Let's take a shot at:
2001-03-18 13:10:15
I suppose the South Pacific isn't such a bad place to live, if you can deal with space debris raining down on your head every 15-20 years or so.
Actually, the only thing that the possession of a college degree guarantees is that the holder graduated college. It says nothing about the person's ability to work (hey...I know more than a couple people who coasted through school), or to think critically (again, I've a couple friends who have advanced degrees who can't think well linearly, or critically), or to stay on task (ADHD anyone?).
What matters most, to me, at least, is the person's ability to do what they can do. I don't care if that person has a piece of sheepskin. what I do care about is whether or not the person can deliver.
So...would I let an architect design a house without a degree? Sure, but I want to see what they can do. I want to see what they have done in the past.
That's my situation. I'm a guy who has been messing with computers for almost 15 years now, personally. I've been an extremely informal help desk for my co-workers for 10 years. But, I don't have a college degree. So it's been omre than difficult to find a job in the industry I want, and I know full well, with rock-solid certainty, I can do. I attribute most of this to "degree predjudice". But that's my own personal rant.;-)
Okay. let's drop all the analogies about breaking into houses and jumping off cliffs. They all miss the point very badly here. There are only a few points that need to be considered here.
The teacher was in class giving this challenge.
The teacher was seen by the student as being a voice of authority and acting as a representative of the school.
Other students in the class heard what the teacher had said and interpreted it in exactly the same way as the student in question.
Given these three points, the student should be walking away scot-free. Here's an appropriate analogy. A bank manager is giving a seminar about the security of his bank and during this seminar, he says that the alarm company servicing that bank is so confident in their security that it will reward anyone who can disable the alarm system from inside the bank. He further challenges the seminar attendees to do just that and says that he wants a cut of the reward if they can do it, but that he doubts anyone can. Then, when someone who attended the seminar actually does what he chellenged them to do, he says that he was just kidding about the whole thing
The problem in the story is that the representative of the bank is acting in an official capacity as a bank official, and it could be fairly and successfully argued that anything he ways about his bank is said with the full weight and authority of his position. The same principle works for the school teacher. When a teacher speaks, it is with the full authority of the school, and the school district. That's how they can at least attempt to keep discipline, set grades, and make standards for the grades they do give, set curricula, etc.
AFAIK, the teacher screwed the pooch here by making a challenge to his students without the authority to follow-through correctly. It's not the students' fault if the teacher overstepped his bounds. They had no way of knowing he wasn't serious, and that he could keep them immune from harm, as he seems to have implied in his challenge (i.e. you'll get a reward and extra credit. That's a reward, not a punishment.).
I've been trying to listen to several different sources regarding this particular problem in Palm Beach county and at least two things have jumped out at me.
First, it is true that several voters asked to recast their votes once they had realized that they had voted for the wrong person. Interestingly enough, none of the people I heard interviewed actually told the interviewer *why* they realized that their vote was miscast. i'd be interested in hearing that. But, regardless, the ones I heard interviewed who were refused another ballot asked for their ballot after their ballot had been turned in and placed in the sealed ballot box . That's important. had they asked before the ballot had been officially turned in, it's an easy matter to get another ballot and tear up the old one. It's impossible and illegal to get that ballot back after it's been "sealed".
Second, the questionable ballot design just didn't arise out of thin air. This ballot had to be reviewed and approved by representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the Attorney General. Additionally, a sample of the ballot was published in the area newspapers prior to the election. So, it wasn't a surprise and was a public matter. Those who weren't paying close enough attention also must not have been paying attention to the sample ballot either. Neither must the representatives from the two major parties have been paying much attention, for they had to approve the ballots. Obviously, it wasn't that much a matter of concern. the close election seems only to have magnified this issue.
I don't see any legal way that a re-vote can be called. I've reveiwed the law, as much as I can find, and "Oops!" isn't a valid legal reason to throw out an election and have another one. This was the voters fault, pure and simple, and shame on them for not paying close attention and making doubly and triply sure their ballot was correct before handing it away.
But, in the "ain't is a coincidence" department. Recent posts on/. regarding this election have mentioned a book called "Votescam" and its accompanying website Votescam . It strikes me as oddly coincidental that the outright frauds that were enumerated in very good detail in that book happened to occur in Florida. I'm not saying that there's a correlation, but it does seem mighty coincidental.
Well, first off, I'm not yet in the techie world, though I'm working hard on getting hired on as a tech writer. I am, however, a veteran police dispatcher, so I guess I qualify as an expert on time and task management. I've taken a couple classes and have learned some things the hard way. So now that you have my resume, here's what I'd recommend.
Talk to your immediate boss without delay. Find out from that person what he or she expects frmo you and on what you will be evaluated. Have that person make you a list of what is and is not important and make sure that you have the right from them to refuse things or to place things as a lower priority that aren't on that list.
Make a list of the tasks you have on your plate and priorituze them in the order of the list you were given by your boss. Stick to that list faithfully.
Don't procrastinate on things that should be done, but have no deadline. If you've been given no deadline ona task do one of two things. Either set a deadline yourself, or check with your boss to see if it's actually necessary. If it's not important enough to rate a deadline, it may not need to be done at all.
Stick to your plan. Don't get diverted by things like e-mail and phone calls that aren't urgent. If an urgent thing comes up, make sure your boss knows about it, so you don't get too far off task.
For things like e-mail and non-urgent phone calls, schedule a time or two during the day when you can do them. Get your e-mailing and phone calls done them. It's okay to schedule two times a day, if you want, just as long as it's a specific time.
That's about all I can think of to really help manage time and tasks. It's not perfect, but it does help quite a bit, especially when you can get real busy with urgent assignments all at the same time. Just don't forget to gethelp when you need it and keep your boss in the loop.
First of all I would like to thank you for your earnest and thoughtful questions. The technological community is important to me and I...
[an aide leans in from the side and whispers something to Gore, who looks quizzically and says, sotto voce. "They're not rich or a minority? What the hell am I doing here? They're computer geeks? You mean those guys I used to give wedgies to in high school? Oh hell. Let's get this over with.]
I value young people and I want you all to know that I'm going to ensure that our Government takes good care of you. That's why I'm putting much of the surpluses I've helped to create into a lockbox. I'm also going to make sure that your parents and Grandparents are taken care of also, so I've put the surplus into a lockbox. It's vitally important that we pay down this national debt that threatens everyone's safety and security, so I've put the budget surplus into a lockbox...
[an aide leans in and hands Gore a note. Gore reads it and says again, sotto voce, "What do you mean I can't give all three lockbox speeches here? These geeks aren't smart enough to know that I'm promising the same surplus to three different groups! Hell...my proposals are a trillion dollars more than the surplus already and nobody's noticed. These guys won't either. If they get all nervous, I'll just say something about Napster and defending freedom of information and I"ll just look all "alpha male" and they'll forget all about it!]
Pardon me for that interruption. As I was saying...when I am elected your President, I'm going to ensure that you are kept safe, secure, and free using every tool the government can provide. And when there's a need, we will not hesitate to provide more government programs to address any further needs which may arise. We will give no tax relief, except that which has been specially targeted, such as tuition assistance, and child tax credits. The wealthiest one percent should not and does not deserve tax relief.
