Security based on biometric characteristics of a large sample of sound of you
saying a phrase containing certain words or a live camera image is the only way to
go.
In a world without audio or video recording, perhaps. Biometrics is just a new twist on the old "secret", but now the secret's on the outside where its easy to find, and once compromised, you can't change it.
20 years in the future
Secret Service guy: Mr. President, this is the new biometric unit for launching the missles. You must put your thumb here and look into this device to have your retina scanned.
President: So I authenticate using the same retina my bank has scanned a few times a week for the last 15 years and the thumbprint I use to sign in at the hospital, not to mention leave everywhere I touch?
Secret Service guy: Fsck! That's the last time we trust marketing garbage!
Sorry, but there's also nothing you are that can't be known. Hmm, biometric characteristics of a large sample of sound. Isn't there a certain U.S. agency once purported to not exist which intercepts this sort of thing? And you want me to use my voice as a key? Nooooo thanks! For that matter, how many of us have fingerprints on record? Do you really want to submit to a condition where anyone who can make a machine read your fingerprint can legally act as you? Do you want your likeness to be your key in.uk, where soon any of 2,000,000 government cameras record it daily?
Ironically, publishing that recommendation in a book reduces its value. It provides possible information about the key, especially for owners of the book (and if you're going to assume resources sufficient to find your key, you'd better assume your adversary can determine your reading list.:P)
Personally, I think it'd be of great value to do periodic studies of what sorts of passwords/passphrases are chosen, then do something that most people don't. I know some studies like this have been done, and I've done my own highly informal ones via password cracking tools. I have to assume the standard well-resourced adversary knows what most people choose for passwords/passphrases and has developed tools to rapidly inspect the tiny portion of keyspace most people use.
I'm afraid you missed my point. Yes, the attacker is at fault. However, the point I'm addressing is this: Given that we know computer systems and networked systems in particular and as a result must be protected, who is at fault if a system is not adequately protected? The poster I responded to is putting that burden entirely on the system administrator responsible for the system as if there's a natural law requiring a system administrator to meet some minimum baseline of security competence and diligence. I'm trying to inject a little real world back into the equation. The system administrator must satisfy his employer, not the Slashdot crowd or the security crowd, if he's to stay employed. If the employer directs the SA to do work to the exclusion of the security, its the employer who may have erred, not the SA (whose choices may be to do the other work or get fired, there's not necessarily time for do the other work and secure the boxes).
To use the tired house analogy, there are criminals out there and you should lock your doors and windows. Perhaps you should have an alarm system. Maybe you need armed guards. If you suffer a loss, who caused it (ignoring legal liability)? Some losses are from unlocked doors, some from weak locks, sometimes the guard is asleep, sometimes the guard commits the offense, etc. Sure, the criminals are criminals and should be appropriately punished, but if the question is how do we prevent a loss and who is responsible for doing it, the answer is one or more of the good guys. My opinion is that its most of the good guys. The SA should sell the importance of security to the employer. The employer should direct that their systems and networks be secured. Consumers, corporate and otherwise, should insist on secure products and systems. Software houses and system manufacturers should deliver them. We, the security community, should recognize that reconnaisance activities like port scans are not benign. Some SAs dont, some employers don't, some consumers dont, (IMO) most software people don't, (IMO) most manufacturers don't, and there are vocal people in the security community who won't even admit that someone probing for known vulnerabilities is hostile. There's ignorance, apathy, and negligence to be found among individuals in each area.
More simply put, scapegoating one of these groups while ignoring the contributions of others does not help solve the problem.
These "people" are you and me, the admins. This problem is clearly the admin's fault.
No, I'm sorry, but this is an oversimplification of a complex problem. Your statement is only true if the admin isn't fully utilized and has sufficient knowledge and discretion to do what we'd call the right thing. This is often not the case.
