I always harken back to the quote from William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
Of course, he also said, "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
Is it me or does it seem like Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place now? They've spent months telling us about how the Kinect was mandatory and that it would be used by all their games moving forward! Now developers are going to have to acknowledge that it is optional and that a substantial portion of the population won't use it. Furthermore, people are going to ask, if it's optional, why are you forcing me to buy it?
For every one of these u-turns they make (after touting the features that these things apparently relied on), they just seem more and more boxed in.
I attended an information security conference last year that had a prominent attorney speaking regarding information security. His biggest message to all of us was that he wanted to see more information security professionals consider becoming attorneys, as there was a serious shortage in experts in both security and the law. He said that his major issue is that there is a lot of bad law and bad precedent out there and he would like to see that change. I suppose this book is just a case in point of that argument. If there is a systemic issue of attorneys not being security-aware and not protecting their data and the data of their clients, how can we expect them to be able to argue before the courts and help create proper, forward-looking precedents?
At this point, based on the TSA's actions in implementing this whole scheme, the public comment may be the most informed and knowledgeable input in the entire process!
To further your argument, as another frequent flyer, you're absolutely right about the slowdown that the scanners present to passing through security. If you've ever noticed that when the line backs up, they'll open up the metal detectors again rather than forcing everyone through the millimeter wave scanners. That's hypocrisy in and of itself, as their actions demonstrate that there is negligible difference in security provided, even in their own minds! If you only force people to go through the scanners when it's convenient for you, that tells me that even you don't think they help. If you truly thought they were absolutely critical for security, you'd have additional lines ready to go rather than switching.
I take a bit of the opposite tact, as I prefer to be treated like a criminal in private rather than in full display of the public. That and it forces them to use additional resources, as now two people have to be monitoring the pat-down.
Frankly, my largest problem (aside from the constitutionality of said pat-down) is the fact that the TSA agents seem to ask a lot of questions that they haven't thought about and don't really seem to want honest answers to. For instance, after opting out, I was once asked if I was I understood what would happen to me and if I was "comfortable with this process". When I answered "No, I think it's a waste of time and a violation of my Constitutional rights," that started a bit of a scene.
Another favorite is when they ask if I have any medical devices or implants on my body and I answer "Yes" and then they stand there looking at me in silence. Oh, you want me to describe them, well in that case, you shouldn't asked it as a yes/no question then!
Then we get to "Do you have any areas on your body that are sensitive to the touch?" "Yeah, mate, my whole body."
I realize I'm being difficult and something of a jerk, but I have no reason why I have to make it EASY to take my rights away. Sigh, now I'm probably on some list.
Yes and no. The sphere of "decriminalization" also includes the reduction in penalties in addition to the outright removal of penalties (or de facto legalization). An example of decriminalization would be a state changing the penalty from jail time to a civil fine of $100. Whereas legalization is just plainly stating that it is no longer a crime. Essentially, it's de facto legalization vs. outright (de jure) legalization.
I'm sorry, but you are not correct on your last statement. The Bill of Rights precludes The Government from infringing on the public's free speech, but that protection doesn't apply to private citizens. You do not have the right to free speech in "all forums" as you stated. If you're protesting on private property, you can be kicked off. If you're on a private radio station and the owner doesn't like what you're saying, that person can remove you. If you're saying something on a forum, you can be banned.
Even in the case you cited, a judge could in fact order you to whitewash a wall covered in graffiti (or artwork), even if it WAS your wall, if you had previously signed an HOA covenant in your deed that precludes walls other than white.
However, I think we fundamentally agree on the base issue that a judge ordering a Facebook account to be deleted prior to trial is ridiculous without some extenuating circumstances.
Very true! If I have a difficult time removing or installing a bolt (removal especially), often you can use heating or cooling on the various pieces to make it easier. It's odd using a torch on one piece and ice on the other in an attempt to dislodge something. I can't imagine how the interplay between different materials could impact things while in space given the huge swings in temperature.
I hate to be pedantic, but you don't file a docket. The docket is the schedule / container for legal filings. Rather, I believe the proper term would be brief in this case. You can also file other things such as suits, claims and motions.
Frankly, I was wording things very carefully because based on his ridiculous previous actions, I was considering the possibility that he would attempt to sue me for libel.
Kudos to Oatmeal for winning this round, but this fight may not be over. Carreon seems to have shown himself to file odd lawsuits but being a lawyer, he isn't a complete idiot. Note that he dismissed his lawsuits without prejudice, which means that he can file them again at any time. He may just be waiting for the bad PR and public focus to go elsewhere before refiling. But kudos to Mr. Inman in the mean time.
I wonder if their refusal is grounded in the knowledge of what it is like to live under a police state. If that is the case, perhaps it can give us hope that the pendulum will swing in the other direction for the more draconian governments out there.