[an aide leans in again, Gore forestalls him by saying, "Look. I know these nerds don't have kids and are already college educated. It doesn't matter. We're bashing the rich here! What do you mean these nerds are becoming the rich? You don't seriously think that by the time they make their wealth, they're believe that we'll cut taxes so they can actually invest their money as they wish, do you?]
Thank you for your time today, and for your vote. Good night.
The tone of the responses seemed to be directed at preventing something like this from happening again, but the question was directed at dealing with the situation as it exists, namely:
Someone has sensitive data, and that someone may well be the competition.
First off, make sure you know exactly what was on the media which was stolen. If possible, grill the CIO and make sure you can identify as much of the data as possible. If it's confidential, and this data begins to appear elsewhere, then you'll have a pretty good clue who took it.
Second, assume that the company which can do you the most possible damage has your information. At this point, you need to develop a strategy to counter their use of this information. It may be something as simple as changing any password you think they may have gotten (or, to be safe, every single one of them), to doing things like changing your business plan and internal strategies. The competition now knows many of your most intimate intimates, and you have to make sure that they can't use them well at all.
The next thing is to look over your security. Data security and site security can be approached at the same time. The suggestions posted here (encryption, secured servers to house data, etc) are all excellent. confer with a security consultant, preferably one who has experience working with the Federal Government, which, in most cases, has some of the tightest security around. A security consultant can do both data and physical security.
For site security, you're going to have to do things like replacing door locks with more secure models (or with electronic card locks, if you want to spend the money) and replacing doors and door jambs with more sturdy material (i.e. something that can't easily be kicked in). Make sure, if you have a drop ceiling, that the tiles can't be lifted up, which might let someone just climb up and over the door, through the ceiling (yeah, I've seen it happen...). Other than that, hip everyone who works there about security...the small things that everyone can do to make sure their information and offices are secure.
As well-intenioned as John McCain and his counterparts on the Democratic side (most of whom also support similar legislation) may be, we all know this isn't going to work. Either the software they choose will have its problems (which isn't the fault of the software, but of the bad, bad, evil English language for having words that look the same, but mean different things.), or the local implementation of the law is going to be spotty (Who gets to deem what's inappropriate?).
What this whole mess boils down to is that neither party, Democrat or Republican, seems to have a firm grasp on what it is that they're supposed to be doing. On the Dem side, most thought seems to be "Let's have the Government take care of folks wholeheartedly". The Repubs come out with "Let's make some laws, but let local jurisdictions sort out how they want to enforce them, and at what level of strictness". Neither of these approaches work, and neither is even remotely close to what's allowable according to the US Constitution.
I'm now convinced, after much disgust with both major parties and a lot of research into the issues, that the only real answer (and one which may not be a viable option, but I'm still willing to work on it, as much as I can), is to get the Libertarians into there. They don't have the perfect platform either, but they do have one overarching principle which rings very real to me: The Federal Government has specific duties, and they must only be allowed to do those duties, and no more. Everything else can be slugged out where it belongs, on the State and Local levels. At least this puts most issues in play where people can reach them - state and local legislators are far more approachable, and responsive, in my experience. Besides, the Libertarian party, for all the press they're not getting (How is Buchanan and Nader getting mentioned in the Gallup and Washington Post/ABC News polls, but not Harry Browne? In polls where he is included, he outpolls Buchanan and nearly outperforms Nader!), is the largest third-party in the US, and has more members currently in office than the other third-parties combined. That also impresses me.
Is kids having access to porn bad? Sure it is. Can the Federal Government legislate against it? Sure it can. Will that legislation do one bit of good? No chance in H**l, and we all know it.
And for those who aren't US citizens, this matters in the sense that, for better or worse, the US is the top dog driving the tech industry. The decisions made here will reach to other countries (as they already have with this seemingly insane new proposed treaty outlawing "hackers". BTW, can anyone actually show me one of these extremely dangerous cyber-desperadoes? I've yet to see one. I doubt they even exist). These decisions being made here are word-wide decisions, even if they don't appear to be so now.
-Jimmie
Wow...finally a slashdot article that allows me to use a hobby of mine that's really obscure! Yay!
Okay, first, this object will probably not be called "Plutino", because that name's already pretty much taken and has been used for a class of objects which astronomers decide are larger than the average asteroid, but smaller than the traditional definition of a planet. They've been discovering plutinos for years now and there's even a circular which goes out in the astronomical community a couple times a year which outlines the information on all the plutinos.
These plutinos, and even Pluto itself, is believed to have come from, or may still be part of a large group of chunks of rock called the Kuiper Belt. This belt rings our solar system just beyond the orbit of Pluto. The important factor influencing these object is the planet Neptune which, because of its orbit, will occasionally pull an object from the Kuiper belt and drag it into the solar system proper. Also, bodies in the Kuiper Belt run into each other, and the collision will send a body into our solar system. This is where astronomers believe Pluto and this new rock may have come from. Astronomers believe that there are even more bodies orbiting more closely than the Kuiper Belt, probably tucked in between the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, and just beyond Pluto.
Beyond the Kuiper Belt is yet another conglomeration of chunks of rock and dust called the Oort Cloud. This also surrounds our solar system and may actually protect us from some of the things that could zip into the system and strike another planet or disrupt things. The Oort Cloud also provides us with debris which will come floating into the solar system from collisions with object in the cloud, or from objects that arrive in the cloud from outside. We don't quite know how large the cloud is, for sure, nor how many objects are in ot, mostly because the cloud doesn't reflect what little light it might get. We make our guesses based on fairly obscure measuring methods. It has been suggested that perhaps the Oort Cloud has a good amount of Dark Matter in it, but that's pretty much conjecture right now.
The upshot of the whole thing is that, the harder we look, the more we find in our own backyard. Our methods of studyign the heavens have gotten more and more sophisticated, and allow us to see smaller objects, orbiting farther away. I, personally, hope that we realize that, as long as we're looking out there anyhow, it wouldn't be a bad idea to look systematically, especially for objects that could pose some sort of threat to our planet directly. The tech is cheap, and what we'd need to build to deal with any intruder that might run into us is also quite cheap. Maybe it's not a bad idea at all.
Actually, the music may belong to a few different folks.
First, the music belongs to the person or people who wrote it. They get residuals every time the song is recorded, sold, and played. Sometimes this is the artist, sometimes a third-party songwriter. It all depends. Read the liner notes to see who owns the songwriting credits.
Second, the music belongs to whoever holds the release rights to it. Often times this is the music company (which is why Prince waged his protest, BTW), but this is not necessarily so. This is also the reason many artists start their own record labels - to have control over how and when the music is released, originally, and on compilation albums. Most times the record company will own the recording rights initially, though in some cases the artist merely cedes the right to first release to the record company and retains the right to re-release the songs after a certain period of time. This is akin to deal authors strike which allow them to distribute their own writings overseas, or in reprint form, as they wish.
Thirdly, the music belongs to whoever purchases it, to a degree. There are already laws and case precedent regarding this.