For example, graduate students are often pressed into system administration duties. How, exactly, are they supposed to know they shouldn't run this service or that? They're asked to "make stuff work", often by people don't use "network" and "security" in the same sentence. When I first learned of r* services I thought they were fabulous. Similarly, NIS and NFS were incredible. No one in the environment I was in had the knowledge or experience to say "But they have serious vulnerabilities!" I had to discover that on my own, and that takes time. Remember to most computers are tools to get work done, not machines in need of a babysitter.
I myself have been in situations where I know full well what should be done, but I didn't own the boxes, and was bound by policy whether I think its a good one or not.
Its also not uncommon for those who are actually paid to do this that those who sign the checks have an expectation of what they'd like done. They want $SERVICE and $FOO and $BAR to talk, and $BAZ to...etc. Security's well and good, of course, but the things that pay the bills must be done first, or they'll hire someone else to do it.
None of this is good, of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen every hour of every day. Running your own Linux box in your spare time is well and good, as is running a production environment in a company clued enough to get security right, but things aren't always so clear. If the PHB says "I don't care about vulnerable services, just get WhizBang Software installed right away!" who's the bad guy? Security may be inadequately attended to because your "lazy admin" is working 60+ hours a week and still isn't allowed time to do it.
To all the slack admins out there: Enough of this sh*t. Suck it up and do your damn jobs.
This is just childish arrogance. I'm sure they'll "do their damn jobs" to your satisfaction as soon as you start signing the check. In the interim, they have no choice but to "do their damn jobs" in a manner that satisfies their employer. You don't have to like it, and truthfully neither do I, but pointing the finger at people who don't necessarily have control over what they work on is not useful. There's blame enough for everyone from software developer to PHB to sysadmin to end user.
It means O'Reilly is as bad at logic as most people. "All the smart people don't work for you" is equivalent to "None of the smart people work for you", which I'd like to think isn't true for every business (unless the smart people don't work at all).
Don't shop there. This seems to be the Most Pure solution, from a
cypherpunk point of view. Then again, it could be expensive, if it means
missing out on sales. Pleasantly, there's at least one grocer near me
(Shopper's Food Warehouse) that doesn't yet require a grocery card to get the
sale prices.
Locally, there's VBS#1, who has a "MVP card" and VBS#2 who prides themselves on not requiring a card. One day in VBS#1 I noticed a product I often buy on sale for 33% off if you have a MVP card! Wow, usually $1.49 and they're selling it for $0.99! Uhmmm, wait a second, now! I've *never* in my life seen that product sell at $1.49! In fact, its *always*, you guessed it, 99 cents! So are you in fact getting a sale price, or are you being fooled into believing you're getting a sale price? You may be trading your privacy for nothing. In fact, you certainly are because those same sale prices used to be available without the VBS insisting on tracking your purchases. Just Say No.
BTW, yes, I just went to VBC#2 and paid 99c for the product.:)
What I am essentially saying is that you can view receiving spam from Amazon
with their recommendations, and having them know what you buy, is part of the
price that you paid for that book (or CD, etc.). If Amazon isn't willing to accept
this deal, then I'm sure that some other e-tailer will.
Not necessarily. Try buying prescription medicines without signing a piece of paper giving them rights to distribute your data to someone who doesn't need it. Most businesses cater to "most" customers. Most customers don't even know they should care about their privacy. Most customers don't even read what they sign. When the set of all businesses in a given market is a small number, most quickly becomes all. All major long distance companies I've dealt with have abysmal customer service. They don't have to do better because there's nowhere else to go unless you want to try your luck with a no-name company, and they know most of us won't do that. All e-tailers can and probably will invade your privacy because you'll shortly have nowhere left to turn. Fight for your privacy now while you still have privacy left to fight for.
but what you probably don't realize is how expensive in terms of time and effort it is to use you to your fullest potential. I'm working on a project with someone at the moment whose experience level is much lower than mine. The situation is similar in that its sorta free help, so whatever mutual benefit can be gleaned is worth having. However, to get this person to do really good work efficiently would take longer than I project the work itself will take. How much effort, then, should I dedicate to training this person? If the project will take 3 months for me to do alone, I have a hard time justifying spending 2 months teaching this person how to do the work unless he's then going to do in 1 month what would take me two. So what do I do? I'm risking some of my productivity and offering an opportunity to learn a lot. If he chooses to do nothing, fine, he won't waste my time. If, on the other hand, he's highly motivated, intelligent, etc, the time I'll gladly give him will be well spent. That's not to say I'll get enough work out of him to make up the time I spend, but that's fine as long as he learns something useful. I can't speculate if your employers take the same view, but it might be worth making it clear to them (by your actions) that you're one of the ones worth the time.
