Because the author needs to eat and pay their mortgage while they write the book? That whole 'starving artist' mime pretty much sucks as a lifestyle. Go do some research into the lives of some of the people we consider the great artists of the 19th and 20th century. You will find a large portion of them were unhappy, poor, starving, indebted, homeless, alcoholic, drug addicts, and depressed.
Writing a good book takes time. It's very hard to do as a weekend project and if you want to commit full time to it then you need to have a large chunk of cash sitting around to pay your bills. Most people don't tend to keep a year's salary sitting under the mattress.
And you then are a sane, rational person. As more people begin making that same choice, companies will adjust their risk models and we will get better security. Unfortunately, its a slow migration. Look at the number of people still giving information to Sony.
Security ratings would be useful. Pretty much everything else has some kind of consumer rating now-a-days.
Then we need to hold them accountable for losing it. We should not expect other people to safeguard our things out of the goodness of their hearts. When you give your physical goods to another party for safekeeping, you sign a contract stating what they are and are not responsible for. When you give packages to UPS, UPS accepts a certain amount of liability if they should damage or lose the package. When you place things in storage, the storage company accepts a certain amount of liability. Before you entrust your physical goods to another entity, you sign contracts stating what your expectations of their safeguarding the goods are and the penalties you will levy against them should they fail in that trust.
We have failed to impose the same standards on those we trust with virtual goods.
The level of effort taken to secure an item should directly correlate to cost and the consequences of losing/damaging it. Some of the tests for shipping containers for spent nuclear fuel rods include surviving a 100 ft drop onto a 6 inch spike, 12 hours in burning jet fuel, and being shot with an RPG. That is all obviously overkill for a package containing my niece's Christmas present.
I can chose to have a letter sent certified/registered mail to be hand delivered by professional, bonded courier. Or I can chose to ask some kid to drop it off on his way to school. My decision will involve a cost/benefit analysis. Before you can convince people to invest in data security, you need to demonstrate that breaches have real costs that justify the expenses. Network security is really no different than physical security. Some places are going to have broken security cameras that have never actually recorded anything, and others are going to have armed guards monitoring live feeds. The difference between the two is a business decision based on a cost/risk analysis.
One of the biggest problems with data theft is proving who is responsible for the loss. It is easy for me to prove that someone lost my credit card numbers. It's much harder to prove who lost it.
Why isn't private data also a calculated risk, same as physical goods? Both have a cost associated with securing them. Both have a cost associated with losing them. Security is, always has been, and always will a cost/benefit analysis. If losing data costs less than securing it, then why bother? It's cheaper to clean up the mess than prevent it. Until losing data has a higher cost than security, you aren't going to see it treated well. This idea that virtual things are somehow different from real things needs to go away.
In the US we have the Castle Doctrine, so yes, it is legal to shoot an invader in your home. I have been told by those that would know, that should the need arise, "no witness is a good witness."
According to the US census I live in a metropolis and several of the communities are still on septic. It's not that uncommon, even in nicely populated regions. I have never had septic, so cannot speak to why one would prefer it, but I do know that many of my co-workers that are not on the city sewer system have strongly opposed proposals to extend the sewer line. Perhaps it is only cost and they feel that the advantages of the city sewer system are not worth the added cost. Remember that in addition to the recurring costs for sewer service there is also the installation cost of laying the pipes, which, by the way, around here the home owner pays for laying the pipes in front of their house.
One of the clear advantages to being on well water is that well water tastes better than city water.
I suppose then, in order for people to disagree with your interpretation of your data then those people MUST be anti-science crackpots? Hasn't science ALWAYS been a contentious field where one set of people propose a theory, others disagree, more data is acquired, debates happen, etc? Isn't it a rejection of the scientific method to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong! Agree with me or you must be an ignorant-Scientology-creationist-idiot!"
To reject an argument simply because it is different from your own and then insult the people who proposed it is unscientific. Scientific "truth's" have a bad habit of changing as more data becomes available. That is, after all, why we call them theories and not laws.