In each case, a different aspect of the music is owned by a different person. I think it would behoove all the music fans out there to learn a bit about what happens with music when it is produced, which will make us much better at arguing the points we need to argue.
-Jimmie
PS. As an amateur musician moving toward professional songwriting, I can tell you, the money is in writing most of the time.
Well, let me lead off by saying that I'm not offended in the least. Right now, I'm very much trying to change careers from the 12-year career I've had working for State Government as a Police Dispatcher (oddly enough, never the real recipient of all this government tax money they've been collecting). I'm moving because my expenses require it.
I recently had to buy a new car. I retired by 17-year old model and bought one that I'll be driving for 15 more years. I would rather have not done it, but my old car died, and that's how that worked.:-)
My children are....well...they require food, clothing, and care and the money I spend on them would never be enough, in my book. I also live in one of the most expensive areas int he country to live, on average, which doesn't help matters any. Perhaps I could move, but that doesn't solve the overall problem.
Here's what it comes down to. Cutting taxes has never one single time harmed our ecomony. Kennedy did it, Reagan did it, and in each instance, the money we gained in the Federal Treasury increased. The problem in both instances is that the proposed spending went up by more than the increase we saw from the new revenue streams. Giving me my tax mone isn't a bad idea, but overspending what we do have always is. That's been the problem since we began running deficits, and it's still the problem now.
What I'd ideally like to see is a real and honest top to bottom review of how our government spends its money and a genuine effort to rid it of waste and inefficiency. Trust me, I've worked in a government long enough to know that there's an almost indescribeable amount of waste involved. That money needs to go back to the people from whom it was taken. We all need the choice, every one of us, to spend our money where we see fit, not where the government dictates it's in our best interest to spend it.
And a side note about the Bush stadium comment. when last I saw, the new stadium in Texas had already paid for itself in the revenue it brought in. I would rather have seen that money go back to the people of the area before it went anywhere else, but sports stadia are unique in that there one of the few things a government can build that pays for itself and generates consistent revenue.
I'm not saying Bush is the perfect candidate, but for the issues that mater most to me, he's the man who will do what I most want to see done.
I suppose that there's a larger point than just what's been debunked or not (though not all of them were debunked). The whole "potatoe" debacle with Vice President Quayle wasn't his problem either, inasmuch as he used a correct, albeit archaic, way to spell potato.
The point is that in the most recent past, the inanities which have been pointed out most vociferously have been made by Republicans. It's not because they say more inane things than Democrats, but because perhaps they make better targets. I hesitate to call the media a biased entity, though it may well be, but that's the way it seems. There are plenty of Al Gore quotes that show him to be just as able to say something stupid as the next guy. I just figure it's not character assassination when we all point out that someone said something stupid, whether it's later show not to be such a big deal.
The politicians would probably be much better served thinking a bit more before they talk, and when they do say something silly that gets them teased, they do what most of us do - shrug it off.:-)
Okay folks, I'm going to jump on this yarf-fest right here and now. Just because a person, let's say me, wants a tax cut, it doesn't mean that I'm:
a) Against a clean environment
b) Ready to oppress the masses because I'm cruel and completely eeeeeeeeeee-vil.
c) Gleefully rubbing my hands together because I'm going to create dirty air and water and stupid people because I'll be taking all the school money.
I want a tax cut. Want to know why? Because I'm working two jobs right now just to pay my bills and because we've had almost eight years of "targeted tax cuts" that never have managed to target me. I'm working nearly 70 hours every week trying to keep a roof over my head, to pay my bills, and to be a responsible father and the only reply I've ever seen from Al gore is that a tax cut is only for the rich and that his tax cut is good because he'll be able to tell me just where I should spend the money in order to get my taxes cut. I don't have a "beemer" in the driveway, and I'm hardly wealthy, but right now, GWB's tax cut is the only one that will affect me much at all.
So here's the more fundamental question. What is it that I want? I want my government to be more responsible with the money that I allow it to have. let's not make a foolish mistake here. My government does not have the inalienable right to tax as much money from me as it pleases. Taxes are under the control of the people and we give the government only as much money as we allow. That we've allowed it to bloat to its current size and to do so with such ludicrous wastefulness (we're #1 in eduation spending, but #13 in education results? Huh?? Less money out of every dollar gets to a welfare recipient than it would if it were a "normal" charity? Huh???) is a shame and we should be changing that right now.
I'm voting for GWB, not because I think him the ideal candidate, but because, of everyone who is in the race right now, he's in the position to do more of the things I find important to my life.
Wow, okay, that sure ended up being more of a rant than I intended. Oh well.:-)
For those of you who said that Taco was showing his Dem bias, read his post again. What he said was that the comments regarding the electoral college on that survey site was notably pro-Gore, with very few postings toward Bush or any third-party candidate. His own views weren't very much on display and I'd not necessarily pigeonhole his views quite yet.
And a second note here, too. Why is it called "character assasination" when you use the inane things a candidate says to illustrate his inanity? It ain't assasination if the target shoots himself and you stand there and point it out.
-Jimmie
Folks, let's not forget something. Unless I'm very badly mistaken (and I'm willing to admit that I may be), this is still a pending case. Until this case is settled, Napster, and everyone using it, is engaged in a legal, though disputed, activity. Napster is still claiming "fair use" and, regardless what the RIAA says now, it has not been determined finally by a court that Napster or any of its users is committing copyright infringements.
I find it interesting that the RIAA is using the copyright infringement phrase as if the case is over and they've won.
Now is the time we need to get out there and either show support or opposition to these bills. I don't have major problems with any of them (Well, except for one...), and any qualms I may have are minor.
The bill regarding H1-B visas is likely to be the trickiest to pass, and not only because of the silly additional rider that the Dems seem to want to tack onto it. There is obviously a sore lack of IT professionals in many places in the US (notably in the Washington DC area, of all places) and they need to be filled. We can debate about the merits of training new professionals and focusing high school students on these careers, but that doesn't fix the problem now. this bill won't fix it either, but it does give companies another tool with which to do so.
One of the more interesting asides about these bills regard the moratorium in internet taxes. the story states that states are "losing" money on taxes. This strikes me as funy because that money doesn't belong to the state, and never did. they aren't actually losing anything. I'm a great advocate on lowering our taxes and I think this bill is only good for the internet in general, and consumers and businesses. It's the kind of free and unrestricted trade that's really necessary, not only between the US and other countries, but between states.
The broadband bills may well become interesting, especially if the Tauzin bill becomes the one that will likely pass. As is happening more and more, markets are opening in for varieties of internet service providers, though only a few companies actually control the hardware that gets to consumers (telephone lines, cable lines, etc.). This could get interesting if the owners of these lines (right now, the phone companies) decide to take a stand on having first shot at the market ebcause they own the lines. Other companies are likely to cry foul, much like as happened with long-distance telephone service. This could shape who is available to provide broadband service, and how much it will cost in most areas. The Moynahan bill is unnessecary, IMO, because business really don't ned government incentives to get into the broadband business. there are quite a few chomping at the bit to do so already, and the government really does need to stay out of it as much as possible, again IMO.
