That's true - I sometimes download a game (or at least the crack) so that I don't have to worry with the DRM.
This is a natural reaction when the paid-for product is not as good as the free one.
THERE!!!! That is why the war on piracy is being lost. Because instead of trying to win people back, they are making their product worse. People are willing and do pay for their products, then use the pirated version.
There's a difference between having an interest in a free show and feeling the need to buy $100 worth of cable to see it.
I have cable and HBO subscription, and I still download Game of Thrones. I just don't own a video recorder (of any kind). By downloading, I can watch it on my computer, and at whatever time I choose to.
Avoiding paying for a subscription is hardly the only reason people download it.
In this topsy-turvy modern world in which we live in, who's to say what's right and wrong?
Morality is relative, and who are we to judge?
Misdiagnosing is the surest way to not solve a problem.
People judge all the time, all sorts of things. You judge your food, your TV program etc. Judging is an integral part of being human. Saying "people shouldn't judge others" is, at best, naive and, at worst, moronic (see ? I'm judging).
Condemning, on the other hand, is what people shouldn't do.
You know that is a completely different issue than the one of the OP, to which I replied, right ? Adding 1 more antenna for 1 more freq range is totally possible.
Even if the radios can, the main problem is the antenna. Specially if you need power efficiency, which is the case of mobile devices. Losing 60% of your output power due to antenna impedance difference is not something you can afford to have. And that is only one of the issues, the first one that poped in my head, actually. I'm sure there are many others.
It is not a matter of cheap vs expensive. It is "cheapER". It is always comparative. That's free market for you.
What needs to change is the BUYING process. People would need to stop buying cheaper solutions. Yeah. For my next trick, I'm going to teleport myself to the moon and back.
Seriously, blaming the language for the coding bug is one of the lamest things I've ever heard. Bugs (exploitable or not) will be found on any sufficiently large piece of code, written in any language. Heck, there were 1 or 2 cases of bugs introduced by the compiler.
The real problem is that companies need to get the software out "fast". It is cheaper for the company to fix the code after it is released and payed for, and to keep developing out of it own pockets. It is that simple.
Or you could do something "new and radical" and use SNMP objects with all that information, and just name the server whatever you want. On any network big enough to need those controls you are speaking of, you will have some kind of management platform.
Thank you for posting a valid question, and not only the standard "it will be hacked!!!" kind of comment we see above.
This is the only real question. There is always talks about making the manufacturer immune. The government is the government, so we know what to expect there. In the end, the owner will be held responsible. Which, in turn, will open a very nice market for companies that can make protection systems, remote logging and even insure against this kind of thing (think: medical malpractice insurance). Of course it will take some time before these systems are accepted in court, and we will see the usual dance, but there is hope.
This CAN be done securely. And it might even be. However, any system can be disrupted, or even simply ignored, by those in power. Then again, it already can be done without computerized cars, so I really don't see things getting any worse than they are right now.
Good news is, since the vehicle is computer based, to pull the vehicle over the police would most likely have to issue a computer command, which could be logged, including date, time and identity of the police officer who issue the other. If it is related to a warrant, it could even be linked to court data.
So companies cannot monitor employees e-mail usage. That is unfair and violate their privacy.
In the US, companies can monitor employee e-mail usage. I don't know about Brazil.
In theory, not only company can do it in Brazil, but they are obligated by law to do so. The law states that "any crime or offense committed using companies resources make the company in question automatically co-responsible" (that is not the exact wording, and it is a rough translation). It was already tested in court in one case, and the company won, so there is jurisprudence. However, this kind of issue is so expensive for the company that, unless they have very deep pocket and big interest in this kind of fight, it is virtually impossible for them to do so.
Although criminal and civil lawsuits are nowhere as expensive in Brazil as they are in the US, labor lawsuits are EXTREMELY expensive, once the law inverts the burden of proof: for all practical effects, it is the company that has to prove it is not guilty.
Companies cannot stop employees from using the company e-mail for personal things. That would be unfair.