Be careful to differentiate between "running water" = "indoor plumbing" and "running water" = "city water". Everyone has indoor plumbing; not everyone has city water. Not everyone wants city water. There are advantages to being on septic and well water instead of on city sewer and water lines. You will notice that even in nicely populated areas there are still communities on wells and septic.
By the US census's definition, my in-laws live in an 'urban' area. They have neighbors, a nice little sub-division with a home owners association, and a coffee shop down the street. The interstate is within spitting distance and a 10-15 minute drive puts them in a bustling shopping center. By no means do they live in BFE. At the end of their road is a pasture with 4 horses in it and they don't have city pickup. I live in an 'urban' area and many of the communities around me use septic tanks because they don't have sewer service. Many of them don't have city water and still use wells. When I drive to work, I drive past corn fields and cow pastures. I believe the census classifies us as a metropolis with a population >100k. We are the 3rd biggest city in our state.
Simply living in an urban setting doesn't equate to living in a big city, and even then population doesn't equate to municipal services. For example, we actually have a smaller population than where my in-laws live, yet we have a fairly robust trash collection service. These services also vary depending on individual townships. For example, we have fall leaf and brush pickup where I live, but my coworker who lives only a few minutes from me, but on the other side of the township line, doesn't.
It depends on where you are. My in-laws have to drive their trash to the dump themselves. There is no city pickup. You will notice that most posts here assume everyone in the United States lives in large cities like San Francisco and New York. In reality you will find that most of the US is composed of corn fields and cow pastures.
That assumes people only run the light when the light has just transitioned, as opposed to running it when it has been red for a while. I don't have any stats on how often either scenario occurs, but have personally witnessed a number of collisions caused by people simply ignoring the light, not just trying to 'beat' it.
So what... the ends justify the means? You feel disenfranchised and put upon so you are going to beat me with a stick until I agree with you? How does that make you any different than the people you claim are beating on you? I work my ass off, I pay my mortgage. I don't have enough money to go spend 2 months sitting in the streets of New York crying about how little money I have because I bloody well like my life. Go get a job and be useful. Stop trying to tell me how screwed I am, cause frankly I don't give a damn. What gives you the right to decide what should make *me* happy?
Anon are a bunch of criminals. Plain and simple. Just like Robin Hood was. Stealing is wrong. Stealing from poor people to give to rich people is wrong. Stealing from rich people to give to poor people is wrong. Period.
I once hard coded a several thousand line table into a c array for performance reasons... I wrote a script to read the table and produce the code, but my LoC count was off the charts:P
I don't think any of those activities sound appropriate for a toddler... Nor do they address the fundamental problem of it being night time, hence the sun has set and it is now dark because we don't have street lights. While I'm sure hurling oneself down a mountain is grand fun, it probably helps a great deal to be able to see the trees before you run into them.
So you are saying I should take my 18 month old baby outside and let her play in the park when it is pitch dark, sub-zero temperatures, and snowing? That sounds like a great way to either give her hypothermia or lose her.
If your friends do not respect you enough to respect your privacy, then they are not your friends. They are people using you for their own entertainment and you need to wake up and stand up for yourself.
If you know your friends are going to be disrespectful and post stupid pictures of you on Facebook and this bothers you, don't do the stupid things you don't want appearing on Facebook in front of them. How is it different from your friends running around telling everyone that you are an idiot? They could take that photo and publish it in a newspaper without the help of Facebook. Because they can reach more people faster? Because it is archived forever? The high school yearbook is also forever. People's memories are also forever. The idea that you would want to turn back time and remove all evidence of an activity just because it is now inconvenient is ludicrous. It happened. You did it. Now you have to live with it. You may regret it, but you cannot turn back time. You cannot undo the past. Take responsibility for your actions and conduct your way in a manner that your mother would be proud of. All the time. And when you screw up, accept responsibility and deal with the consequences like an adult.
That is the advantage of history being written by the winners... Just look at OWS and Anonymous. Some people support them, and some people consider them hooligans. Even Ghandi was widely criticized by his people at the time. Had the British won, we would have learned about the "Boston Tea Riots."
