This is not about vengeance or revenge, it is a deterrant. If it was about revenge or vengeance, the sentence would be life imprisonment.
So they lose 15 years of their life. What about the person they killed in their wanton, intentional wreckless act? If they get off with only a few years, they can cause even more damage, there will be less to discourage them repeating the behavior.
Texting while driving is an intentional act.
It makes sense rather than excuse such dangerous behavior, that a severe deterrant is used.
Questions about this should be on driving tests.
Remember, driving is a privilege, and following the rules is a responsibility. You agree to things like 15 years in jail for breaking the rules cans causing deaths, by accepting the privilege.
You just need to learn that the rules apply to you to, you're not above anyone, no matter how "better" you think you text while driving than they do, and you should apply the statement to yourself mercilessly.
Your attitude is inconsistent with the stance you have taken, and your attitude is dissonant with your point of view:
I try not to do this while driving because it's really DUMB.
I would estimate I've done it about 30 times over the last 6 months of driving.
What the hell? You say if someone does it, they're being dumb and they deserve what they get...
Then you say you admit you're doing it regularly, and instead of admitting it's a really big mistake, and you should get help to stop this wreckless behavior, you somehow justify it by saying you barely look at the phone, or only do it rarely and for a short time.
This is still distracted driving. You are still increasing the chance of an accident
Vehicles in front of you can stop without lighting their break lights, btw, the lights may be broken, or they may be crashing into something stationary, and you'll be in deep shit if you hit them at full speed (causing a multi-car wreck).
Sometimes a vehicle may cut through your lane or do other improper things, and you will have to apply maximum stopping force as soon as possible to avoid killing people or dying yourself.
You are still causing extreme risk to yourself and other citizens of causing an accident, should you miss something while you're texting.
Also, for example, if someone pulls out in front of you, at enough distance for you to slow down, but you don't notice it in time, you may rear-end them, and kill them.
You're also at increased risk of doing things like missing stop signs before it's too late, and hitting pedestrians, causing their death.
However, there is one part of your post i'm in agreement with:
This is small comfort to the person out walking who saw you at a distance of 25 meters, when they stepped into the crosswalk, knowing full well that there is a "Yield to pedestrians" sign, and you're required to stop if they're there.
They fail proper incident response by leaking incident data to the public. I would expect someone on their incident response team to be aware of the pen test, provide proof, and for the report to never leak out of the company.
I don't think proper incident response involves posting an alert based on an isolated incident and tipping off the attacker before law enforcement can move in.
Even if the attack was real, the institution might not want to reveal it to others, especially if the attack resulted in compromise; it could scare customers aware if they were informed that a security compromise had occured.
The problem with scrum is it ignores the psychology of software development.
You want to put an intern in charge of the process; probably someone the least experienced of all the developers.
And the scrum master has a role that puts him/her in charge of the whole process, and as enforcer of the rules, essentially a management position.
Your average engineer won't look on this kindly. It's one thing if you put an experienced PM or engineer in charge of the process, putting an intern in charge is like an insult to the dev team.
Honestly, you're probably best rotating the job of ScrumMaster every few months between all developers, so it doesn't seem like the position is special.
IDS are already deployed, and they don't/can't find everything. They can, however, find a lot of stuff and swat the big stuff.
No, IDS are widely deployed on enterprise internal networks and server farms, which generally have fairly low bandwidth requirements (usually 200 megabits or less, if that much, for all, except major web sites)
IDS software is computationally expensive and does not scale efficiency to the level of service provider networks. Try naming one IDS box that can handle monitoring 10 Gigabits of sustained traffic at potentially billions of packets per second and costs less than $1 million.
Let alone the higher transfer rates of 40gigs+ major SPs actually may pull through their gear.
Simple protocol identification is hard enough. Searching packets for patterns is a huge CPU expense.
Servers aren't used to browse the web or read email, they should be exempt. As should be workstation OSes that don't have an approved auditing tool available. But they should still be subject to requirement to have a portscan and validate each port open to the internet is specifically intended to be open.
