A wider question is why is not there any liability for programming errors? All end-user licenses (both free and otherwise) explicitly renounce any such — and we accept it. Maybe, we should not...
For routine operation of Internet-exposed systems, the/ (which includes/usr and, usually,/usr/local) mounted read-only. The user-modifiable places (/home,/tmp,/var) are mounted with the noexec option.
Although a dedicated attacker might be able to succeed anyway (the same script can be run with a sh script instead of./script), it throws sort of a "tangle-foot" over them — most of the hacks involve some compiled binaries. And, if the targeted filesystem is mounted read-only, even root can not modify it (remounting without a shutdown can be prohibited by policy).
Why don't we stick to what happens in reality instead of imagining what might happen.
So that we don't repeat the mistakes that lead to AT&T monopoly, for example. Or the TSA-like abuses — once government (what you keep affectionately calling "people") gets its monopoly, it becomes even more vicious (and less efficient) than a corporation would've. At least, the corporation might be challenged some day by a competitor — a government agency needs not fear such things.
I don't need competing networks
Yes, you do. AT&T's service, which became a monopoly after a governmental decision, became awful — expensive and low quality. The government ended up breaking it apart to allow competition (of sorts) in the telephone services.
in the same way that I don't need competing road systems.... road system, maintained for the good of all
Yes, we should have competition among road-maintainers too. There are several different routes between most major cities today — but they all suck (about equally). They are incredibly expensive (to taxpayers), but the quality is downright awful. I don't understand, why, in your opinion, the roads can not be made to compete with each other. A traveler considering a ride from New York to Boston, for example, would have options to compare:
Take I-95 — we guarantee fast-lane speed of no less than 50mph for your entire trip! Weekend special rates — only 5 cents per mile!
RT-15 — a beautiful ride with prompt service. Free roadside assistance for anyone traveling 100 miles or more in a day.
Various Consumer Reports-like entities would than report, which route is better and why, and the competitors would be forced to watch each other the way Apple and Android people do...
Same goes for utilities and "public transport". If Tokyo has competing subway lines, why can't New York?
Engel also reported hackers snooping around a honeypot set up by his security consultant which, as Gartner analyst Paul Proctor also pointed out in a blog posting, is like leaving the honey open and complaining when it attracts flies.
Or like wearing a mini-skirt and complaining, when you get raped...
Oh, that's a recipe for disaster... Competing with such a network will be like fighting city hall. It may be great now, but wait until the towns start enacting laws mandating censorship over anything that passes the city-owned network, for example.
I don't know about you, but I dread the thought of my Internet service being anything like what the electric utility provides around here.
Provider lock-in is why networks should stay the property of the people and not the corporations
Occupy Wall Street much? The choice is not between corporations and "people" (government). The choice is between monopoly (corporate or governmental) and competing corporations. And I'll take the latter over the former any day.
Any thoughts on how I can better explain jQuery to an app reviewer?
Where I work, there is an entire group of people, whose sole task is communicating with Apple's app-reviewers. Any time a new app is submitted, they even include a list of reasons, that led to another app of ours getting rejected earlier — with the explanations on why each of those reasons was invalid.
a direct attack on Google's work in Provo and the UTOPIA network
Do we really feel, Google should own networks? With taxpayers' help?
Sure, it is fun and games, while they are still growing — the lucky users can't shut up about it. What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however? What if they decide to "boycott" a site — either because it is run by "haters" of one kind or another, or is spreading malware?
At least, I can switch from FiOS to a coax-cable provider today...
The system is set up that those with money get heard and those without do not.
This is an oft-repeated canard, but it is simply not true. Money helps — as does comely appearance, good education, etc. But it is not a guarantee. For example, last year people favoring gun control outspent their opponents in Colorado by staggering 11:1 — and lost anyway.
Modern politics is no longer about doing what's best for the country or even the constituent.
"Things aren't what they used to be — and they never were." I'm yet to see a reform proposal, that does not infringe on First Amendment rights — and, worse, all allow the incumbent to decide, whether the opposition is not getting "too much money". That's a straight road to Chavez's Venezuela (if not Castro's Cuba), and that's far worse than even "plutocracy".