The other half of the coin, of course, is that there are co-op employers who are worth your time and those that aren't. Some of the latter aren't worth your time through no fault of your own. It may be that the things you want to do are beyond what they can reasonably teach you in the time available, no matter how skilled you are. They're not necessarily evil, it may just be a bad fit. In any case, if you think they're not worth your time and they act as if you aren't worth theirs (remembering you have to give them reason to believe you are), leave. One of you is right.
If any of the administrators or teachers in
her school had any training in science at all, they could have used
this exhibit as a case study of experimental design & its problems,
thereby teaching the kids something as well as showing that this
girl's conclusions are not perfect.
A number of posters have said this. I don't know about the rest of you, but in my science project days 80+% of the students didn't know what science was. They had no experiment at all, but some setup which illustrated a well known process or principle. They tested *nothing*. Of the less than 20% who actually tested a hypothesis, most botch it. Given this, the correct response is not to take the girl who actually tests something testable, who's actually doing science, and point her out as an example of how not to do it. Sure, she's not doing PhD quality science and her conclusions probably won't meet standards for statistical significance, but so what. This is science in miniature, and a lot better than I'd ever expect to see from an 8 year old. People like her will drive us forward 20 years from now. The lobotomized twits who pulled her project hold us back. She'll refine her method in high school, college, grad school, and her postdoc years. Unless, of course, said lobotomized twits have turned her off on science and instilled in her the lauded values of political correctness. "Don't look for truth, dear. It might hurt someone's feelings."
There are lots of nice parallels in the non-software world already. Buying is generally preferable to renting because it's cheaper. Rent an apartment for 30 years and you have nothing. Pay a little bit more and you own a house, and have zero housing costs for as long as you choose. Similarly, you can lease a car and have a car payment but have to give the car back, or you can buy a car and keep it. Buying is, in the long term, nearly always cheaper. It seems intuitive that software manufacturers would only push rental or subscription software because it offers them (not you) a financial advantage.
Subscriptions are only worthwhile if you know you'll want every or at least most edition for some period of time. There are a number of software magazines that I buy on the newsstand only because they often don't have anything new I want to pay money to read. The same will apply to software subscriptions. I bought Quicken last year. I probably won't buy Quicken 2001 this year because the 2000 version still meets my needs. If Q2000 became unusable on 01/01/01 I wouldn't buy Q2001, I'd become a gnucash developer.
Overall, I don't care if MS or major software houses move to a subscription model. I can say with fair certainty that I'm not going with them.
The problem with privacy in the U.S. is that well over 99% of the population doesn't give it a second thought. Requiring consent before disclosing a customer's personal data isn't worth the time because nearly everyone will give consent mechanically when filling out the paperwork which should take them an hour to read, but which they finish off in 5 seconds when the company's representative says "Just sign here." and gives them a pen. I can't tell you how many times I've had that happen and upon questioning what I've been asked to sign and then actually reading it to find out if the answer is truthful and complete, found that it isn't. "Hey, what's this bit about using my personal data without notice or compensation in your advertising?!?" "Consent to a financial investigation for benefits I haven't asked for and know I don't qualify for anyway? Are you kidding?"
Until more people in the U.S. start to remember that the customer is in the driver's seat[1] and absolutely refuse to disclose data which isn't relevant, privacy is lost.
[1] Try it, it's fun. I love going into a store, paying cash, and have them ask for my phone number, social, etc. That you "have to have it for your records" is entirely your problem, not mine. You can leave it blank, make something up, or I'll buy somewhere else. "Oh, you need my social for insurance? But I didn't give you any insurance information, and besides, I paid cash already. You're not planning to defraud my insurance company, are you?"