The costs of automatically detecting that behavior are prohibitive, and would more than double the cost of internet access, if your ISP had to do it. And setting up an effective walled garden would also be an expensive proposition.
It'd do a lot more good than just "licensing" operators.
People will learn just what they need to know to get the license, then forget it all, or what they have to learn will be inadequate, and they get their PC infected.
The thought that you can just teach people once, and then they'll be great computer users who won't fall for scams is a fantasy.
As someone who's dealt with users firsthand in the past, I know... many people cannot be trained to avoid malware.
But they'll still finagle their way into getting whatever license they need.
Seriously... just licensing the user won't do any good if their PC is already infected.
We need mandatory periodic inspections of workstation PCs.
Every 30 days, the user should have to upload an antivirus report that indicates 8 things to keep their "PC break tag" current, and loss of currency means the PC will be illegal to operate, and law enforcement will be sent to collect the errant workstation:
The system security configuration is proper, and meets a standard. (No open proxies, no open ports)
System was booted from an Antivirus boot CD (so software on the system can't run or interfere with AV detection process, using an approved AV product
AV patterns were fully up to date
A full scan was made
The results indicate no malware.
The system was rebooted, and it was verified an approved AV and anti-malware product running on the system
The full scan was repeated on the live system, with successful completion and no malware found
AV and antimalware patterns were verfied to be up-to-date, and real-time protection was enabled
I expect Linux and Mac users probably require a special "UNIX" endorsment on their license to run a real OS, like large truck drivers need.
iPhone and similar mobile devices (with mobile browsers) need a license similar to what one needs to legally operate a motorcycle.
This could cause a resurgence in simpler phone devices, they'd have a niche market for people who don't want to pay the fees for a special license to operate a web browser on a phone.
Also, don't forget, these licenses only last 4 years, they contain a picture, and can only be renewed online once every other time.
So every 8 years, you have to go back to the Department of Electrocomputers and wait in line for 2 or 3 hours to get your renewal, as well as your typing skills (WPM) test.
Also, if you live in the US, and want to use a computer to connect to a.AU web site, you're going to have to fly all the way to Australia to take your computing test at the Australian Department of Electro Computers to get a license and therefore permission to access the australian interweb, otherwise you'll get a warning on your first offense, assessed a large escalating fine on your second, third, and fourth offenses, and finally, on your fifth offense, you will be required to mail your computer to the AU enforcement office for impoundment until you settle matters.
This is clearly thinly-disguised proposal to bolster Australia's tourism industry, in light of the economic recession.
'"You see, I do something real good for three people. And then when they ask how they can pay it back, I say they have to Pay It Forward. To three more people. Each. So nine people get helped. Then those people have to do twenty-seven." He turned on the calculator, punched in a few numbers. "Then it sort of spreads out, see. To eighty-one. Then two hundred forty-three. Then seven hundred twenty-nine. Then two thousand, one hundred eighty-seven. See how big it gets?"'
Why do people automatically assume that noone would be that nice?
No, his ISP banned his phone number and killed the line after the malware on the laptop sent out 500000000000 viagra ads after being online for 15 minutes.
AAC files downloaded from the iTunes store are encrypted using Apple's DRM technology, "FairPlay", they can only be played using devices that support Apple's DRM technology
And since no culture relies on watermelons as a basic sustenance crop, the problem with this is what, exactly?
The farmers start growing 96% watermelons, and 4% staple crops (to sustain themselves), in anticipation of selling, due to the lucrative pricing of wtaermelons at market.
The result is there are plenty of watermelons, but they won't have any of the staple crop to take to market.
It's probably economically inconvenient for the farmers.
They won't be able to sell the damaged goods for as much, regardless of the eventual use.
Also, there's probably not as much demand for watermelon juice, fruit, salads, sweeteners, which may contain some amount of watermelon flavoring plus artificial fillers and diluting substances, as there is demand for whole watermelons.
