This is a disturbing quote, why should you restrict the life of hundred of thousands of people? Because multi-multi-millions are involved, I think not.
But that is the society we live in.
Several hundred (thousnad?) people have an accident, some die, while talking on cell phones and driving. Great uproar, laws are passed banning cell phone use while driving. Millions affected.
Some people die while driving too fast for the conditions (traffic, road, weather, vehicle condition, personal ability, personal state of mind/health/impairment). Speed laws passed, millions affected.
There are other examples. We live in a society where the majority are affected by the actions of a few. We try desperately to protect 100.000% of the people from themselves.
So we curtail the rights of the many to protect the idiot few. This is just an extension of that concept.
Yes, the vaunted consciousness that reacts a full 1/4 second after the fact when we do most common actions such as crossing the road, kicking a ball, picking up a cup, or typing comments to Slashdot?
"If we start noticing that many NETI@home users are receiving anomalous traffic, that could be an indication of the spread of an Internet worm, or some other sort of attack," Simpson said. "If the clients were distributed enough, one could even see which parts of the world are attacked first and then possibly use the data to track where the worm seems to have originated from."
But I am behind a firewall. My computer will never see this type of traffic. The firewall does not pass it (heck, it does not pass ANY un-solicited traffic).
What they really need to do is get the firewall to report stats. That would be more realistic.
Email is a wide open system, it was designed to facilitate transfer of messages... It's a basic fundamental flaw,
It is not a flaw, it is the way it was designed for a time (and people) where you had a basic trust of the other people.
Unfortunately, in today's world, there are people who will exploit anything and anyone to make money. There is a serious lack of integrity and feeling of responsibility.
So we all need firewalls etc, just to protect ourselves. The greed of the few causes everyone else problems.
I imagine the reason that they didn't continue onto W95 is because it was too hard
There were two main reasons as I can recall.
1. Every time a new emulator came out, Microsoft would issue a new DLL which broke the emulator. So IBM had to engineer around that.
2. Microsoft finally came out with a memory allocation scheme that used memory blocks starting at the 4Gbyte level. The internal memory managment of OS/2 could not go past 2GByte. It would require a major rework of OS/2 to make this work.
Microsoft made a concerted effort to break each new emulator as it came out. They finally succeeded.
In spite of what I think about the general population, this is not beyond their comprehension. It is not even that far from what is being done with the hanging chad method.
A slip of paper comes out of the top of the machine, just above a flashing light (or even better a backlit sign saying "take me to the counting table").
There a person points to the slot, the vote is registered. The paper (cardboard actually) is then put in a box.
Should be a lot easier than where the person first needs to put in and align a punch card.
OS/2 Warp, which was incredibly developer unfriendly. Still to this day, developers can whip out business info systems for Windows faster than on Linux, Mac, etc.
What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Combine the two systems.
Use a touchscreen to vote. A paper receipt is printed with a barcode. Take the paper to the counting machine. Insert. Put the paper into a ballot box for possible auditing.
Add encryption to the process for the barcode, and that should be enough.
OS/2 Warp, which was incredibly developer unfriendly
The GUI API for OS/2 was almost the same as the one for Windows. IBM and Microsoft started developing OS/2 together. In fact, the very early GUI for OS/2 (1.0?) was almost visually and functionally identical to the one that Microsoft used with Windows 1, 2, and 3. The API was so close that IBM had a conversion system (called Mirror??) where the vendor had top make a few changes, then could re-compile for OS/2. Of course the extra CPU time required for the conversion was a huge performance hit (think 386/33, 8M RAM), so it really never became mainstream.
What was developer unfriendly was the pricing of the NDK. Microsoft practically gave its NDK away, whereas IBM sold theres for big bucks (over $500 as I remember).
I thought all day on how to reply to you. I did not want to just say "because!"
Yet I still feel the same way about this issue. I do not like unions, I do not like what they do to companies, I do not like the way that everything is a "demand".
I once belonged to a union (for two years). All I ever heard from the union leaders was how much the company was screwing us over, and how we would get back at them. All I hear from current news reports is the same thing (not just TV, but radio, newspapers,...). It does not seem to me that anything has changed over the 3 decades (yipes!, is has been that long...).
You cannot run a company well where the employees lock you into certain actions. The reason there ARE company officers is to manage the company. They have a better overall view of what the company can do, and where it is heading. Do they make mistakes? Sure. Are they corrupt? Sometimes.
Since my union days I have worked in government (fixed rate scale, non-union), private industry (individual contract, pay ranges, performance bonuses), consultant (pure contract, whatever the market would bear). I vastly prefer to rely on my own expertise and training.
Sometimes it is tough, but that is why I have a savings account.