I do. I think we have opposite perspectives. I operate under the belief that I have a right to privacy. Neither you nor the FBI has a reason to surreptitiously read my shopping list, my recipe collection, or any other of my legal communications. You specifically don't have the right to read them just to make sure they're legal.
Again, you're being paranoid. If you haven't done anything illegal, you have nothing to hide.
Privacy isn't about hiding. Privacy is the right to make your own determination about who receives information from or about you. Maybe I rented a PG rated movie last night. Maybe I didn't. There's certainly nothing wrong with renting PG movies, so you're right, I have nothing to hide in disclosing the information. That aside, you have no right to demand disclosure.
This is America! You aren't going to be persecuted for harboring seditious ideas.
Tell it to Martin Luther King, who was under surveillance. You might consult as well with Senator McCarthy. If being hauled before a Congressional committee for your alleged beliefs isn't persecuted, I'd like to know what is. Free speech is a wonderful idea with a less than perfect implementation in the US.
Details instead of vague accusations, please?
Some 900 FBI files ended up at the White House under suspicious circumstances, also known as "Filegate". I'm not aware that this has ever been resolved.
Gore wasn't far ahead at all. When Florida was called, NBC (which I was watching at the time), was reporting something like 52% Gore 48% Bush with 2% (!!!) of precincts reporting. Yep, 2%.
My numbers may be slightly off as I'm going entirely from memory, but I'm certain beyond doubt that it was single digits reporting and a difference of a few percent.
Which part, exactly, is public? You own the computer, either a telco or cableco connects you to an ISP, the ISP owns the servers, routers, and such which connect you to the backbone, which is owned by BtelcosFH.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, acutally, your claim would have been correct, but no longer.
From the very page you quote (http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/patents.html):
Patent holders are being allowed to patent a part of nature --a basic
constituent of life
I'm sorry, but this is another egregious violation by the USPTO. Patents are for inventions. If you string together base pairs and create a new gene, fine, you've invented something, patent away. If you look inside an existing cell, read what's already there, and copy it, you've discovered something. If you extract only the cDNA portion, you've still done nothing more than discover an existing gene. You have no rights to that sequence, in spite of what the idiots at the USPTO may say.
I'm not opposed to patenting biological inventions. For example, putting if you modify the genes for a plant to produce better quality or more produce, I think it reasonable to patent that plant. Just reading the DNA of an organism doesn't give you rights to the pattern.
I wonder, if I build a big telescope and see a planet no one has seen before, can I patent it? If I go to a rain forest and discover an insect no one has seen before and it turns out that the insect has commercial use, can I patent the bug? Patenting genes doesn't sound significantly different.
I have a severe problem with people pawning off their old computers on the poor
and needy and feeling that they have done something good.
You aren't, you're keeping the poor down.
We need a government program to get Windows 2000 compatible computers into
the ghettos...
I have a severe problem with people confiscating the product of others' hard work, giving it away, and thinking they've done something good. In a way, perhaps you have. The recipient of your...act might benefit, at least to the degree that they legally received free stuff, but you've also perpetrated a theft. Government has no business (or legal authority in the US) being a charitable institution, nor should it engage in income redistribution.
I have a severe problem with the belief that technology is the cure for all things. Give 100 people a computer and some might go into IT. Come on, most people I know who have computers are not in IT. Most will play games. What about cars? Not having a car is a disadvantage, and a much greater one than not having a PC. Should we give everyone a car? A phone? Do they need ISDN/DSL/cable modem to go with that PC? Where do you draw the line, and why in the world would you opt to "give" (quotes, because you can't give that which isn't yours) PCs to the poor when there are more pressing needs? I'd much rather have food on the table, a phone for emergencies, clothes for the kids, etc. If and when finances tighten, you'd better believe I'd sell my PC to pay for food, clothes, rent, etc. If I was poor now and you gave me a PC I'd putting an ad in the newspaper tomorrow.