Also, the 20% aren't wasted, the nutrients go back into the ground, and help fertilize and keep the soil usable; after growing watermelon, which has a way of sucking out massive amounts of nutrients, this is sorely needed -- and may even be a case of waste is better for the environment than the alternative.
They should pay for it, for the same reason they should pay for a microphone jack on their sound card, even though 98% of the world doesn't use that either.
It's true, and there may be concerns about anticompetitive behavior, with regards to utilizing technical measures aimed at blocking the Palm from syncing with iTunes.
There can be no valid reason for intentionally blocking palms (that otherwise work), other than to protect their de-facto monopoly in the portal MP3 players market.
What does Apple have a monopoly over? Certainly they are not the only company to make computers or Operating systems.
Apple users can skip the new OS and buy an equivalent piece of hardware that runs MS Windows instead, or even install Windows on their Mac; these facts means Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
So (umm), do you have an alternate explanation for why they limit you to 4GB of address space in Windows server 2003/2008 Standard, but in Windows server 2003/2008 Enterprise, you are allowed to use all physical memory?
Keep in mind both editions use the same kernel. There must be some configuration and registry bits that are different.
The drivers between 32-bit XP, Server Standard, and Server Enterprise are not different; the same drivers are used in all 3.
Microsoft does not actually test drivers. Only certified drivers that get signed have to be tested according to Microsoft's specifications.
And you can load unsigned drivers into all these versions of Windows (Except 64-bit versions of XP which carries a special restriction that unsigned drivers cannot be loaded)
Slashdot Mirror
This is not about vengeance or revenge, it is a deterrant. If it was about revenge or vengeance, the sentence would be life imprisonment.
So they lose 15 years of their life. What about the person they killed in their wanton, intentional wreckless act? If they get off with only a few years, they can cause even more damage, there will be less to discourage them repeating the behavior.
Texting while driving is an intentional act.
It makes sense rather than excuse such dangerous behavior, that a severe deterrant is used.
Questions about this should be on driving tests. Remember, driving is a privilege, and following the rules is a responsibility. You agree to things like 15 years in jail for breaking the rules cans causing deaths, by accepting the privilege.
I agree with one bit of your post:
If somebody does this they deserve what's coming.
You just need to learn that the rules apply to you to, you're not above anyone, no matter how "better" you think you text while driving than they do, and you should apply the statement to yourself mercilessly.
Your attitude is inconsistent with the stance you have taken, and your attitude is dissonant with your point of view:
I try not to do this while driving because it's really DUMB.
I would estimate I've done it about 30 times over the last 6 months of driving.
What the hell? You say if someone does it, they're being dumb and they deserve what they get...
Then you say you admit you're doing it regularly, and instead of admitting it's a really big mistake, and you should get help to stop this wreckless behavior, you somehow justify it by saying you barely look at the phone, or only do it rarely and for a short time.
This is still distracted driving. You are still increasing the chance of an accident
Vehicles in front of you can stop without lighting their break lights, btw, the lights may be broken, or they may be crashing into something stationary, and you'll be in deep shit if you hit them at full speed (causing a multi-car wreck).
Sometimes a vehicle may cut through your lane or do other improper things, and you will have to apply maximum stopping force as soon as possible to avoid killing people or dying yourself.
You are still causing extreme risk to yourself and other citizens of causing an accident, should you miss something while you're texting.
Also, for example, if someone pulls out in front of you, at enough distance for you to slow down, but you don't notice it in time, you may rear-end them, and kill them.
You're also at increased risk of doing things like missing stop signs before it's too late, and hitting pedestrians, causing their death.
However, there is one part of your post i'm in agreement with:
If somebody does this they deserve what's coming.
You just need to learn to apply this to yourself.
This is small comfort to the person out walking who saw you at a distance of 25 meters, when they stepped into the crosswalk, knowing full well that there is a "Yield to pedestrians" sign, and you're required to stop if they're there.