Are unions still a good thing? I do not know. At one time they were quite important, but only in some industries. They did do a good job in raising the standards in employment conditions. However I feel that their usefulness has deteriorated. All they can do is demand more and more while demanding less and less effort. Since the current working conditions are quite good, and moreover protected by law, that is all they CAN do and still justify their existence.
I don't like unions, I don't like the idea of unions.
Yes maybe they were important at one time, but right now they are nothing more than organizations which try to perpetuate themselves.
I see too many exmaples where a union wants more, simply because a contract has expired. Is the company doing better? No. Are the workers more productive? No. Has the cost of living gone up? Yes, but not as much as the union is demanding.
Demand, demand, demand.
I live in Vancouver BC. Right now the tug boat union is striking. Their demand? 17.5% over 3 years. The comapny offer? 14% over three years. The latest comparable settlement in another insdustry? 13% over 3 years.
Yet this self-importnat union has basically shut down the port.
I can just take another course and pay my way into a larger salary.
Hell no, the company pays for the courses....
But think about it. The more versatile you are, the more projects you can be put on, the more valuable you are. This translates into money for the company.
the person alongside you that didn't have the chance to take the course, but probably has more real world experience than you
Experience in the subject they could not take? If they already have the experience, why should they need the course?
This is not an exact one-one match. Just because I took a course should not immediately translate into a higher salary. But when the yearly review comes around, I can point to the fact that I am making an effort to stay current, to upgrade my skills, and THEN I try to negotiate a higher salary.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when did we become a society of mediocrity?
In a word, marketing.
Set up a focus group, draw a bell curve, market to the hump. Do this enough times, and everything is bland crap.
The 200+ millions of people are not put into physical harm by allowing 100+ thousands of people to decrypt data in order to watch a DVD
You are right. But the law will inconvenience millions (potentially) to stop the thousands (potentially) from making copies.
This is a disturbing quote, why should you restrict the life of hundred of thousands of people? Because multi-multi-millions are involved, I think not.
But that is the society we live in.
Several hundred (thousnad?) people have an accident, some die, while talking on cell phones and driving. Great uproar, laws are passed banning cell phone use while driving. Millions affected.
Some people die while driving too fast for the conditions (traffic, road, weather, vehicle condition, personal ability, personal state of mind/health/impairment). Speed laws passed, millions affected.
There are other examples. We live in a society where the majority are affected by the actions of a few. We try desperately to protect 100.000% of the people from themselves.
So we curtail the rights of the many to protect the idiot few. This is just an extension of that concept.
Yes, the vaunted consciousness that reacts a full 1/4 second after the fact when we do most common actions such as crossing the road, kicking a ball, picking up a cup, or typing comments to Slashdot?
Isn't that, like, 20 seconds?
I should have included a TIC (tongue in cheek) icon.
:-, :-* :-` :-\ :-^
What WOULD that look like:
?
God did it.
No other explanation required.
how about learning to write with pen and paper.
what happens when the damn piece of crap breaks down?
You, um, sharpen the pencil?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Most go thirsty.
"If we start noticing that many NETI@home users are receiving anomalous traffic, that could be an indication of the spread of an Internet worm, or some other sort of attack," Simpson said. "If the clients were distributed enough, one could even see which parts of the world are attacked first and then possibly use the data to track where the worm seems to have originated from."
But I am behind a firewall. My computer will never see this type of traffic. The firewall does not pass it (heck, it does not pass ANY un-solicited traffic).
What they really need to do is get the firewall to report stats. That would be more realistic.
A guy in a ballon is lost. He drifts close to a hill. On the hill is another guy.
The man in the balloon asks "Where am I?" The guy on the hill replies "You are in a balloon 30 feet in the air".
The guy in the balloon replies "You must be in IT. Everything you have told me is completely true, yet it is of no use to me".
The guy on the ground says "You must be a manager."
Balloon guy, "Yes, how did you know?
Goounf guy, "Because 5 minutes ago you were lost. Now you are still lost, but now it is my fault!"
Email is a wide open system, it was designed to facilitate transfer of messages ... It's a basic fundamental flaw,
It is not a flaw, it is the way it was designed for a time (and people) where you had a basic trust of the other people.
Unfortunately, in today's world, there are people who will exploit anything and anyone to make money. There is a serious lack of integrity and feeling of responsibility.
So we all need firewalls etc, just to protect ourselves. The greed of the few causes everyone else problems.
I imagine the reason that they didn't continue onto W95 is because it was too hard
There were two main reasons as I can recall.
1. Every time a new emulator came out, Microsoft would issue a new DLL which broke the emulator. So IBM had to engineer around that.
2. Microsoft finally came out with a memory allocation scheme that used memory blocks starting at the 4Gbyte level. The internal memory managment of OS/2 could not go past 2GByte. It would require a major rework of OS/2 to make this work.