I have a severe problem with the liberal mindset which calls for a government program for every need and want, but doesn't call for any personal charity at all. If you want to help someone, then do it! There's a local group which takes private donations to put together computer labs to teach IT skills to kids who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity. I have tremendous respect for people who do this, as they're taking their own resources to help someone else. Calling for a government program to spend someone else's money is hollow and empty in comparison.
I have a severe problem with keeping the poor down by giving them everything and depriving them of the will to make a better life for themselves. If you want to help them, insure that there are no barriers to them working for that Win2K PC if they want it, or that nice house, or nice car, or whatever.
I take exception to this exactly because I've reached my position because I grew up wanting more than I had, and was taught that the way to get it is to work for it. I don't want to inflict the converse, the belief that the way to get what you want is to act helpless and lobby for government programs, on today's poor. That's a way to keep them down if ever there was one.
Do you really believe the poor and needy are poor and needy only for lack of a PC? I have a close relative who is very like me in aptitude, who makes approximately minimum wage in two part time jobs (no benes). He's had PCs since he was about 10, and often better ones than I. He could quite easily have followed the same path I did, but chose not to. Giveaway programs, government sponsored or otherwise, won't help here. If you want to help, get personally involved. It comes down to motivation, and you can't motivate someone by giving them a PC of any vintage.
Re:what the electoral college REALLY means...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
The Constitution defines and LIMITS the role of the federal government. Your rights are not enumerated in the constitution. I've heard somewhere or other that there was opposition to the Bill of Rights because it would cause exactly the false impression you seem to have: that the Constitution grants you rights. Your freedom of speech isn't guaranteed by the First Amendment, it's guaranteed by the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal branch given the power to restrict your freedom of speech.
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
This means people could waffle and recast their votes...
Is this really a problem? Personally, I don't care if someone changes their mind and their vote, so long as we all agree, on a per state or district basis, when voting ends. Your official, counted vote is the last one you cast before that period. This would be no different than spending your day considering the choice, and only voting whatever decision you happened to hold immediately before the polls close. Is there a problem I'm missing?
Re:The problem is money
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
If you want to get this done you'll have to have a billion dollars come from a federal level to buy the stuff.
Which would be contrary to the intent of the system. Voting is a local matter. We aren't, or at least weren't intended to, vote as a 98 million person block, winner take all. We're voting by state. Limited central government, remember? States are responsible for voting, and should pay whatever costs they individually find reasonable to insure a fair vote. Before you contest this, remember that the government doesn't have any money to give anyway. If this is to be paid for, the money can go directly to the state government in the form of state tax or user fees, or it can go through the federal government THEN to the states. Besides being an inappropriate role for federal government, some of the money is wasted in unnecessary overhead by introducing the middleman.
I really wish more people would remember how the US government was created. The fed was granted a specific, enumerated list of powers. Everything not specifically granted is denied (reserved to the states). Ironically, the biggest issues in this campaign have centered around who has the better plan to do $foo, where the fed has no legal authority to even do $foo in the first place.
I've never understood the drive to "get out the vote". I genuinely believe Joe Average should have the right to vote, but generally shouldn't do so, at least in the US. Why, you ask? Because Joe Average is hopelessly underinformed about the candidates, and isn't going to be bothered to learn enough about the candidates or issues to make an informed choice if he can't figure out on his own that voting is in his interest. If, in a world where people fight and die for the right to vote, you can't figure out that you should make an informed and intelligent choice and use that right, you have no opinion worth expressing in a voting booth.
With the majority of voters being middle class to rich, they are
obviously going to vote for the party that makes them better off,
usually at the expense of the marginalised classes in society. A
compulsory vote would force the major parties to direct attention at
these other voters.
I'd like to see published data supporting that claim. Your "obviously" is demonstrably wrong. I know *far* too many liberals who are not well served by a big tax-and-spend government who I'd describe as comfortable, if not wealthy. Sadly, all I'm hearing from the two front runners is talk directed at the non-wealthy. "Elect me and I'll give you more than him!" is not talk that people who have made their own way in life are interested in hearing, especially as they're the ones paying for this embarassing vote buying. It's only 3rd party candidates who are saying with any credibility that government shouldn't be in the business of income redistribution.