My biggest problem is with the bill estending permament MFN status to China. We've had many problems with them, on human rights issues, trade and business issues, and, most lately, their walking away with nuclear secrets issues. It seems strange to me that we'd be willing to throw them this large a bone even though they've basically thumbed their noses at us through each issue we've had with them. I more favor a tough stand against them. The US is capable of backing up its talk, when it wants to, and now should be one of those times.
The upshot of all of this is that it's imperative, whether you support or oppose these measures, that you make your opinions well known to your representatives. Call them, write letters, and make your voice heard. it's the only way to ensure that you matter to them.
Okay. Let me try to tackle this from the persepctive of a musician, who also knows how to code. Music and code, though indeed information and though easily transmittable from computer to computer are seen as vastly different things, even to those, like me, who are versed in both.
Software is seen, I believe, as a business thing. It's meant to be bought and sold and the vast majority of the people out there have been buying software, and not getting it from BBSes and such. They've not had the advantage that people who've been into computers longer have had. It's not sunk in that software is as easy to copy and trade as music, when you get down to it.
Music, on the other hand has been "free" since the time of tape recorders. It's been possible to copy music from the radio onto tape, and from tape to tape, and from CD to tape for two decades and this seems to have degraded people's belief that music is still a product. It also helps that musicians are seen as artists and art is, to most people well in the realms of something free. It costs nothing, or next to it to go to the local art gallery or to check out a book fom the libaray or to have a friend copy a really cool tape or CD for you.
Software hasn't had the advantage of that kind of time. In time, I'm sure that it will be regarded much as other forms of art (and I do believe that code is art in its very own way) and it will be treated much as music has been.
The other difference in people's mind between music and software is that they're been insulated from much of the music-making process. Most people who use software have at least a vague idea what goes into producing it. I would say that many fewer know what goes into producing a CD. If the process of making a CD were as widely known as the process of making software, I think it would help even out how people think of them, in terms of being something they want to be "free". I'm not sure how that scale would tip (toward music being less "free" or software being more "free"), but it owuld change.
The numbers need not be "one time only" usage by AMEX. Basically, AMEX only needs to keep the number active long enough for the transaction to be processed, which would last perhaps one month, then the number goes back into circulation. What they would track then is an activity log for each number (for each number, who used it, when, and where) and an activity log for each user (what number they used, when, and where). Any billing questions can be referred to the log for archive purposes and the numbers stay active only for as long as they're needed, then AMEX drop them back into general circulation.
This is not going to be an easy accounting task: issuing number, tracking their usage, deactivating, then reactivating them. I can tell you that I'm pretty good with logistics (being a police dispatcher tends to develop those skills ) and it'd be a nightmare for me to track. I'm not sure of any better way to do it, though.
If there's going to be a security loophole, it'll come in the time a number is active, after the transaction is processed, but before the number is deactivated and put back into circulation.
I have to disagre with your assertions on two points. first, men like Gates and Murdock are elected, but by a very different process. They're elected every time you spend a dollar on oe of their products. That they have so much power is a testament either to the prevalence or worthiness of their product, or to the compacency of individuals who continue to allow their activities. Capatalists are easy to fight...if they have no money, then they're gone.
Governments are exactly *not* the answer in this case. You mention that governments are responsive, but to whom? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a government (be it state, local, or federal) has responded to a specific need of mine, even when I've asked very strenuously. Governments are at best reactionary, and when they are, they are ponderous, and rarely act in time to actually solve the problem. Worse, though, is when governments try to predict a problem in order to get out in front of it. If you don't believe that, look at many of the vaunted accomplishments the US government has achieved in the last ten years or so. None of them have managed to solve a problem and in most cases,. it has made a small problem larger (like the recent electronic copyright laws, let's say).
This society still rests largely on the individual. it's the individual's obligation to ensure that their government does what he or she needs it to, and to make sure that theor society is working correctly. IMO, the problem is that too many individuals have surrendered their power for complacency, apathy, or dependence.
I use, on occasion, a service at www.ziplip.com which is relatively fat, secure enough for my purposes and allows me to set a password each and every time I send a mail message, which allows me to vary my passwords for the user and subject. It may not seem like a large thing, but I like the way it works, and as I said before, the encryption is sufficient for my purposes.
Well, if you mean by at-fault, someone going out there and uding the system for his own benefit, then he's definitely at-fault. He's not necessarily screwing everyone. All he is doing is asking for a certain percentage of their sales, which, taken on a sale-by-sale basis is less than half a percent. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing so far. I could see myself asking for much the same thing.
I personally don't have a problem with his using the system that exists to do what other companies and people have done. the operative thing here is that he's patenting a process..not just calculating a shipping rate, but the shipping rate, the monetary exchange rate, applying for the necessary shipping paperwork and such. That's a lot of work and if he's come up with a one-touch means of doing this, then i certainly think he deserves to haew some control over being the first one in with that idea. After all, being there first with a patent is a time-honored tradition, not only in this company, but in others also.
I'd be interested in seeing just how the other companies react to this, and what courses they decide tot ake, based on what the Patent Office does.
Well, if the Patent Office continues with its past behavior, then this patent is in the bag and Mr. Pool will be a very, very wealthy man. Unfortunately, the fault, as I can see it, lies not in Mr. Pool, but in the patent office for granting a patent on such an ephemeral thing as an idea.
I'd be interested on the history of this precedent, if anyone can be helpful enough to provide it. Until then, I've some business processes to patent.:-)
Katz' point here ins't necessarily about the morality or amorality of gene manipulation. he did that in an earlier editorial about a month ago. The point it looks like he's making here is that fifteen years ago, no one knew who Bill Gates was and look where we are now? Perhaps had we paid some attention to him, we wouldn't have some of the problems we have with him now.
By learning what we can about the pioneers of genetic technology, and especially the people and companies who are out in front right now, we may be able to stave off problems in the future. After all, Kunkapiller seems to be a corrolary to Gates, at least in his behavior so far. How much larger a hint do any of us need to keep an eye on him?
Interestingly enough, the whole debate about distributing copes of copyrighted material has already been discussed in a different form. If I'm not mistaken (and I don't think I am), we went through this with videotapes, and the argument went all the way to the Supreme Court.
If you recall, at the time, movie studios and their reps were worried that video cassette recordewrs were going to dry out the movie theater business and would be the end of theatrical releases forever. They feared that so many people would be able to freely copy movies off of television and from other video tapes that "legitimate" movie business would drown. Doesn't this sound familiar? Yeah, I thought so, too.
What the Supreme Court basically said was that anyone could copy an original for their own use, or even to give to someone else, as long as they weren't getting paid for it. A copy of a copy wasn't allowed, so long as someone could prove that it was a second generation copy. I think this applies fairly here, also.
I've bought a CD, and now I own it. I can do with it what I choose, including making a copy of it and giving it to someone else, just as they're allowed to do with their own CDs. With digital media, though, it's tougher to prove what is and isn't a second-generation copy, so obviously the law needs to be a bit more specific.
And, just for the record, dual-well tape decks were made for the express puepose of copying tapes...the manufacturers admitted that when this argument (which was rules in the same way, BTW) moved over into cassette tapes.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's take a shot at: 2001-03-18 13:10:15 I suppose the South Pacific isn't such a bad place to live, if you can deal with space debris raining down on your head every 15-20 years or so.