They fail proper incident response by leaking incident data to the public. I would expect someone on their incident response team to be aware of the pen test, provide proof, and for the report to never leak out of the company.
I don't think proper incident response involves posting an alert based on an isolated incident and tipping off the attacker before law enforcement can move in.
Even if the attack was real, the institution might not want to reveal it to others, especially if the attack resulted in compromise; it could scare customers aware if they were informed that a security compromise had occured.
So it's a bit unusual that the report got out.
The problem with scrum is it ignores the psychology of software development.
You want to put an intern in charge of the process; probably someone the least experienced of all the developers.
And the scrum master has a role that puts him/her in charge of the whole process, and as enforcer of the rules, essentially a management position.
Your average engineer won't look on this kindly. It's one thing if you put an experienced PM or engineer in charge of the process, putting an intern in charge is like an insult to the dev team.
Honestly, you're probably best rotating the job of ScrumMaster every few months between all developers, so it doesn't seem like the position is special.
IDS are already deployed, and they don't/can't find everything. They can, however, find a lot of stuff and swat the big stuff.
No, IDS are widely deployed on enterprise internal networks and server farms, which generally have fairly low bandwidth requirements (usually 200 megabits or less, if that much, for all, except major web sites)
IDS software is computationally expensive and does not scale efficiency to the level of service provider networks. Try naming one IDS box that can handle monitoring 10 Gigabits of sustained traffic at potentially billions of packets per second and costs less than $1 million.
Let alone the higher transfer rates of 40gigs+ major SPs actually may pull through their gear.
Simple protocol identification is hard enough. Searching packets for patterns is a huge CPU expense.
Dear humorless nitwit, Your *nix boxes have already been pwned, it will just be 2 years before you realize it.
Have a nice day.
P.S. Please go back into whatever hole you crawled out of.
Servers aren't used to browse the web or read email, they should be exempt. As should be workstation OSes that don't have an approved auditing tool available. But they should still be subject to requirement to have a portscan and validate each port open to the internet is specifically intended to be open.
The costs of automatically detecting that behavior are prohibitive, and would more than double the cost of internet access, if your ISP had to do it. And setting up an effective walled garden would also be an expensive proposition.
No, and I despise most Symantec products.
It'd do a lot more good than just "licensing" operators.
People will learn just what they need to know to get the license, then forget it all, or what they have to learn will be inadequate, and they get their PC infected.
The thought that you can just teach people once, and then they'll be great computer users who won't fall for scams is a fantasy.
As someone who's dealt with users firsthand in the past, I know... many people cannot be trained to avoid malware.
But they'll still finagle their way into getting whatever license they need.
Or for that matter... www.bnkofsweden.se or www.bank.ofsweden.se
Where ofsweden is the SLD, and 'bank' is just some random subdomain created by the domain owner.
Seriously... just licensing the user won't do any good if their PC is already infected.
We need mandatory periodic inspections of workstation PCs. Every 30 days, the user should have to upload an antivirus report that indicates 8 things to keep their "PC break tag" current, and loss of currency means the PC will be illegal to operate, and law enforcement will be sent to collect the errant workstation:
I expect Linux and Mac users probably require a special "UNIX" endorsment on their license to run a real OS, like large truck drivers need.
iPhone and similar mobile devices (with mobile browsers) need a license similar to what one needs to legally operate a motorcycle.
This could cause a resurgence in simpler phone devices, they'd have a niche market for people who don't want to pay the fees for a special license to operate a web browser on a phone.
Also, don't forget, these licenses only last 4 years, they contain a picture, and can only be renewed online once every other time.
So every 8 years, you have to go back to the Department of Electrocomputers and wait in line for 2 or 3 hours to get your renewal, as well as your typing skills (WPM) test.