UNC-CH started requiring incoming freshmen to have laptops this year (Fall 2K). Providing every student a computer is a useless change as the students will just end up paying for the computer through increased tuition or fees. They are discounted, or so I am told.
That said, it is a horrendously wasteful practice. Most students don't need laptops. I (CS grad) survived without a laptop, almost never used their labs, OR my own PC. I'm living proof that one size most certainly does not fit all. The few occasions I brought a laptop to class was to work on something unrelated to class because I already knew the subject matter being taught that day. I've resolved to laugh really hard at requests for donations to UNC-CH. If they choose to be so irresponsible with student money, they certainly have no right to ask for more.
I was also quite amused to see a picture in the Daily Tar Heel (UNC-CH's paper) of a student playing solitaire during class. I had speculated that this would be the primary purpose these computers would be used for when the policy was announced.:)
Marx ignored human nature. We are a competitive species. Life itself is competitive (predator, prey, limited resources and all that). We excel when challenged. Communism/socialism/whatever ignores this and places people in situations where their productivity is totally irrelevant. Imagine if the fruits of your labor were divided over 250,000,000 citizens. I could go out and double my productivity and it would make exactly zero material difference in my family's lifestyle. Why, then, should I bother? In our present system, which is flawed in that it confiscates about half my money to distribute around the country, if I go out and double my productivity, gain new skills, etc, I can get a raise or a better paying job and make drastic improvements in my family's standard of living. I have done this, and will continue to do so. Many people have done this and will continue to do so, and that is exactly why capitalist societies prosper, and socialist societies fail.
Slashdot Mirror
20 years in the future
Sorry, but there's also nothing you are that can't be known. Hmm, biometric characteristics of a large sample of sound. Isn't there a certain U.S. agency once purported to not exist which intercepts this sort of thing? And you want me to use my voice as a key? Nooooo thanks! For that matter, how many of us have fingerprints on record? Do you really want to submit to a condition where anyone who can make a machine read your fingerprint can legally act as you? Do you want your likeness to be your key in .uk, where soon any of 2,000,000 government cameras record it daily?
Personally, I think it'd be of great value to do periodic studies of what sorts of passwords/passphrases are chosen, then do something that most people don't. I know some studies like this have been done, and I've done my own highly informal ones via password cracking tools. I have to assume the standard well-resourced adversary knows what most people choose for passwords/passphrases and has developed tools to rapidly inspect the tiny portion of keyspace most people use.
To use the tired house analogy, there are criminals out there and you should lock your doors and windows. Perhaps you should have an alarm system. Maybe you need armed guards. If you suffer a loss, who caused it (ignoring legal liability)? Some losses are from unlocked doors, some from weak locks, sometimes the guard is asleep, sometimes the guard commits the offense, etc. Sure, the criminals are criminals and should be appropriately punished, but if the question is how do we prevent a loss and who is responsible for doing it, the answer is one or more of the good guys. My opinion is that its most of the good guys. The SA should sell the importance of security to the employer. The employer should direct that their systems and networks be secured. Consumers, corporate and otherwise, should insist on secure products and systems. Software houses and system manufacturers should deliver them. We, the security community, should recognize that reconnaisance activities like port scans are not benign. Some SAs dont, some employers don't, some consumers dont, (IMO) most software people don't, (IMO) most manufacturers don't, and there are vocal people in the security community who won't even admit that someone probing for known vulnerabilities is hostile. There's ignorance, apathy, and negligence to be found among individuals in each area.
More simply put, scapegoating one of these groups while ignoring the contributions of others does not help solve the problem.
For example, graduate students are often pressed into system administration duties. How, exactly, are they supposed to know they shouldn't run this service or that? They're asked to "make stuff work", often by people don't use "network" and "security" in the same sentence. When I first learned of r* services I thought they were fabulous. Similarly, NIS and NFS were incredible. No one in the environment I was in had the knowledge or experience to say "But they have serious vulnerabilities!" I had to discover that on my own, and that takes time. Remember to most computers are tools to get work done, not machines in need of a babysitter.
