Should I be forced to pay for my own medical bills if some asshole runs me over and runs off to mexico?
That's just plain wrong, and is a perfect example of "innocent bystander" that merits a community effort.
I see. So if you can't extract the payment from the actual culprit, through a lawsuit or somesuch, everyone should be forced to contribute a little to your health care. If responsibility can't be applied properly, just spread it around to the completely innocent bystanders known as taxpayers.
The only solution I can see is single-payer universal coverage along the lines of the Canadian model, where everyone pays, and no one (insurer or patient) can game the system based on advance knowledge of the outcomes. Any other ideas?
Yeah. It's called paying for your own health care yourself. Not insurance -- the health care, directly. It's was people did up until the 1970s when the health insurance racket took over (the HMO Act) and distorted prices to the point no one can afford it.
Set up Postfix on a server/VPS/whatever somewhere. Enable SSMTP (port 465), and if you want to be real careful, run it on a different port. Reconfigure your mail client to use server as a relay. If your mail client doesn't support SSMTP or alternate ports, run a local postfix with which your mail client communicates, and configure the local Postfix to relay to your offsite server.
Translating existing rules into the IO context produces extensive uncertainty, risking unintentional escalations of conflict where forces have differing interpretations of what is permissible.
Translation: "Not knowing what we're doing could fuck things up." Orwell would like to have a word with you...
I would think Circuit City would (or should) have a similar disclaimer -- if they do, then the guy is screwed because he signed the thing (probably without reading it, as 98% of people do).
Even if they didn't, I don't think he could go after them, since they were only following the law by reporting him.
I don't know about the mega-chains (I wouldn't take anything there to be messed with anyway), but the small local chain where I have my stuff serviced has a written, specific clause about this in the repair agreement that you have to sign. Basically, it advises that in the course of servicing, files or folders on the computer may be accessed for diagnostic or testing purposes, and that if kiddie porn or the like happens to be found, they will notify the authorities.
Nice. How prominently do they notify people? Is it just buried in the fine print, or is there some sort of big warning on the form about it? Would you happen to have a copy of the text handy?
The ethical thing would be to not be the IT guy who's responsible for snooping on users in the first place.
In theory, ethical behavior is governed by federal and state laws, corporate policy, professional ethics and personal judgment.
Blindly following the law is among the most unethical behaviors I can think of, and a pretty poor excuse for why you did something, too. "I was only following orders"?
As far as I understand it, the pay-per-view advertising model has gone the way of the dodo, and they're all pay-per-click now. Telling me I have to let the ads through on a site, when I have zero intention of ever clicking on them, is pointless. In fact, since I'm never going to click on them, by not displaying them, I'm saving the advertiser bandwidth.
I see no conflict there: Perhaps his moral values don't include obeying laws he doesn't agree with. Mine don't, either. Or are you one of those people who think that what's legal and moral or the same thing?
The one moving in the right direction deserves praise, to encourage them to move further. The one moving in the wrong direction deserves scorn, to discourage them from moving further. This is entirely logical and not very complicated.
When a closed company opens up a little bit, they're moving in the right direction, so they deserve praise. When an open company starts closing off their software, they're moving in the wrong direction, so they're condemned. Where's the double standard here, now?
Read the article too fast and was thinking it was one of their regular editors. But if her edits were actually removed from the database, have the other Wikipedia admins done anything to restore them? I'd hope a site as big as Wikipedia (and I've seen docs on their server farm) would have a good backup régime in place...
Encrypt everything, hide everything. Then they can't point to this-or-that encrypted file and say that that's the one that must contain the incriminating evidence. The fact that most people do indeed only hide stuff when they "know they're doing something wrong" only helps the bastards build their cases.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew there was a reason I believed government was inherently evil. Thanks for the reminder.
I see. So if you can't extract the payment from the actual culprit, through a lawsuit or somesuch, everyone should be forced to contribute a little to your health care. If responsibility can't be applied properly, just spread it around to the completely innocent bystanders known as taxpayers.
Yeah. It's called paying for your own health care yourself. Not insurance -- the health care, directly. It's was people did up until the 1970s when the health insurance racket took over (the HMO Act) and distorted prices to the point no one can afford it.
A "set of rules" is a "Bill of Rights" now?
If you live close enough to make it economical, get a mailbox out of state.
Um... you encrypt the transfer, not the file itself. Ever heard of SSL? Sort of like that.
Real ID? Meh. My state rejected this crap last year.
It would be political suicide indeed, for a politician to start a war shortly before an election -- in which he was running. Bush isn't.
Set up Postfix on a server/VPS/whatever somewhere. Enable SSMTP (port 465), and if you want to be real careful, run it on a different port. Reconfigure your mail client to use server as a relay. If your mail client doesn't support SSMTP or alternate ports, run a local postfix with which your mail client communicates, and configure the local Postfix to relay to your offsite server.
Anyone who thinks fascism in Germany ended with the fall of Nazism is severely mistaken.
Translation: "Not knowing what we're doing could fuck things up." Orwell would like to have a word with you...
Fortunately, they appear to be illegal in my state already: RSA 263:12, X, 260:14.
Thanks.
Even if they didn't, I don't think he could go after them, since they were only following the law by reporting him.
Nice. How prominently do they notify people? Is it just buried in the fine print, or is there some sort of big warning on the form about it? Would you happen to have a copy of the text handy?
18 USC 2252A(d)(2)(B) and 18 USC 2258. People really ought to educate themselves about the law before handing their computer over to someone else.
That law exists. It's called "copyright." It's typically enforced through lawsuits.
IBM selling surveillance equipment to oppressive governments?
The ethical thing would be to not be the IT guy who's responsible for snooping on users in the first place.
Blindly following the law is among the most unethical behaviors I can think of, and a pretty poor excuse for why you did something, too. "I was only following orders"?
As far as I understand it, the pay-per-view advertising model has gone the way of the dodo, and they're all pay-per-click now. Telling me I have to let the ads through on a site, when I have zero intention of ever clicking on them, is pointless. In fact, since I'm never going to click on them, by not displaying them, I'm saving the advertiser bandwidth.
I see no conflict there: Perhaps his moral values don't include obeying laws he doesn't agree with. Mine don't, either. Or are you one of those people who think that what's legal and moral or the same thing?
The one moving in the right direction deserves praise, to encourage them to move further. The one moving in the wrong direction deserves scorn, to discourage them from moving further. This is entirely logical and not very complicated.
When a closed company opens up a little bit, they're moving in the right direction, so they deserve praise. When an open company starts closing off their software, they're moving in the wrong direction, so they're condemned. Where's the double standard here, now?
...So in other words it's an obnoxious viral advertising campaign, and you're falling right into it.
Read the article too fast and was thinking it was one of their regular editors. But if her edits were actually removed from the database, have the other Wikipedia admins done anything to restore them? I'd hope a site as big as Wikipedia (and I've seen docs on their server farm) would have a good backup régime in place...
Encrypt everything, hide everything. Then they can't point to this-or-that encrypted file and say that that's the one that must contain the incriminating evidence. The fact that most people do indeed only hide stuff when they "know they're doing something wrong" only helps the bastards build their cases.