Lastly, you focusing on the wrong target. The real danger are not the wealthy individuals outside of government — they've earned the monies they are spending doing something, that other people wanted to pay for. The real threat to our freedoms (and prosperity) is the ever-expanding federal government — presidents come and go, but the bureaucrats stay... The stuffed suits justifying their own existence by issuing regulations (that nobody wants) and justifying their greater and expenses. Real estate in Washington DC never seems to drop in price and the region hardly sustained any recession. And, wouldn't you know it, they just got another raise...
Over the years a succession of foolish Congresses has delegated Legislature's powers to the Executive branch — and its various agencies headed by unelected bureaucrats. That needs reforming, but you aren't going to achieve it by limiting the amounts of money people are allowed to spend on politics. People in government will find a way — people outside will be audited by the IRS.
Is the government physically putting tape across your mouth, or putting you in handcuffs so you can't type?
Any and all proposed "campaign finance reform laws" would limit the amount of money one can spend on their favorite candidate and/or issue. Whether I'm not allowed to talk on a street corner on behalf of a candidate for more than X hours (because X times minimum hourly wage will exceed the limit), or not allowed to buy a TV advertisement, my right to speech is infringed. Whether I'll be "merely" fined for the violation, or actual tape will be put across my mouth is irrelevant — Congress will have made law limiting Freedom of Speech...
the answer to money in politics is to create more money and give it to everyone
Well, that's exactly, what we have now. People "create" (earn!) money and give it to causes they wish to advance. And it is just how it should be — and no "reform" is necessary.
Why should you have more influence with them than I do, simply because you can pay more people to speak to them on your behalf?
For the same reasons, a person with more free time will have more influence. Aren't you going to limit that? How about limiting attractiveness of women? Certainly, a cute girl talking on behalf of a candidate is more persuasive, than a man — will you seek to outlaw that undue advantage too?
At least, my having money (and being willing to spend it) is a sign of a good thing — generally. On contrast, somebody else having much free time is suspect — is their influence a good thing?
By using money to influence the government in a way that corrupts and degrades it, my right to an honest government is being infringed upon.
There is no "right to honest government" — you are governed by whoever you and the rest of the voters have elected. Unlike Freedom of Speech, which certainly is a right. And I've given you enough examples (to supplement Supreme Court's decision) of how money is speech. Heck, if the First Amendment protects selling pornography, then it certainly covers paying for political billboards and TV-ads.
You've given me nothing but fake "rights" — and a down-moderation. So long, Anonymous Coward.
The two-party system guaranteeing this outcome is a separate discussion.
America does not have a "two-party system". In fact, nothing in the Constitution even mentions "party". Unlike Democracies world-wide, in our Republic we don't vote for parties — but for individuals. The individuals may — or may not — choose to consider themselves members of a party, but that has little (if any) legal meaning. They can even switch parties after election — without it having any effect on their status. This tends to provide for "big tent" parties — indeed, McCain may be closer to Obama, than he is to Romney...
On contrast, in Democracies people vote for parties — and the parties then decide, which individuals to place in legislature (and in government) — in proportion to the vote the party gets in the poll. This tends to create smaller, narrow-agenda parties — which create coalitions with one another to actually govern.
Whichever system is "better", this is the difference that explains, why America has only two major parties currently (though Whigs were a powerful party of their own in the 19th century), while the rest of the world tends to have quite a few more.
What finance reform does is reduce the pressure to adhere to the status quo once a major-party candidate is in. This can only help.
Helpful or not, you aren't going to get anyone "better" than Barack Obama — and even he is not good enough for you...
The First Amendment revolves around speech, what kind of Constitutional Originalist would confuse paying people money for actual speech?
Money donated to a cause is speech. If you limit the amounts of an individual donation to N, that means, my talking on behalf of a candidate will be limited to N/minimum-hourly-wage hours. If I keep talking after that, I'll be in violation of your donation-limiting law... So, my speech will be limited.