I myself have been in situations where I know full well what should be done, but I didn't own the boxes, and was bound by policy whether I think its a good one or not.
Its also not uncommon for those who are actually paid to do this that those who sign the checks have an expectation of what they'd like done. They want $SERVICE and $FOO and $BAR to talk, and $BAZ to...etc. Security's well and good, of course, but the things that pay the bills must be done first, or they'll hire someone else to do it.
None of this is good, of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen every hour of every day. Running your own Linux box in your spare time is well and good, as is running a production environment in a company clued enough to get security right, but things aren't always so clear. If the PHB says "I don't care about vulnerable services, just get WhizBang Software installed right away!" who's the bad guy? Security may be inadequately attended to because your "lazy admin" is working 60+ hours a week and still isn't allowed time to do it.
This is just childish arrogance. I'm sure they'll "do their damn jobs" to your satisfaction as soon as you start signing the check. In the interim, they have no choice but to "do their damn jobs" in a manner that satisfies their employer. You don't have to like it, and truthfully neither do I, but pointing the finger at people who don't necessarily have control over what they work on is not useful. There's blame enough for everyone from software developer to PHB to sysadmin to end user.It means O'Reilly is as bad at logic as most people. "All the smart people don't work for you" is equivalent to "None of the smart people work for you", which I'd like to think isn't true for every business (unless the smart people don't work at all).
Sorry, couldn't resist that one.
BTW, yes, I just went to VBC#2 and paid 99c for the product. :)
What's more to say, really?
The other half of the coin, of course, is that there are co-op employers who are worth your time and those that aren't. Some of the latter aren't worth your time through no fault of your own. It may be that the things you want to do are beyond what they can reasonably teach you in the time available, no matter how skilled you are. They're not necessarily evil, it may just be a bad fit. In any case, if you think they're not worth your time and they act as if you aren't worth theirs (remembering you have to give them reason to believe you are), leave. One of you is right.
Subscriptions are only worthwhile if you know you'll want every or at least most edition for some period of time. There are a number of software magazines that I buy on the newsstand only because they often don't have anything new I want to pay money to read. The same will apply to software subscriptions. I bought Quicken last year. I probably won't buy Quicken 2001 this year because the 2000 version still meets my needs. If Q2000 became unusable on 01/01/01 I wouldn't buy Q2001, I'd become a gnucash developer.
Overall, I don't care if MS or major software houses move to a subscription model. I can say with fair certainty that I'm not going with them.
Until more people in the U.S. start to remember that the customer is in the driver's seat[1] and absolutely refuse to disclose data which isn't relevant, privacy is lost.
[1] Try it, it's fun. I love going into a store, paying cash, and have them ask for my phone number, social, etc. That you "have to have it for your records" is entirely your problem, not mine. You can leave it blank, make something up, or I'll buy somewhere else. "Oh, you need my social for insurance? But I didn't give you any insurance information, and besides, I paid cash already. You're not planning to defraud my insurance company, are you?"
I participated last year, at which time I was not a member. They do, in fact, give you the results if you participate and are not a member.
My numbers may be slightly off as I'm going entirely from memory, but I'm certain beyond doubt that it was single digits reporting and a difference of a few percent.
Once upon a time, not so long ago, acutally, your claim would have been correct, but no longer.
I'm not opposed to patenting biological inventions. For example, putting if you modify the genes for a plant to produce better quality or more produce, I think it reasonable to patent that plant. Just reading the DNA of an organism doesn't give you rights to the pattern.
I wonder, if I build a big telescope and see a planet no one has seen before, can I patent it? If I go to a rain forest and discover an insect no one has seen before and it turns out that the insect has commercial use, can I patent the bug? Patenting genes doesn't sound significantly different.
Enough is enough already.