Actually, the only thing that the possession of a college degree guarantees is that the holder graduated college. It says nothing about the person's ability to work (hey...I know more than a couple people who coasted through school), or to think critically (again, I've a couple friends who have advanced degrees who can't think well linearly, or critically), or to stay on task (ADHD anyone?).
;-)
What matters most, to me, at least, is the person's ability to do what they can do. I don't care if that person has a piece of sheepskin. what I do care about is whether or not the person can deliver.
So...would I let an architect design a house without a degree? Sure, but I want to see what they can do. I want to see what they have done in the past.
That's my situation. I'm a guy who has been messing with computers for almost 15 years now, personally. I've been an extremely informal help desk for my co-workers for 10 years. But, I don't have a college degree. So it's been omre than difficult to find a job in the industry I want, and I know full well, with rock-solid certainty, I can do. I attribute most of this to "degree predjudice". But that's my own personal rant.
-jimmie
- The teacher was in class giving this challenge.
- The teacher was seen by the student as being a voice of authority and acting as a representative of the school.
- Other students in the class heard what the teacher had said and interpreted it in exactly the same way as the student in question.
Given these three points, the student should be walking away scot-free. Here's an appropriate analogy. A bank manager is giving a seminar about the security of his bank and during this seminar, he says that the alarm company servicing that bank is so confident in their security that it will reward anyone who can disable the alarm system from inside the bank. He further challenges the seminar attendees to do just that and says that he wants a cut of the reward if they can do it, but that he doubts anyone can. Then, when someone who attended the seminar actually does what he chellenged them to do, he says that he was just kidding about the whole thingThe problem in the story is that the representative of the bank is acting in an official capacity as a bank official, and it could be fairly and successfully argued that anything he ways about his bank is said with the full weight and authority of his position. The same principle works for the school teacher. When a teacher speaks, it is with the full authority of the school, and the school district. That's how they can at least attempt to keep discipline, set grades, and make standards for the grades they do give, set curricula, etc.
AFAIK, the teacher screwed the pooch here by making a challenge to his students without the authority to follow-through correctly. It's not the students' fault if the teacher overstepped his bounds. They had no way of knowing he wasn't serious, and that he could keep them immune from harm, as he seems to have implied in his challenge (i.e. you'll get a reward and extra credit. That's a reward, not a punishment.).
That's my take on it, anyhow.
-Jimmie
I've been trying to listen to several different sources regarding this particular problem in Palm Beach county and at least two things have jumped out at me.
/. regarding this election have mentioned a book called "Votescam" and its accompanying website Votescam . It strikes me as oddly coincidental that the outright frauds that were enumerated in very good detail in that book happened to occur in Florida. I'm not saying that there's a correlation, but it does seem mighty coincidental.
First, it is true that several voters asked to recast their votes once they had realized that they had voted for the wrong person. Interestingly enough, none of the people I heard interviewed actually told the interviewer *why* they realized that their vote was miscast. i'd be interested in hearing that. But, regardless, the ones I heard interviewed who were refused another ballot asked for their ballot after their ballot had been turned in and placed in the sealed ballot box . That's important. had they asked before the ballot had been officially turned in, it's an easy matter to get another ballot and tear up the old one. It's impossible and illegal to get that ballot back after it's been "sealed".
Second, the questionable ballot design just didn't arise out of thin air. This ballot had to be reviewed and approved by representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties, as well as the Attorney General. Additionally, a sample of the ballot was published in the area newspapers prior to the election. So, it wasn't a surprise and was a public matter. Those who weren't paying close enough attention also must not have been paying attention to the sample ballot either. Neither must the representatives from the two major parties have been paying much attention, for they had to approve the ballots. Obviously, it wasn't that much a matter of concern. the close election seems only to have magnified this issue.
I don't see any legal way that a re-vote can be called. I've reveiwed the law, as much as I can find, and "Oops!" isn't a valid legal reason to throw out an election and have another one. This was the voters fault, pure and simple, and shame on them for not paying close attention and making doubly and triply sure their ballot was correct before handing it away.
But, in the "ain't is a coincidence" department. Recent posts on
- Talk to your immediate boss without delay. Find out from that person what he or she expects frmo you and on what you will be evaluated. Have that person make you a list of what is and is not important and make sure that you have the right from them to refuse things or to place things as a lower priority that aren't on that list.
- Make a list of the tasks you have on your plate and priorituze them in the order of the list you were given by your boss. Stick to that list faithfully.
- Don't procrastinate on things that should be done, but have no deadline. If you've been given no deadline ona task do one of two things. Either set a deadline yourself, or check with your boss to see if it's actually necessary. If it's not important enough to rate a deadline, it may not need to be done at all.
- Stick to your plan. Don't get diverted by things like e-mail and phone calls that aren't urgent. If an urgent thing comes up, make sure your boss knows about it, so you don't get too far off task.
- For things like e-mail and non-urgent phone calls, schedule a time or two during the day when you can do them. Get your e-mailing and phone calls done them. It's okay to schedule two times a day, if you want, just as long as it's a specific time.
That's about all I can think of to really help manage time and tasks. It's not perfect, but it does help quite a bit, especially when you can get real busy with urgent assignments all at the same time. Just don't forget to gethelp when you need it and keep your boss in the loop.First of all I would like to thank you for your earnest and thoughtful questions. The technological community is important to me and I...
[an aide leans in from the side and whispers something to Gore, who looks quizzically and says, sotto voce. "They're not rich or a minority? What the hell am I doing here? They're computer geeks? You mean those guys I used to give wedgies to in high school? Oh hell. Let's get this over with.]
I value young people and I want you all to know that I'm going to ensure that our Government takes good care of you. That's why I'm putting much of the surpluses I've helped to create into a lockbox. I'm also going to make sure that your parents and Grandparents are taken care of also, so I've put the surplus into a lockbox. It's vitally important that we pay down this national debt that threatens everyone's safety and security, so I've put the budget surplus into a lockbox...
[an aide leans in and hands Gore a note. Gore reads it and says again, sotto voce, "What do you mean I can't give all three lockbox speeches here? These geeks aren't smart enough to know that I'm promising the same surplus to three different groups! Hell...my proposals are a trillion dollars more than the surplus already and nobody's noticed. These guys won't either. If they get all nervous, I'll just say something about Napster and defending freedom of information and I"ll just look all "alpha male" and they'll forget all about it!]
Pardon me for that interruption. As I was saying...when I am elected your President, I'm going to ensure that you are kept safe, secure, and free using every tool the government can provide. And when there's a need, we will not hesitate to provide more government programs to address any further needs which may arise. We will give no tax relief, except that which has been specially targeted, such as tuition assistance, and child tax credits. The wealthiest one percent should not and does not deserve tax relief.
[an aide leans in again, Gore forestalls him by saying, "Look. I know these nerds don't have kids and are already college educated. It doesn't matter. We're bashing the rich here! What do you mean these nerds are becoming the rich? You don't seriously think that by the time they make their wealth, they're believe that we'll cut taxes so they can actually invest their money as they wish, do you?]