The Tea Party is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution, and the original colonial grievances with the British crown . I will admit, though, without the historical context it is a pretty silly name.
Ballistics tracking is actually fairly simple. You may have a fairly large area targeted by such an attack, but the ENTIRE country? We are talking about > 9 million sq km. The east coast doesn't need to take shelter because the west coast is being bombed.
In your example, incoming missiles, wouldn't that be a local event, not a national event because only the people in the city being targeted would need shelter? To everyone else, it is not time critical, life saving information.
I think a lot of people are having trouble thinking up a scenario in which the entire country needs to be notified of an event right this second. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters are all local/regional events. They only immediately impact people in the area.
I bought some Christmas presents on Amazon the other day. I live in state A. I had the items shipped directly to state B. The items shipped from a warehouse in state B to a house in state B. Why should state A get a piece of that transaction? They had zero involvement in facilitating any part of it.
Plagiarism requires you to claim the work as your own. If, however, you give appropriate credit through adequate citation, it is not plagiarism. If my big brother's essay was insightful, there is no reason to not use it as a reference point and cite him. The idea that students work in a vacuum is patently false.
If me and my friend both have a math problem to solve and my friend is having difficulties with it, how is it a bad thing for me to explain how I did it? There is, most likely, exactly one obvious solution to the problem. There simply are not that many ways to derive e. If I take detailed and meticulous notes, why should I trash them at the end of a class instead of giving them to the new class?
There is a reason the kids who work together do better. Not everyone learns the same way and sometimes your classmates are better at explaining a concept in terms you can understand than a teacher. In the real world, we divide and conquer. We collaborate. We leverage the lessons learned by the previous generation. We stand on the shoulders of giants.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me get this straight, you just said the following:
1) You are innocent until proven guilty.
2) If I commit libel (by saying you punched me in the face), we have to assume that I am not guilty of libel until proven otherwise.
Therefor, if I claim you punched me in the face, we must assume that you did in fact punch me in the face until you can prove otherwise?
So... you are now guilty of assault because I can't be guilty of libel unless you prove you are not guilty of assault...
There seem to be issues with this argument.
It would not be the first spy plane that has been misplaced:
Crashed in china...
Shot down in Russia...
*Why pay advances?*
Because the author needs to eat and pay their mortgage while they write the book? That whole 'starving artist' mime pretty much sucks as a lifestyle. Go do some research into the lives of some of the people we consider the great artists of the 19th and 20th century. You will find a large portion of them were unhappy, poor, starving, indebted, homeless, alcoholic, drug addicts, and depressed.
Writing a good book takes time. It's very hard to do as a weekend project and if you want to commit full time to it then you need to have a large chunk of cash sitting around to pay your bills. Most people don't tend to keep a year's salary sitting under the mattress.
And you then are a sane, rational person. As more people begin making that same choice, companies will adjust their risk models and we will get better security. Unfortunately, its a slow migration. Look at the number of people still giving information to Sony.
Security ratings would be useful. Pretty much everything else has some kind of consumer rating now-a-days.
Then we need to hold them accountable for losing it. We should not expect other people to safeguard our things out of the goodness of their hearts. When you give your physical goods to another party for safekeeping, you sign a contract stating what they are and are not responsible for. When you give packages to UPS, UPS accepts a certain amount of liability if they should damage or lose the package. When you place things in storage, the storage company accepts a certain amount of liability. Before you entrust your physical goods to another entity, you sign contracts stating what your expectations of their safeguarding the goods are and the penalties you will levy against them should they fail in that trust.
We have failed to impose the same standards on those we trust with virtual goods.
The level of effort taken to secure an item should directly correlate to cost and the consequences of losing/damaging it. Some of the tests for shipping containers for spent nuclear fuel rods include surviving a 100 ft drop onto a 6 inch spike, 12 hours in burning jet fuel, and being shot with an RPG. That is all obviously overkill for a package containing my niece's Christmas present.
