to draw out the ridiculousness of the claimed "damages" in this way.
That said, even if we go with what the law allows (let's take the larger of your two figures) that's still 50,000.000 individual instances of infringement.
Let's even assume that only 100,000 users are responsible for 80% of that. In order to actually *prove* (rather than infer based on a few representative cases -- and if I were the defense, I'd make every effort to force the plaintiffs to prove each and every instance) only 100,000 cases of infringement could take decades and, IMHO they'd be lucky to actually prove 10% of the individual instances of infringement.
I say that because of the complexity of identifying who actually did what, especially years later.
Of course, like the overwhelming majority of civil lawsuits, this case will almost certainly never go to trial.
I guess I didn't need the hyperbole to showcase how ridiculous this lawsuit is. Thanks for calling me on it Security Guy.
Another fun fact:
Assuming for the moment that every computer on the planet (let's say 1.5 billion) illegally downloaded infringing music from Limewire.
$75Trillion/1.5 Billion computers = $50,000/computer.
Assuming (conservatively) $1.00 per song that means that every computer owner would have to have downloaded 50,000 songs to make the numbers come out right.
That ignores that many people have more than one computer. It also ignores that a large percentage of those 1.5 billion computers are owned and managed by organizations both public and private, many of whom block p2p activities like Limewire.
Just for fun, let's assume that it's really a billion infringing users. If this were true, We'd all need bigger hard drives, to store those 67,000 songs each.
I need to stop now because I'm getting a stitch in my side laughing while thinking about it.
Good Luck with that record companies!