I would respectfully disagree. In certain cases, such as some of new automobile manufacturing facilities (Volkswagen in Chattanooga, TN, Kia in Georgia, etc.) they aren't causing a plant to move from one state to another, but encouraging the building of a new facility that wasn't previously existing in the US. Now, the potential argument could be that if they didn't build it in one state, they would simply build it in another, thus you wouldn't have a net increase overall, as it would be built regardless. However, the counterargument to the previous statement is that competition between states is providing a more attractive locale to building a manufacturing facility overall. Frankly, I'd rather have them say, "which state" than "which country." End result being more jobs for Americans.
Given Iran's apparent 40 year turnaround time between gaining possession of a piece of military technology and producing reverse-engineered copies, I suppose I should start preparing for Iran's version of the RQ-170 Sentinel drone around 2041.
I think they're trying to clone Windows 8, which is far, far worse. I don't want to encourage Microsoft, as I'd rather Windows 8 die in the corner of ignominy.
Good luck with that Hulu. What's next, is CNN.com going to force me to prove I have cable before reading their site? Hulu, people gladly watch your content with ads and you buckled to the cable providers, torpedoing your independence.
Not to be pedantic, but cloture (otherwise known as the act of limiting debate on a piece of legislation and forcing a vote) requires a 3/5ths majority, not a 2/3 majority. Thus 60 votes (barring any vacant seats in the Senate) rather than 67.
Oh, you're absolutely right. The burden to consumers is not high at all, nor should it be. Contrast that with the burden for debit card transactions or electronic transfers, which only covers two business days. As you said, if you're doing what you SHOULD be doing, you're going to be protected under the law. I just don't want people to have a false sense of security that if they use a credit card, they're protected from fraudulent transactions in perpetuity, because that simply isn't the case.
From what I have heard and read, the banks have already begun notifying people and issuing new cards. I have a friend who was affected and he said that the bank called him on Friday to let him know that he'd have a new card on Monday. The only thing that is concerning at this point is that they have been wavering on the number of accounts exposed, going from 10 million to 54,000 and now to 1.5 million. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, as they seem to be at the "we don't know what we don't know" stage.
Actually, that's not true at all. If you fail to report fraudulent transactions within 60 days of statement mailing, the bank and/or credit card company is not responsible for any investigation or repayment under the Fair Credit Billing Act.
Slashdot Mirror
I always harken back to the quote from William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
Of course, he also said, "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."
Is it me or does it seem like Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place now? They've spent months telling us about how the Kinect was mandatory and that it would be used by all their games moving forward! Now developers are going to have to acknowledge that it is optional and that a substantial portion of the population won't use it. Furthermore, people are going to ask, if it's optional, why are you forcing me to buy it?
For every one of these u-turns they make (after touting the features that these things apparently relied on), they just seem more and more boxed in.
I attended an information security conference last year that had a prominent attorney speaking regarding information security. His biggest message to all of us was that he wanted to see more information security professionals consider becoming attorneys, as there was a serious shortage in experts in both security and the law. He said that his major issue is that there is a lot of bad law and bad precedent out there and he would like to see that change. I suppose this book is just a case in point of that argument. If there is a systemic issue of attorneys not being security-aware and not protecting their data and the data of their clients, how can we expect them to be able to argue before the courts and help create proper, forward-looking precedents?
At this point, based on the TSA's actions in implementing this whole scheme, the public comment may be the most informed and knowledgeable input in the entire process!
To further your argument, as another frequent flyer, you're absolutely right about the slowdown that the scanners present to passing through security. If you've ever noticed that when the line backs up, they'll open up the metal detectors again rather than forcing everyone through the millimeter wave scanners. That's hypocrisy in and of itself, as their actions demonstrate that there is negligible difference in security provided, even in their own minds! If you only force people to go through the scanners when it's convenient for you, that tells me that even you don't think they help. If you truly thought they were absolutely critical for security, you'd have additional lines ready to go rather than switching.
I take a bit of the opposite tact, as I prefer to be treated like a criminal in private rather than in full display of the public. That and it forces them to use additional resources, as now two people have to be monitoring the pat-down.
Frankly, my largest problem (aside from the constitutionality of said pat-down) is the fact that the TSA agents seem to ask a lot of questions that they haven't thought about and don't really seem to want honest answers to. For instance, after opting out, I was once asked if I was I understood what would happen to me and if I was "comfortable with this process". When I answered "No, I think it's a waste of time and a violation of my Constitutional rights," that started a bit of a scene.
Another favorite is when they ask if I have any medical devices or implants on my body and I answer "Yes" and then they stand there looking at me in silence. Oh, you want me to describe them, well in that case, you shouldn't asked it as a yes/no question then!
Then we get to "Do you have any areas on your body that are sensitive to the touch?" "Yeah, mate, my whole body."
I realize I'm being difficult and something of a jerk, but I have no reason why I have to make it EASY to take my rights away. Sigh, now I'm probably on some list.