I can chose to have a letter sent certified/registered mail to be hand delivered by professional, bonded courier. Or I can chose to ask some kid to drop it off on his way to school. My decision will involve a cost/benefit analysis. Before you can convince people to invest in data security, you need to demonstrate that breaches have real costs that justify the expenses. Network security is really no different than physical security. Some places are going to have broken security cameras that have never actually recorded anything, and others are going to have armed guards monitoring live feeds. The difference between the two is a business decision based on a cost/risk analysis.
One of the biggest problems with data theft is proving who is responsible for the loss. It is easy for me to prove that someone lost my credit card numbers. It's much harder to prove who lost it.
Why isn't private data also a calculated risk, same as physical goods? Both have a cost associated with securing them. Both have a cost associated with losing them. Security is, always has been, and always will a cost/benefit analysis. If losing data costs less than securing it, then why bother? It's cheaper to clean up the mess than prevent it. Until losing data has a higher cost than security, you aren't going to see it treated well. This idea that virtual things are somehow different from real things needs to go away.
In the US we have the Castle Doctrine, so yes, it is legal to shoot an invader in your home. I have been told by those that would know, that should the need arise, "no witness is a good witness."
Except that unlike Anonymous, Slashdot is legal. I know, I know, the whole issue of ethics and legality are minor technicalities.
Which country do you live in? I live in the US.
According to the US census I live in a metropolis and several of the communities are still on septic. It's not that uncommon, even in nicely populated regions. I have never had septic, so cannot speak to why one would prefer it, but I do know that many of my co-workers that are not on the city sewer system have strongly opposed proposals to extend the sewer line. Perhaps it is only cost and they feel that the advantages of the city sewer system are not worth the added cost. Remember that in addition to the recurring costs for sewer service there is also the installation cost of laying the pipes, which, by the way, around here the home owner pays for laying the pipes in front of their house.
One of the clear advantages to being on well water is that well water tastes better than city water.
I suppose then, in order for people to disagree with your interpretation of your data then those people MUST be anti-science crackpots? Hasn't science ALWAYS been a contentious field where one set of people propose a theory, others disagree, more data is acquired, debates happen, etc? Isn't it a rejection of the scientific method to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong! Agree with me or you must be an ignorant-Scientology-creationist-idiot!"
To reject an argument simply because it is different from your own and then insult the people who proposed it is unscientific. Scientific "truth's" have a bad habit of changing as more data becomes available. That is, after all, why we call them theories and not laws.
Be careful to differentiate between "running water" = "indoor plumbing" and "running water" = "city water". Everyone has indoor plumbing; not everyone has city water. Not everyone wants city water. There are advantages to being on septic and well water instead of on city sewer and water lines. You will notice that even in nicely populated areas there are still communities on wells and septic.
By the US census's definition, my in-laws live in an 'urban' area. They have neighbors, a nice little sub-division with a home owners association, and a coffee shop down the street. The interstate is within spitting distance and a 10-15 minute drive puts them in a bustling shopping center. By no means do they live in BFE. At the end of their road is a pasture with 4 horses in it and they don't have city pickup. I live in an 'urban' area and many of the communities around me use septic tanks because they don't have sewer service. Many of them don't have city water and still use wells. When I drive to work, I drive past corn fields and cow pastures. I believe the census classifies us as a metropolis with a population >100k. We are the 3rd biggest city in our state.
Simply living in an urban setting doesn't equate to living in a big city, and even then population doesn't equate to municipal services. For example, we actually have a smaller population than where my in-laws live, yet we have a fairly robust trash collection service. These services also vary depending on individual townships. For example, we have fall leaf and brush pickup where I live, but my coworker who lives only a few minutes from me, but on the other side of the township line, doesn't.
It depends on where you are. My in-laws have to drive their trash to the dump themselves. There is no city pickup. You will notice that most posts here assume everyone in the United States lives in large cities like San Francisco and New York. In reality you will find that most of the US is composed of corn fields and cow pastures.
That assumes people only run the light when the light has just transitioned, as opposed to running it when it has been red for a while. I don't have any stats on how often either scenario occurs, but have personally witnessed a number of collisions caused by people simply ignoring the light, not just trying to 'beat' it.