I have a severe problem with the belief that technology is the cure for all things. Give 100 people a computer and some might go into IT. Come on, most people I know who have computers are not in IT. Most will play games. What about cars? Not having a car is a disadvantage, and a much greater one than not having a PC. Should we give everyone a car? A phone? Do they need ISDN/DSL/cable modem to go with that PC? Where do you draw the line, and why in the world would you opt to "give" (quotes, because you can't give that which isn't yours) PCs to the poor when there are more pressing needs? I'd much rather have food on the table, a phone for emergencies, clothes for the kids, etc. If and when finances tighten, you'd better believe I'd sell my PC to pay for food, clothes, rent, etc. If I was poor now and you gave me a PC I'd putting an ad in the newspaper tomorrow.
I have a severe problem with the liberal mindset which calls for a government program for every need and want, but doesn't call for any personal charity at all. If you want to help someone, then do it! There's a local group which takes private donations to put together computer labs to teach IT skills to kids who otherwise wouldn't have the opportunity. I have tremendous respect for people who do this, as they're taking their own resources to help someone else. Calling for a government program to spend someone else's money is hollow and empty in comparison.
I have a severe problem with keeping the poor down by giving them everything and depriving them of the will to make a better life for themselves. If you want to help them, insure that there are no barriers to them working for that Win2K PC if they want it, or that nice house, or nice car, or whatever.
I take exception to this exactly because I've reached my position because I grew up wanting more than I had, and was taught that the way to get it is to work for it. I don't want to inflict the converse, the belief that the way to get what you want is to act helpless and lobby for government programs, on today's poor. That's a way to keep them down if ever there was one.
Do you really believe the poor and needy are poor and needy only for lack of a PC? I have a close relative who is very like me in aptitude, who makes approximately minimum wage in two part time jobs (no benes). He's had PCs since he was about 10, and often better ones than I. He could quite easily have followed the same path I did, but chose not to. Giveaway programs, government sponsored or otherwise, won't help here. If you want to help, get personally involved. It comes down to motivation, and you can't motivate someone by giving them a PC of any vintage.
The Constitution defines and LIMITS the role of the federal government. Your rights are not enumerated in the constitution. I've heard somewhere or other that there was opposition to the Bill of Rights because it would cause exactly the false impression you seem to have: that the Constitution grants you rights. Your freedom of speech isn't guaranteed by the First Amendment, it's guaranteed by the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is the federal branch given the power to restrict your freedom of speech.
I really wish more people would remember how the US government was created. The fed was granted a specific, enumerated list of powers. Everything not specifically granted is denied (reserved to the states). Ironically, the biggest issues in this campaign have centered around who has the better plan to do $foo, where the fed has no legal authority to even do $foo in the first place.
That said, it is a horrendously wasteful practice. Most students don't need laptops. I (CS grad) survived without a laptop, almost never used their labs, OR my own PC. I'm living proof that one size most certainly does not fit all. The few occasions I brought a laptop to class was to work on something unrelated to class because I already knew the subject matter being taught that day. I've resolved to laugh really hard at requests for donations to UNC-CH. If they choose to be so irresponsible with student money, they certainly have no right to ask for more.
I was also quite amused to see a picture in the Daily Tar Heel (UNC-CH's paper) of a student playing solitaire during class. I had speculated that this would be the primary purpose these computers would be used for when the policy was announced. :)
Marx ignored human nature. We are a competitive species. Life itself is competitive (predator, prey, limited resources and all that). We excel when challenged. Communism/socialism/whatever ignores this and places people in situations where their productivity is totally irrelevant. Imagine if the fruits of your labor were divided over 250,000,000 citizens. I could go out and double my productivity and it would make exactly zero material difference in my family's lifestyle. Why, then, should I bother? In our present system, which is flawed in that it confiscates about half my money to distribute around the country, if I go out and double my productivity, gain new skills, etc, I can get a raise or a better paying job and make drastic improvements in my family's standard of living. I have done this, and will continue to do so. Many people have done this and will continue to do so, and that is exactly why capitalist societies prosper, and socialist societies fail.