Yes and no. The sphere of "decriminalization" also includes the reduction in penalties in addition to the outright removal of penalties (or de facto legalization). An example of decriminalization would be a state changing the penalty from jail time to a civil fine of $100. Whereas legalization is just plainly stating that it is no longer a crime. Essentially, it's de facto legalization vs. outright (de jure) legalization.
I'm sorry, but you are not correct on your last statement. The Bill of Rights precludes The Government from infringing on the public's free speech, but that protection doesn't apply to private citizens. You do not have the right to free speech in "all forums" as you stated. If you're protesting on private property, you can be kicked off. If you're on a private radio station and the owner doesn't like what you're saying, that person can remove you. If you're saying something on a forum, you can be banned.
Even in the case you cited, a judge could in fact order you to whitewash a wall covered in graffiti (or artwork), even if it WAS your wall, if you had previously signed an HOA covenant in your deed that precludes walls other than white.
However, I think we fundamentally agree on the base issue that a judge ordering a Facebook account to be deleted prior to trial is ridiculous without some extenuating circumstances.
Very true! If I have a difficult time removing or installing a bolt (removal especially), often you can use heating or cooling on the various pieces to make it easier. It's odd using a torch on one piece and ice on the other in an attempt to dislodge something. I can't imagine how the interplay between different materials could impact things while in space given the huge swings in temperature.
I think Hanlon's / Heinlein's Razor is more apropos to this situation.
I hate to be pedantic, but you don't file a docket. The docket is the schedule / container for legal filings. Rather, I believe the proper term would be brief in this case. You can also file other things such as suits, claims and motions.
Frankly, I was wording things very carefully because based on his ridiculous previous actions, I was considering the possibility that he would attempt to sue me for libel.
Kudos to Oatmeal for winning this round, but this fight may not be over. Carreon seems to have shown himself to file odd lawsuits but being a lawyer, he isn't a complete idiot. Note that he dismissed his lawsuits without prejudice, which means that he can file them again at any time. He may just be waiting for the bad PR and public focus to go elsewhere before refiling. But kudos to Mr. Inman in the mean time.
I wonder if their refusal is grounded in the knowledge of what it is like to live under a police state. If that is the case, perhaps it can give us hope that the pendulum will swing in the other direction for the more draconian governments out there.
Would you prefer that the jobs stay overseas rather than come back to the States?
If my colleagues are any measure, they're all playing Angry Birds all day.
I would respectfully disagree. In certain cases, such as some of new automobile manufacturing facilities (Volkswagen in Chattanooga, TN, Kia in Georgia, etc.) they aren't causing a plant to move from one state to another, but encouraging the building of a new facility that wasn't previously existing in the US. Now, the potential argument could be that if they didn't build it in one state, they would simply build it in another, thus you wouldn't have a net increase overall, as it would be built regardless. However, the counterargument to the previous statement is that competition between states is providing a more attractive locale to building a manufacturing facility overall. Frankly, I'd rather have them say, "which state" than "which country." End result being more jobs for Americans.
Given Iran's apparent 40 year turnaround time between gaining possession of a piece of military technology and producing reverse-engineered copies, I suppose I should start preparing for Iran's version of the RQ-170 Sentinel drone around 2041.
I think they're trying to clone Windows 8, which is far, far worse. I don't want to encourage Microsoft, as I'd rather Windows 8 die in the corner of ignominy.
Good luck with that Hulu. What's next, is CNN.com going to force me to prove I have cable before reading their site? Hulu, people gladly watch your content with ads and you buckled to the cable providers, torpedoing your independence.
Not to be pedantic, but cloture (otherwise known as the act of limiting debate on a piece of legislation and forcing a vote) requires a 3/5ths majority, not a 2/3 majority. Thus 60 votes (barring any vacant seats in the Senate) rather than 67.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloture
Visa and Mastercard are migrating to "Chip and PIN" cards within the next year.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399772,00.asp
But even then, that's not a perfect solution, nor will it ever be. It will always be an arms race between the credit card companies and the thieves.
Oh, you're absolutely right. The burden to consumers is not high at all, nor should it be. Contrast that with the burden for debit card transactions or electronic transfers, which only covers two business days. As you said, if you're doing what you SHOULD be doing, you're going to be protected under the law. I just don't want people to have a false sense of security that if they use a credit card, they're protected from fraudulent transactions in perpetuity, because that simply isn't the case.
From what I have heard and read, the banks have already begun notifying people and issuing new cards. I have a friend who was affected and he said that the bank called him on Friday to let him know that he'd have a new card on Monday. The only thing that is concerning at this point is that they have been wavering on the number of accounts exposed, going from 10 million to 54,000 and now to 1.5 million. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, as they seem to be at the "we don't know what we don't know" stage.
Actually, that's not true at all. If you fail to report fraudulent transactions within 60 days of statement mailing, the bank and/or credit card company is not responsible for any investigation or repayment under the Fair Credit Billing Act.
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre04.shtm
Well, then I guess you better pay a visit to your friendly neighborhood cobbler.