So what... the ends justify the means? You feel disenfranchised and put upon so you are going to beat me with a stick until I agree with you? How does that make you any different than the people you claim are beating on you? I work my ass off, I pay my mortgage. I don't have enough money to go spend 2 months sitting in the streets of New York crying about how little money I have because I bloody well like my life. Go get a job and be useful. Stop trying to tell me how screwed I am, cause frankly I don't give a damn. What gives you the right to decide what should make *me* happy?
Anon are a bunch of criminals. Plain and simple. Just like Robin Hood was. Stealing is wrong. Stealing from poor people to give to rich people is wrong. Stealing from rich people to give to poor people is wrong. Period.
I once hard coded a several thousand line table into a c array for performance reasons... I wrote a script to read the table and produce the code, but my LoC count was off the charts :P
I don't think any of those activities sound appropriate for a toddler... Nor do they address the fundamental problem of it being night time, hence the sun has set and it is now dark because we don't have street lights. While I'm sure hurling oneself down a mountain is grand fun, it probably helps a great deal to be able to see the trees before you run into them.
So you are saying I should take my 18 month old baby outside and let her play in the park when it is pitch dark, sub-zero temperatures, and snowing? That sounds like a great way to either give her hypothermia or lose her.
Or get better friends...
If your friends do not respect you enough to respect your privacy, then they are not your friends. They are people using you for their own entertainment and you need to wake up and stand up for yourself.
If you know your friends are going to be disrespectful and post stupid pictures of you on Facebook and this bothers you, don't do the stupid things you don't want appearing on Facebook in front of them. How is it different from your friends running around telling everyone that you are an idiot? They could take that photo and publish it in a newspaper without the help of Facebook. Because they can reach more people faster? Because it is archived forever? The high school yearbook is also forever. People's memories are also forever. The idea that you would want to turn back time and remove all evidence of an activity just because it is now inconvenient is ludicrous. It happened. You did it. Now you have to live with it. You may regret it, but you cannot turn back time. You cannot undo the past. Take responsibility for your actions and conduct your way in a manner that your mother would be proud of. All the time. And when you screw up, accept responsibility and deal with the consequences like an adult.
That is the advantage of history being written by the winners... Just look at OWS and Anonymous. Some people support them, and some people consider them hooligans. Even Ghandi was widely criticized by his people at the time. Had the British won, we would have learned about the "Boston Tea Riots."
The Tea Party is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution, and the original colonial grievances with the British crown . I will admit, though, without the historical context it is a pretty silly name.
Ballistics tracking is actually fairly simple. You may have a fairly large area targeted by such an attack, but the ENTIRE country? We are talking about > 9 million sq km. The east coast doesn't need to take shelter because the west coast is being bombed.
In your example, incoming missiles, wouldn't that be a local event, not a national event because only the people in the city being targeted would need shelter? To everyone else, it is not time critical, life saving information.
I think a lot of people are having trouble thinking up a scenario in which the entire country needs to be notified of an event right this second. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters are all local/regional events. They only immediately impact people in the area.
I bought some Christmas presents on Amazon the other day. I live in state A. I had the items shipped directly to state B. The items shipped from a warehouse in state B to a house in state B. Why should state A get a piece of that transaction? They had zero involvement in facilitating any part of it.
Plagiarism requires you to claim the work as your own. If, however, you give appropriate credit through adequate citation, it is not plagiarism. If my big brother's essay was insightful, there is no reason to not use it as a reference point and cite him. The idea that students work in a vacuum is patently false.
If me and my friend both have a math problem to solve and my friend is having difficulties with it, how is it a bad thing for me to explain how I did it? There is, most likely, exactly one obvious solution to the problem. There simply are not that many ways to derive e. If I take detailed and meticulous notes, why should I trash them at the end of a class instead of giving them to the new class?
There is a reason the kids who work together do better. Not everyone learns the same way and sometimes your classmates are better at explaining a concept in terms you can understand than a teacher. In the real world, we divide and conquer. We collaborate. We leverage the lessons learned by the previous generation. We stand on the shoulders of giants.