Thank you for your time today, and for your vote. Good night.
The tone of the responses seemed to be directed at preventing something like this from happening again, but the question was directed at dealing with the situation as it exists, namely:
Someone has sensitive data, and that someone may well be the competition.
First off, make sure you know exactly what was on the media which was stolen. If possible, grill the CIO and make sure you can identify as much of the data as possible. If it's confidential, and this data begins to appear elsewhere, then you'll have a pretty good clue who took it.
Second, assume that the company which can do you the most possible damage has your information. At this point, you need to develop a strategy to counter their use of this information. It may be something as simple as changing any password you think they may have gotten (or, to be safe, every single one of them), to doing things like changing your business plan and internal strategies. The competition now knows many of your most intimate intimates, and you have to make sure that they can't use them well at all.
The next thing is to look over your security. Data security and site security can be approached at the same time. The suggestions posted here (encryption, secured servers to house data, etc) are all excellent. confer with a security consultant, preferably one who has experience working with the Federal Government, which, in most cases, has some of the tightest security around. A security consultant can do both data and physical security.
For site security, you're going to have to do things like replacing door locks with more secure models (or with electronic card locks, if you want to spend the money) and replacing doors and door jambs with more sturdy material (i.e. something that can't easily be kicked in). Make sure, if you have a drop ceiling, that the tiles can't be lifted up, which might let someone just climb up and over the door, through the ceiling (yeah, I've seen it happen...). Other than that, hip everyone who works there about security...the small things that everyone can do to make sure their information and offices are secure.
-Jimmie
As well-intenioned as John McCain and his counterparts on the Democratic side (most of whom also support similar legislation) may be, we all know this isn't going to work. Either the software they choose will have its problems (which isn't the fault of the software, but of the bad, bad, evil English language for having words that look the same, but mean different things.), or the local implementation of the law is going to be spotty (Who gets to deem what's inappropriate?).
What this whole mess boils down to is that neither party, Democrat or Republican, seems to have a firm grasp on what it is that they're supposed to be doing. On the Dem side, most thought seems to be "Let's have the Government take care of folks wholeheartedly". The Repubs come out with "Let's make some laws, but let local jurisdictions sort out how they want to enforce them, and at what level of strictness". Neither of these approaches work, and neither is even remotely close to what's allowable according to the US Constitution.
I'm now convinced, after much disgust with both major parties and a lot of research into the issues, that the only real answer (and one which may not be a viable option, but I'm still willing to work on it, as much as I can), is to get the Libertarians into there. They don't have the perfect platform either, but they do have one overarching principle which rings very real to me: The Federal Government has specific duties, and they must only be allowed to do those duties, and no more. Everything else can be slugged out where it belongs, on the State and Local levels. At least this puts most issues in play where people can reach them - state and local legislators are far more approachable, and responsive, in my experience. Besides, the Libertarian party, for all the press they're not getting (How is Buchanan and Nader getting mentioned in the Gallup and Washington Post/ABC News polls, but not Harry Browne? In polls where he is included, he outpolls Buchanan and nearly outperforms Nader!), is the largest third-party in the US, and has more members currently in office than the other third-parties combined. That also impresses me.
Is kids having access to porn bad? Sure it is. Can the Federal Government legislate against it? Sure it can. Will that legislation do one bit of good? No chance in H**l, and we all know it.
And for those who aren't US citizens, this matters in the sense that, for better or worse, the US is the top dog driving the tech industry. The decisions made here will reach to other countries (as they already have with this seemingly insane new proposed treaty outlawing "hackers". BTW, can anyone actually show me one of these extremely dangerous cyber-desperadoes? I've yet to see one. I doubt they even exist). These decisions being made here are word-wide decisions, even if they don't appear to be so now. -Jimmie
Wow...finally a slashdot article that allows me to use a hobby of mine that's really obscure! Yay!
Okay, first, this object will probably not be called "Plutino", because that name's already pretty much taken and has been used for a class of objects which astronomers decide are larger than the average asteroid, but smaller than the traditional definition of a planet. They've been discovering plutinos for years now and there's even a circular which goes out in the astronomical community a couple times a year which outlines the information on all the plutinos.
These plutinos, and even Pluto itself, is believed to have come from, or may still be part of a large group of chunks of rock called the Kuiper Belt. This belt rings our solar system just beyond the orbit of Pluto. The important factor influencing these object is the planet Neptune which, because of its orbit, will occasionally pull an object from the Kuiper belt and drag it into the solar system proper. Also, bodies in the Kuiper Belt run into each other, and the collision will send a body into our solar system. This is where astronomers believe Pluto and this new rock may have come from. Astronomers believe that there are even more bodies orbiting more closely than the Kuiper Belt, probably tucked in between the orbits of Neptune and Pluto, and just beyond Pluto.
Beyond the Kuiper Belt is yet another conglomeration of chunks of rock and dust called the Oort Cloud. This also surrounds our solar system and may actually protect us from some of the things that could zip into the system and strike another planet or disrupt things. The Oort Cloud also provides us with debris which will come floating into the solar system from collisions with object in the cloud, or from objects that arrive in the cloud from outside. We don't quite know how large the cloud is, for sure, nor how many objects are in ot, mostly because the cloud doesn't reflect what little light it might get. We make our guesses based on fairly obscure measuring methods. It has been suggested that perhaps the Oort Cloud has a good amount of Dark Matter in it, but that's pretty much conjecture right now.
The upshot of the whole thing is that, the harder we look, the more we find in our own backyard. Our methods of studyign the heavens have gotten more and more sophisticated, and allow us to see smaller objects, orbiting farther away. I, personally, hope that we realize that, as long as we're looking out there anyhow, it wouldn't be a bad idea to look systematically, especially for objects that could pose some sort of threat to our planet directly. The tech is cheap, and what we'd need to build to deal with any intruder that might run into us is also quite cheap. Maybe it's not a bad idea at all.
-Jimmie
Actually, the music may belong to a few different folks.
First, the music belongs to the person or people who wrote it. They get residuals every time the song is recorded, sold, and played. Sometimes this is the artist, sometimes a third-party songwriter. It all depends. Read the liner notes to see who owns the songwriting credits.
Second, the music belongs to whoever holds the release rights to it. Often times this is the music company (which is why Prince waged his protest, BTW), but this is not necessarily so. This is also the reason many artists start their own record labels - to have control over how and when the music is released, originally, and on compilation albums. Most times the record company will own the recording rights initially, though in some cases the artist merely cedes the right to first release to the record company and retains the right to re-release the songs after a certain period of time. This is akin to deal authors strike which allow them to distribute their own writings overseas, or in reprint form, as they wish.
Thirdly, the music belongs to whoever purchases it, to a degree. There are already laws and case precedent regarding this.
In each case, a different aspect of the music is owned by a different person. I think it would behoove all the music fans out there to learn a bit about what happens with music when it is produced, which will make us much better at arguing the points we need to argue.
-Jimmie
PS. As an amateur musician moving toward professional songwriting, I can tell you, the money is in writing most of the time.