Also, if you live in the US, and want to use a computer to connect to a .AU web site, you're going to have to fly all the way to Australia to take your computing test at the Australian Department of Electro Computers to get a license and therefore permission to access the australian interweb, otherwise you'll get a warning on your first offense, assessed a large escalating fine on your second, third, and fourth offenses, and finally, on your fifth offense, you will be required to mail your computer to the AU enforcement office for impoundment until you settle matters.
This is clearly thinly-disguised proposal to bolster Australia's tourism industry, in light of the economic recession.
'"You see, I do something real good for three people. And then when they ask how they can pay it back, I say they have to Pay It Forward. To three more people. Each. So nine people get helped. Then those people have to do twenty-seven." He turned on the calculator, punched in a few numbers. "Then it sort of spreads out, see. To eighty-one. Then two hundred forty-three. Then seven hundred twenty-nine. Then two thousand, one hundred eighty-seven. See how big it gets?"'
Why do people automatically assume that noone would be that nice?
No, his ISP banned his phone number and killed the line after the malware on the laptop sent out 500000000000 viagra ads after being online for 15 minutes.
AAC files downloaded from the iTunes store are encrypted using Apple's DRM technology, "FairPlay", they can only be played using devices that support Apple's DRM technology
And since no culture relies on watermelons as a basic sustenance crop, the problem with this is what, exactly?
The farmers start growing 96% watermelons, and 4% staple crops (to sustain themselves), in anticipation of selling, due to the lucrative pricing of wtaermelons at market.
The result is there are plenty of watermelons, but they won't have any of the staple crop to take to market.
It's probably economically inconvenient for the farmers.
They won't be able to sell the damaged goods for as much, regardless of the eventual use.
Also, there's probably not as much demand for watermelon juice, fruit, salads, sweeteners, which may contain some amount of watermelon flavoring plus artificial fillers and diluting substances, as there is demand for whole watermelons.
Also, the 20% aren't wasted, the nutrients go back into the ground, and help fertilize and keep the soil usable; after growing watermelon, which has a way of sucking out massive amounts of nutrients, this is sorely needed -- and may even be a case of waste is better for the environment than the alternative.
Probably the fact that the iTunes store is the only viable well-known way known to the average person to get music on the mp3 player legally.
No competitor can come close to the function of the iTunes store.
Apple is the only company selling a portable MP3 player that can play music that you bought on iTunes.
The cost of a RS-232 I/O port is less than $1.
They should pay for it, for the same reason they should pay for a microphone jack on their sound card, even though 98% of the world doesn't use that either.
Serial ports are still needed to manage various pieces of network gear, for accessing Sun servers that can only be controlled via serial port.
For certain types of development; RS-232 s a common simple interface used by many devices.
I and many others require serial ports on a regular basis... every computer should have at least two built-in.
It's very distressing to get stuck with a PC and need a serial port, only to find the stupid thing is missing basic I/O capabilities.
It's true, and there may be concerns about anticompetitive behavior, with regards to utilizing technical measures aimed at blocking the Palm from syncing with iTunes.
There can be no valid reason for intentionally blocking palms (that otherwise work), other than to protect their de-facto monopoly in the portal MP3 players market.
What does Apple have a monopoly over? Certainly they are not the only company to make computers or Operating systems.
Apple users can skip the new OS and buy an equivalent piece of hardware that runs MS Windows instead, or even install Windows on their Mac; these facts means Apple doesn't have a monopoly.
So (umm), do you have an alternate explanation for why they limit you to 4GB of address space in Windows server 2003/2008 Standard, but in Windows server 2003/2008 Enterprise, you are allowed to use all physical memory?
Keep in mind both editions use the same kernel. There must be some configuration and registry bits that are different.
The drivers between 32-bit XP, Server Standard, and Server Enterprise are not different; the same drivers are used in all 3.
Microsoft does not actually test drivers. Only certified drivers that get signed have to be tested according to Microsoft's specifications.
And you can load unsigned drivers into all these versions of Windows (Except 64-bit versions of XP which carries a special restriction that unsigned drivers cannot be loaded)