And it need not be an individual talking on the corner — buying candidate-supporting ads can be a more common example. By limiting the amount of money I can spend on an ad, you are infringing my Free Speech. By preventing me from associating with other like-minded supporters of a candidate — so that we can buy a pricier ad for the candidate we all like — you are infringing on our Freedom of Association.
As the Supreme Court once put it in writing:
the concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.
The first step to making real change would be campaign finance reform. Hmmm, I wonder why Congress is to keen on doing that?
"Campaign finance reform" — First Amendment be damned — is just means to an end. An end to electing different sort of politicians.
But, face it, a person father to the Left and with a greater contempt for what America used to be (and still remains in some places despite his efforts to "fundementally transform" it) than the current President will not soon be elected... And for several years he even had his party's majority in the legislature.
If you aren't happy with this presidency, then you never will be happy with any — even if you manage to "reform" campaign finance...
Ironically, each element of the Triple Package violates a core tenet of contemporary American thinking
I wonder, if the contemporary state of affairs is incidental or a result of deliberate actions by those, who always considered the United States "too strong" (for their comfort) and a threat... Yes, I am talking about anti-Americans both foreign and domestic.
But there are similarities and is that not enough to tell you that the West has changed in an evil way?
I don't like where the West is going for the last 15-20 years either. But to calling it "Iron Curtain" is getting close to tripping the Godwin's Law...
The Iron Curtain's primary goal was to keep the information (about West's superiority) out — and own citizenry in.
As long as the British are free to leave their country, things are Ok... Letz, I believe, once said: "A country you can leave is the country you can live in."
No, when the dominant producers of the product are found to be colluding to set the price it should be prosecutted, regardless of whther most peopl think the price is reasonable.
Exactly. But, in the case in TFA, it is the buyers, rather than the producers/sellers, who are being targeted, and that just seems backwards...
The definition I found contains a subsequent reselling of thus-purchased items to in a "knock out" action" — at the higher price. That may be illegal, but it is not, what TFA is alleging.
BTW, "try searching" is not an argument — you want to present evidence, you search for it and present whatever link(s), that best support your case...
So, when buyers agree — such as on various "review" sites — that a particular product or service is overpriced, it must be prosecuted?
Because that's what is happening here — Apple and other buyers of engineering labor are accused of illegal collusion...
The anti-trust laws, it always seemed to me, are supposed to target sellers, rather than buyers... Including sellers of labor — such as Trade Unions, whose officially stated goal is maintaining and raising the prices of what their members are selling.
A maker space area with production and 3D printing capabilities
Quasi day-care areas
Social areas with coffee/snacks
Multi-generational events
Invited speakers on special topics
Continuing education classes
Surely, you are well aware, what the "libra" part of the word library means (and it has nothing to do with weights)... But not one item on your long list mentions a book of any kind (papyrus, parchment, paper, electronic)...
Slashdot Mirror
A wider question is why is not there any liability for programming errors? All end-user licenses (both free and otherwise) explicitly renounce any such — and we accept it. Maybe, we should not...
Has there been a correlated increase in the number of accidents? Probably, not — or TFA would've mentioned it.
Without such, I don't see, how anything draconian can be justified. It is annoying, to be sure, but justice should not be emotional...
For routine operation of Internet-exposed systems, the / (which includes /usr and, usually, /usr/local) mounted read-only. The user-modifiable places (/home, /tmp, /var) are mounted with the noexec option.
Although a dedicated attacker might be able to succeed anyway (the same script can be run with a sh script instead of ./script), it throws sort of a "tangle-foot" over them — most of the hacks involve some compiled binaries. And, if the targeted filesystem is mounted read-only, even root can not modify it (remounting without a shutdown can be prohibited by policy).
It is not my fault! Marketing made me do it!
So that we don't repeat the mistakes that lead to AT&T monopoly, for example. Or the TSA-like abuses — once government (what you keep affectionately calling "people") gets its monopoly, it becomes even more vicious (and less efficient) than a corporation would've. At least, the corporation might be challenged some day by a competitor — a government agency needs not fear such things.
Yes, you do. AT&T's service, which became a monopoly after a governmental decision, became awful — expensive and low quality. The government ended up breaking it apart to allow competition (of sorts) in the telephone services.