Well, let me lead off by saying that I'm not offended in the least. Right now, I'm very much trying to change careers from the 12-year career I've had working for State Government as a Police Dispatcher (oddly enough, never the real recipient of all this government tax money they've been collecting). I'm moving because my expenses require it.
:-)
I recently had to buy a new car. I retired by 17-year old model and bought one that I'll be driving for 15 more years. I would rather have not done it, but my old car died, and that's how that worked.
My children are....well...they require food, clothing, and care and the money I spend on them would never be enough, in my book. I also live in one of the most expensive areas int he country to live, on average, which doesn't help matters any. Perhaps I could move, but that doesn't solve the overall problem.
Here's what it comes down to. Cutting taxes has never one single time harmed our ecomony. Kennedy did it, Reagan did it, and in each instance, the money we gained in the Federal Treasury increased. The problem in both instances is that the proposed spending went up by more than the increase we saw from the new revenue streams. Giving me my tax mone isn't a bad idea, but overspending what we do have always is. That's been the problem since we began running deficits, and it's still the problem now.
What I'd ideally like to see is a real and honest top to bottom review of how our government spends its money and a genuine effort to rid it of waste and inefficiency. Trust me, I've worked in a government long enough to know that there's an almost indescribeable amount of waste involved. That money needs to go back to the people from whom it was taken. We all need the choice, every one of us, to spend our money where we see fit, not where the government dictates it's in our best interest to spend it.
And a side note about the Bush stadium comment. when last I saw, the new stadium in Texas had already paid for itself in the revenue it brought in. I would rather have seen that money go back to the people of the area before it went anywhere else, but sports stadia are unique in that there one of the few things a government can build that pays for itself and generates consistent revenue.
I'm not saying Bush is the perfect candidate, but for the issues that mater most to me, he's the man who will do what I most want to see done.
-Jimmie
I suppose that there's a larger point than just what's been debunked or not (though not all of them were debunked). The whole "potatoe" debacle with Vice President Quayle wasn't his problem either, inasmuch as he used a correct, albeit archaic, way to spell potato.
:-)
The point is that in the most recent past, the inanities which have been pointed out most vociferously have been made by Republicans. It's not because they say more inane things than Democrats, but because perhaps they make better targets. I hesitate to call the media a biased entity, though it may well be, but that's the way it seems. There are plenty of Al Gore quotes that show him to be just as able to say something stupid as the next guy. I just figure it's not character assassination when we all point out that someone said something stupid, whether it's later show not to be such a big deal.
The politicians would probably be much better served thinking a bit more before they talk, and when they do say something silly that gets them teased, they do what most of us do - shrug it off.
-Jimmie
Okay folks, I'm going to jump on this yarf-fest right here and now. Just because a person, let's say me, wants a tax cut, it doesn't mean that I'm:
:-)
a) Against a clean environment
b) Ready to oppress the masses because I'm cruel and completely eeeeeeeeeee-vil.
c) Gleefully rubbing my hands together because I'm going to create dirty air and water and stupid people because I'll be taking all the school money.
I want a tax cut. Want to know why? Because I'm working two jobs right now just to pay my bills and because we've had almost eight years of "targeted tax cuts" that never have managed to target me. I'm working nearly 70 hours every week trying to keep a roof over my head, to pay my bills, and to be a responsible father and the only reply I've ever seen from Al gore is that a tax cut is only for the rich and that his tax cut is good because he'll be able to tell me just where I should spend the money in order to get my taxes cut. I don't have a "beemer" in the driveway, and I'm hardly wealthy, but right now, GWB's tax cut is the only one that will affect me much at all.
So here's the more fundamental question. What is it that I want? I want my government to be more responsible with the money that I allow it to have. let's not make a foolish mistake here. My government does not have the inalienable right to tax as much money from me as it pleases. Taxes are under the control of the people and we give the government only as much money as we allow. That we've allowed it to bloat to its current size and to do so with such ludicrous wastefulness (we're #1 in eduation spending, but #13 in education results? Huh?? Less money out of every dollar gets to a welfare recipient than it would if it were a "normal" charity? Huh???) is a shame and we should be changing that right now.
I'm voting for GWB, not because I think him the ideal candidate, but because, of everyone who is in the race right now, he's in the position to do more of the things I find important to my life.
Wow, okay, that sure ended up being more of a rant than I intended. Oh well.
-Jimmie
For those of you who said that Taco was showing his Dem bias, read his post again. What he said was that the comments regarding the electoral college on that survey site was notably pro-Gore, with very few postings toward Bush or any third-party candidate. His own views weren't very much on display and I'd not necessarily pigeonhole his views quite yet. And a second note here, too. Why is it called "character assasination" when you use the inane things a candidate says to illustrate his inanity? It ain't assasination if the target shoots himself and you stand there and point it out. -Jimmie
Folks, let's not forget something. Unless I'm very badly mistaken (and I'm willing to admit that I may be), this is still a pending case. Until this case is settled, Napster, and everyone using it, is engaged in a legal, though disputed, activity. Napster is still claiming "fair use" and, regardless what the RIAA says now, it has not been determined finally by a court that Napster or any of its users is committing copyright infringements.
I find it interesting that the RIAA is using the copyright infringement phrase as if the case is over and they've won.
-Jimmie
Now is the time we need to get out there and either show support or opposition to these bills. I don't have major problems with any of them (Well, except for one...), and any qualms I may have are minor.
The bill regarding H1-B visas is likely to be the trickiest to pass, and not only because of the silly additional rider that the Dems seem to want to tack onto it. There is obviously a sore lack of IT professionals in many places in the US (notably in the Washington DC area, of all places) and they need to be filled. We can debate about the merits of training new professionals and focusing high school students on these careers, but that doesn't fix the problem now. this bill won't fix it either, but it does give companies another tool with which to do so.
One of the more interesting asides about these bills regard the moratorium in internet taxes. the story states that states are "losing" money on taxes. This strikes me as funy because that money doesn't belong to the state, and never did. they aren't actually losing anything. I'm a great advocate on lowering our taxes and I think this bill is only good for the internet in general, and consumers and businesses. It's the kind of free and unrestricted trade that's really necessary, not only between the US and other countries, but between states.
The broadband bills may well become interesting, especially if the Tauzin bill becomes the one that will likely pass. As is happening more and more, markets are opening in for varieties of internet service providers, though only a few companies actually control the hardware that gets to consumers (telephone lines, cable lines, etc.). This could get interesting if the owners of these lines (right now, the phone companies) decide to take a stand on having first shot at the market ebcause they own the lines. Other companies are likely to cry foul, much like as happened with long-distance telephone service. This could shape who is available to provide broadband service, and how much it will cost in most areas. The Moynahan bill is unnessecary, IMO, because business really don't ned government incentives to get into the broadband business. there are quite a few chomping at the bit to do so already, and the government really does need to stay out of it as much as possible, again IMO.
My biggest problem is with the bill estending permament MFN status to China. We've had many problems with them, on human rights issues, trade and business issues, and, most lately, their walking away with nuclear secrets issues. It seems strange to me that we'd be willing to throw them this large a bone even though they've basically thumbed their noses at us through each issue we've had with them. I more favor a tough stand against them. The US is capable of backing up its talk, when it wants to, and now should be one of those times.