Microsoft made a concerted effort to break each new emulator as it came out. They finally succeeded.
And also make it part of the law that the "I agree" checkbox be OFF be default.
That alone should protect most people.
(Sorry I don't know how to highlight links)
6 04,120 0272,00.html">The Link</a>
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3
or
The Link
In spite of what I think about the general population, this is not beyond their comprehension. It is not even that far from what is being done with the hanging chad method.
A slip of paper comes out of the top of the machine, just above a flashing light (or even better a backlit sign saying "take me to the counting table").
There a person points to the slot, the vote is registered. The paper (cardboard actually) is then put in a box.
Should be a lot easier than where the person first needs to put in and align a punch card.
Why are we harping so much on this?
People need "A Cause"(tm).
OS/2 Warp, which was incredibly developer unfriendly. Still to this day, developers can whip out business info systems for Windows faster than on Linux, Mac, etc.
Nope, read the original post.
What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Combine the two systems.
Use a touchscreen to vote. A paper receipt is printed with a barcode. Take the paper to the counting machine. Insert. Put the paper into a ballot box for possible auditing.
Add encryption to the process for the barcode, and that should be enough.
top is to
NKD is SDK
theres is theirs
Sigh......
OS/2 Warp, which was incredibly developer unfriendly
The GUI API for OS/2 was almost the same as the one for Windows. IBM and Microsoft started developing OS/2 together. In fact, the very early GUI for OS/2 (1.0?) was almost visually and functionally identical to the one that Microsoft used with Windows 1, 2, and 3. The API was so close that IBM had a conversion system (called Mirror??) where the vendor had top make a few changes, then could re-compile for OS/2. Of course the extra CPU time required for the conversion was a huge performance hit (think 386/33, 8M RAM), so it really never became mainstream.
What was developer unfriendly was the pricing of the NDK. Microsoft practically gave its NDK away, whereas IBM sold theres for big bucks (over $500 as I remember).
I thought all day on how to reply to you. I did not want to just say "because!"
...). It does not seem to me that anything has changed over the 3 decades (yipes!, is has been that long...).
Yet I still feel the same way about this issue. I do not like unions, I do not like what they do to companies, I do not like the way that everything is a "demand".
I once belonged to a union (for two years). All I ever heard from the union leaders was how much the company was screwing us over, and how we would get back at them. All I hear from current news reports is the same thing (not just TV, but radio, newspapers,
You cannot run a company well where the employees lock you into certain actions. The reason there ARE company officers is to manage the company. They have a better overall view of what the company can do, and where it is heading. Do they make mistakes? Sure. Are they corrupt? Sometimes.
Since my union days I have worked in government (fixed rate scale, non-union), private industry (individual contract, pay ranges, performance bonuses), consultant (pure contract, whatever the market would bear). I vastly prefer to rely on my own expertise and training.
Sometimes it is tough, but that is why I have a savings account.
Are unions still a good thing? I do not know. At one time they were quite important, but only in some industries. They did do a good job in raising the standards in employment conditions. However I feel that their usefulness has deteriorated. All they can do is demand more and more while demanding less and less effort. Since the current working conditions are quite good, and moreover protected by law, that is all they CAN do and still justify their existence.
My opinion of course....
It is easy to substitute words. It does not make your argument.
Here is more Information.
Neither is the best solution, but getting rid of one without getting rid of the other is a bad idea.
Without corporations there would be no jobs, unions, etc.
I don't like unions, I don't like the idea of unions.
Yes maybe they were important at one time, but right now they are nothing more than organizations which try to perpetuate themselves.
I see too many exmaples where a union wants more, simply because a contract has expired. Is the company doing better? No. Are the workers more productive? No. Has the cost of living gone up? Yes, but not as much as the union is demanding.
Demand, demand, demand.
I live in Vancouver BC. Right now the tug boat union is striking. Their demand? 17.5% over 3 years. The comapny offer? 14% over three years. The latest comparable settlement in another insdustry? 13% over 3 years.
Yet this self-importnat union has basically shut down the port.
unions.
Why are the more esoteric remote controlled devices called robots?
It is news bite friendly. Surely you don't want actual FACTS from our news anchors do you?
Film at 11....
I can just take another course and pay my way into a larger salary.
Hell no, the company pays for the courses....
But think about it. The more versatile you are, the more projects you can be put on, the more valuable you are. This translates into money for the company.
the person alongside you that didn't have the chance to take the course, but probably has more real world experience than you
Experience in the subject they could not take? If they already have the experience, why should they need the course?
This is not an exact one-one match. Just because I took a course should not immediately translate into a higher salary. But when the yearly review comes around, I can point to the fact that I am making an effort to stay current, to upgrade my skills, and THEN I try to negotiate a higher salary.