Yes, we should have competition among road-maintainers too. There are several different routes between most major cities today — but they all suck (about equally). They are incredibly expensive (to taxpayers), but the quality is downright awful. I don't understand, why, in your opinion, the roads can not be made to compete with each other. A traveler considering a ride from New York to Boston, for example, would have options to compare:
Various Consumer Reports-like entities would than report, which route is better and why, and the competitors would be forced to watch each other the way Apple and Android people do...
Same goes for utilities and "public transport". If Tokyo has competing subway lines, why can't New York?
Or like wearing a mini-skirt and complaining, when you get raped...
Oh, that's a recipe for disaster... Competing with such a network will be like fighting city hall. It may be great now, but wait until the towns start enacting laws mandating censorship over anything that passes the city-owned network, for example.
I don't know about you, but I dread the thought of my Internet service being anything like what the electric utility provides around here.
Occupy Wall Street much? The choice is not between corporations and "people" (government). The choice is between monopoly (corporate or governmental) and competing corporations. And I'll take the latter over the former any day.
Where I work, there is an entire group of people, whose sole task is communicating with Apple's app-reviewers. Any time a new app is submitted, they even include a list of reasons, that led to another app of ours getting rejected earlier — with the explanations on why each of those reasons was invalid.
It is never an easy process...
Do we really feel, Google should own networks? With taxpayers' help?
Sure, it is fun and games, while they are still growing — the lucky users can't shut up about it. What happens, when Google becomes a regional (or nationwide) monopoly, however? What if they decide to "boycott" a site — either because it is run by "haters" of one kind or another, or is spreading malware?
At least, I can switch from FiOS to a coax-cable provider today...
This is an oft-repeated canard, but it is simply not true. Money helps — as does comely appearance, good education, etc. But it is not a guarantee. For example, last year people favoring gun control outspent their opponents in Colorado by staggering 11:1 — and lost anyway.
"Things aren't what they used to be — and they never were." I'm yet to see a reform proposal, that does not infringe on First Amendment rights — and, worse, all allow the incumbent to decide, whether the opposition is not getting "too much money". That's a straight road to Chavez's Venezuela (if not Castro's Cuba), and that's far worse than even "plutocracy".
Lastly, you focusing on the wrong target. The real danger are not the wealthy individuals outside of government — they've earned the monies they are spending doing something, that other people wanted to pay for. The real threat to our freedoms (and prosperity) is the ever-expanding federal government — presidents come and go, but the bureaucrats stay... The stuffed suits justifying their own existence by issuing regulations (that nobody wants) and justifying their greater and expenses. Real estate in Washington DC never seems to drop in price and the region hardly sustained any recession. And, wouldn't you know it, they just got another raise...
Over the years a succession of foolish Congresses has delegated Legislature's powers to the Executive branch — and its various agencies headed by unelected bureaucrats. That needs reforming, but you aren't going to achieve it by limiting the amounts of money people are allowed to spend on politics. People in government will find a way — people outside will be audited by the IRS.
Wow!!! That's got to be a troll... No one can be that stupid...
Any and all proposed "campaign finance reform laws" would limit the amount of money one can spend on their favorite candidate and/or issue. Whether I'm not allowed to talk on a street corner on behalf of a candidate for more than X hours (because X times minimum hourly wage will exceed the limit), or not allowed to buy a TV advertisement, my right to speech is infringed. Whether I'll be "merely" fined for the violation, or actual tape will be put across my mouth is irrelevant — Congress will have made law limiting Freedom of Speech...
Well, that's exactly, what we have now. People "create" (earn!) money and give it to causes they wish to advance. And it is just how it should be — and no "reform" is necessary.
For the same reasons, a person with more free time will have more influence. Aren't you going to limit that? How about limiting attractiveness of women? Certainly, a cute girl talking on behalf of a candidate is more persuasive, than a man — will you seek to outlaw that undue advantage too?
At least, my having money (and being willing to spend it) is a sign of a good thing — generally. On contrast, somebody else having much free time is suspect — is their influence a good thing?