The upshot of all of this is that it's imperative, whether you support or oppose these measures, that you make your opinions well known to your representatives. Call them, write letters, and make your voice heard. it's the only way to ensure that you matter to them.
Okay. Let me try to tackle this from the persepctive of a musician, who also knows how to code. Music and code, though indeed information and though easily transmittable from computer to computer are seen as vastly different things, even to those, like me, who are versed in both.
Software is seen, I believe, as a business thing. It's meant to be bought and sold and the vast majority of the people out there have been buying software, and not getting it from BBSes and such. They've not had the advantage that people who've been into computers longer have had. It's not sunk in that software is as easy to copy and trade as music, when you get down to it.
Music, on the other hand has been "free" since the time of tape recorders. It's been possible to copy music from the radio onto tape, and from tape to tape, and from CD to tape for two decades and this seems to have degraded people's belief that music is still a product. It also helps that musicians are seen as artists and art is, to most people well in the realms of something free. It costs nothing, or next to it to go to the local art gallery or to check out a book fom the libaray or to have a friend copy a really cool tape or CD for you.
Software hasn't had the advantage of that kind of time. In time, I'm sure that it will be regarded much as other forms of art (and I do believe that code is art in its very own way) and it will be treated much as music has been.
The other difference in people's mind between music and software is that they're been insulated from much of the music-making process. Most people who use software have at least a vague idea what goes into producing it. I would say that many fewer know what goes into producing a CD. If the process of making a CD were as widely known as the process of making software, I think it would help even out how people think of them, in terms of being something they want to be "free". I'm not sure how that scale would tip (toward music being less "free" or software being more "free"), but it owuld change.
-Jimmie
Here's how it would likely work:
The numbers need not be "one time only" usage by AMEX. Basically, AMEX only needs to keep the number active long enough for the transaction to be processed, which would last perhaps one month, then the number goes back into circulation. What they would track then is an activity log for each number (for each number, who used it, when, and where) and an activity log for each user (what number they used, when, and where). Any billing questions can be referred to the log for archive purposes and the numbers stay active only for as long as they're needed, then AMEX drop them back into general circulation.
This is not going to be an easy accounting task: issuing number, tracking their usage, deactivating, then reactivating them. I can tell you that I'm pretty good with logistics (being a police dispatcher tends to develop those skills ) and it'd be a nightmare for me to track. I'm not sure of any better way to do it, though.
If there's going to be a security loophole, it'll come in the time a number is active, after the transaction is processed, but before the number is deactivated and put back into circulation.
-Jimmie
I have to disagre with your assertions on two points. first, men like Gates and Murdock are elected, but by a very different process. They're elected every time you spend a dollar on oe of their products. That they have so much power is a testament either to the prevalence or worthiness of their product, or to the compacency of individuals who continue to allow their activities. Capatalists are easy to fight...if they have no money, then they're gone.
Governments are exactly *not* the answer in this case. You mention that governments are responsive, but to whom? I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a government (be it state, local, or federal) has responded to a specific need of mine, even when I've asked very strenuously. Governments are at best reactionary, and when they are, they are ponderous, and rarely act in time to actually solve the problem. Worse, though, is when governments try to predict a problem in order to get out in front of it. If you don't believe that, look at many of the vaunted accomplishments the US government has achieved in the last ten years or so. None of them have managed to solve a problem and in most cases,. it has made a small problem larger (like the recent electronic copyright laws, let's say).
This society still rests largely on the individual. it's the individual's obligation to ensure that their government does what he or she needs it to, and to make sure that theor society is working correctly. IMO, the problem is that too many individuals have surrendered their power for complacency, apathy, or dependence.
-Jimmie
I use, on occasion, a service at www.ziplip.com which is relatively fat, secure enough for my purposes and allows me to set a password each and every time I send a mail message, which allows me to vary my passwords for the user and subject. It may not seem like a large thing, but I like the way it works, and as I said before, the encryption is sufficient for my purposes.
-jimmie
This is an excellent point to bring out. It shold be up on the board by itself and not a sub-part of my comment. :-)
Of course, I think he ought to have the patent. I'm not opposed to it.
Well, if you mean by at-fault, someone going out there and uding the system for his own benefit, then he's definitely at-fault. He's not necessarily screwing everyone. All he is doing is asking for a certain percentage of their sales, which, taken on a sale-by-sale basis is less than half a percent. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing so far. I could see myself asking for much the same thing.
I personally don't have a problem with his using the system that exists to do what other companies and people have done. the operative thing here is that he's patenting a process..not just calculating a shipping rate, but the shipping rate, the monetary exchange rate, applying for the necessary shipping paperwork and such. That's a lot of work and if he's come up with a one-touch means of doing this, then i certainly think he deserves to haew some control over being the first one in with that idea. After all, being there first with a patent is a time-honored tradition, not only in this company, but in others also.
I'd be interested in seeing just how the other companies react to this, and what courses they decide tot ake, based on what the Patent Office does.
Well, if the Patent Office continues with its past behavior, then this patent is in the bag and Mr. Pool will be a very, very wealthy man. Unfortunately, the fault, as I can see it, lies not in Mr. Pool, but in the patent office for granting a patent on such an ephemeral thing as an idea.
:-)
I'd be interested on the history of this precedent, if anyone can be helpful enough to provide it. Until then, I've some business processes to patent.
-Jimmie
Katz' point here ins't necessarily about the morality or amorality of gene manipulation. he did that in an earlier editorial about a month ago. The point it looks like he's making here is that fifteen years ago, no one knew who Bill Gates was and look where we are now? Perhaps had we paid some attention to him, we wouldn't have some of the problems we have with him now.
By learning what we can about the pioneers of genetic technology, and especially the people and companies who are out in front right now, we may be able to stave off problems in the future. After all, Kunkapiller seems to be a corrolary to Gates, at least in his behavior so far. How much larger a hint do any of us need to keep an eye on him?
All the man's saying is "Pay Attention"!
Interestingly enough, the whole debate about distributing copes of copyrighted material has already been discussed in a different form. If I'm not mistaken (and I don't think I am), we went through this with videotapes, and the argument went all the way to the Supreme Court.
If you recall, at the time, movie studios and their reps were worried that video cassette recordewrs were going to dry out the movie theater business and would be the end of theatrical releases forever. They feared that so many people would be able to freely copy movies off of television and from other video tapes that "legitimate" movie business would drown. Doesn't this sound familiar? Yeah, I thought so, too.
What the Supreme Court basically said was that anyone could copy an original for their own use, or even to give to someone else, as long as they weren't getting paid for it. A copy of a copy wasn't allowed, so long as someone could prove that it was a second generation copy. I think this applies fairly here, also.
I've bought a CD, and now I own it. I can do with it what I choose, including making a copy of it and giving it to someone else, just as they're allowed to do with their own CDs. With digital media, though, it's tougher to prove what is and isn't a second-generation copy, so obviously the law needs to be a bit more specific.
And, just for the record, dual-well tape decks were made for the express puepose of copying tapes...the manufacturers admitted that when this argument (which was rules in the same way, BTW) moved over into cassette tapes.
Oh yes...I'm also a musician.