There is no "right to honest government" — you are governed by whoever you and the rest of the voters have elected. Unlike Freedom of Speech, which certainly is a right. And I've given you enough examples (to supplement Supreme Court's decision) of how money is speech. Heck, if the First Amendment protects selling pornography, then it certainly covers paying for political billboards and TV-ads.
You've given me nothing but fake "rights" — and a down-moderation. So long, Anonymous Coward.
America does not have a "two-party system". In fact, nothing in the Constitution even mentions "party". Unlike Democracies world-wide, in our Republic we don't vote for parties — but for individuals. The individuals may — or may not — choose to consider themselves members of a party, but that has little (if any) legal meaning. They can even switch parties after election — without it having any effect on their status. This tends to provide for "big tent" parties — indeed, McCain may be closer to Obama, than he is to Romney...
On contrast, in Democracies people vote for parties — and the parties then decide, which individuals to place in legislature (and in government) — in proportion to the vote the party gets in the poll. This tends to create smaller, narrow-agenda parties — which create coalitions with one another to actually govern.
Whichever system is "better", this is the difference that explains, why America has only two major parties currently (though Whigs were a powerful party of their own in the 19th century), while the rest of the world tends to have quite a few more.
Helpful or not, you aren't going to get anyone "better" than Barack Obama — and even he is not good enough for you...
Point was, you aren't going to get anyone "better" than Obama — with or without "campaign finance" reform.
What you want is someone like Chavez and that will not happen until I run out of ammunition...
Money donated to a cause is speech. If you limit the amounts of an individual donation to N, that means, my talking on behalf of a candidate will be limited to N/minimum-hourly-wage hours. If I keep talking after that, I'll be in violation of your donation-limiting law... So, my speech will be limited.
And it need not be an individual talking on the corner — buying candidate-supporting ads can be a more common example. By limiting the amount of money I can spend on an ad, you are infringing my Free Speech. By preventing me from associating with other like-minded supporters of a candidate — so that we can buy a pricier ad for the candidate we all like — you are infringing on our Freedom of Association.
As the Supreme Court once put it in writing:
"Campaign finance reform" — First Amendment be damned — is just means to an end. An end to electing different sort of politicians.
But, face it, a person father to the Left and with a greater contempt for what America used to be (and still remains in some places despite his efforts to "fundementally transform" it) than the current President will not soon be elected... And for several years he even had his party's majority in the legislature.
If you aren't happy with this presidency, then you never will be happy with any — even if you manage to "reform" campaign finance...
If sabotaging one border-patrolling drone grounds all the rest of them, what better way to help those poor aliens sneak into the US — illegally?
I wonder, if the contemporary state of affairs is incidental or a result of deliberate actions by those, who always considered the United States "too strong" (for their comfort) and a threat... Yes, I am talking about anti-Americans both foreign and domestic.
I don't like where the West is going for the last 15-20 years either. But to calling it "Iron Curtain" is getting close to tripping the Godwin's Law...
The Iron Curtain's primary goal was to keep the information (about West's superiority) out — and own citizenry in.
As long as the British are free to leave their country, things are Ok... Letz, I believe, once said: "A country you can leave is the country you can live in."
Exactly. But, in the case in TFA, it is the buyers, rather than the producers/sellers, who are being targeted, and that just seems backwards...
The definition I found contains a subsequent reselling of thus-purchased items to in a "knock out" action" — at the higher price. That may be illegal, but it is not, what TFA is alleging.
BTW, "try searching" is not an argument — you want to present evidence, you search for it and present whatever link(s), that best support your case...
So, when buyers agree — such as on various "review" sites — that a particular product or service is overpriced, it must be prosecuted?
Because that's what is happening here — Apple and other buyers of engineering labor are accused of illegal collusion...
The anti-trust laws, it always seemed to me, are supposed to target sellers, rather than buyers... Including sellers of labor — such as Trade Unions, whose officially stated goal is maintaining and raising the prices of what their members are selling.
Surely, you are well aware, what the "libra" part of the word library means (and it has nothing to do with weights)... But not one item on your long list mentions a book of any kind (papyrus, parchment, paper, electronic)...