Companies in the US can prohibit employees from using the company email for personal things. Whether they can stop it is a different matter.
The difference between prohibiting something, and stopping it from happening is a big one.
It is also interesting that, in Brazil, you have to pay the employee for overtime even if it was UNAUTHORIZED. Even if the company has a policy in place that authorization is needed. Since (according mostly to unions), authorized or not, the company benefited from it.
This is also true in the US; it's to avoid the obvious dodge of having overtime explicitly unauthorized but implicitly required. The employer must enforce any policy against overtime.
Yup. And enforcing it is the big problem. It is very easy for the company to be sued for wrongful dismissal (or whatever it is called in the US) if they fire someone because of this. Even if the company wins, the cost of this kind of lawsuit is extraordinarily expensive.
Overall, the feeling among micro, small and medium business owners in Brazil is: finding ways to hire less. The costs are just too high. Even if you consider the minimum costs, it averages to an extra 102%. So lets say we have an employee who has a salary of $1000/month. No benefits. That employee will cost the company an average of $2020/month. Or you could say the employee is only receiving has the money. On top of that you have to add mandatory benefits (how can it be a benefit if it is mandatory?!?!?!), legal costs, HR costs etc etc, and each employee can easily cost 3x what he actually makes. I would know, since I was an employee for 10+ years, then a contractor, then a business owner.
labour unions are just making their job, to defend the worker's interests
You can't be that naive. I refuse to believe that.
Labour union, in Brazil or anywhere in the world, are more interested in politics than worker's interests these days. They make decisions based on what will gain votes for their politician of choice, who in return will get public offices for key people from the unions, or benefit the union in some other way.
make crystal clear what's employee's personal things and what is job-related things, and apply this to e-mail accounts. Allow companies to check employee's job-related mail, but not the personal one.
Any role that can't be monitored can't be enforced. I invite you to try.
So companies cannot monitor employees e-mail usage. That is unfair and violate their privacy. Companies cannot stop employees from using the company e-mail for personal things. That would be unfair. But if the employees use e-mail after hours, it is considered overtime.
It is also interesting that, in Brazil, you have to pay the employee for overtime even if it was UNAUTHORIZED. Even if the company has a policy in place that authorization is needed. Since (according mostly to unions), authorized or not, the company benefited from it.
As a small business owners myself, I can attest how difficult it is to hire people here. The government and unions make it such a pain that even my employees hate them.
Brazil and US are, in some aspects, at the opposite ends of the labor law spectrum. And trust me, I don't think one end if much better than the other.
I would totally chip in for that. However, I'm not sure we could get away with it: - We could be accused of libel/defamation - We could have problems with trademark (Microsoft) - We could have problems with copyright (Matrix's authors)
However, if we had the backing of any established comedy/humor media, we could get away with it. Maybe The Onion. SNL could pull this one, but I doubt they would buy the idea. Hummmm... Does anyone know the people from SNL ?:)
Slashdot Mirror
That's true - I sometimes download a game (or at least the crack) so that I don't have to worry with the DRM.
This is a natural reaction when the paid-for product is not as good as the free one.
THERE!!!! That is why the war on piracy is being lost. Because instead of trying to win people back, they are making their product worse. People are willing and do pay for their products, then use the pirated version.
One would expect they would get the message.
There's a difference between having an interest in a free show and feeling the need to buy $100 worth of cable to see it.
I have cable and HBO subscription, and I still download Game of Thrones. I just don't own a video recorder (of any kind). By downloading, I can watch it on my computer, and at whatever time I choose to.
Avoiding paying for a subscription is hardly the only reason people download it.
You only see where you are being redirected to AFTER you click on the link.
The .secure domain is only different because people can just assume it is secure, even before clicking.
There is nothing stopping the current websites from being even more secure than the .secure ones. The principle of the idea is identify.
Will be interesting to see people using URL shorteners (bitly etc) on .secure domains, and how that will compromise the whole principle of the idea.
In this topsy-turvy modern world in which we live in, who's to say what's right and wrong?
Morality is relative, and who are we to judge?
Misdiagnosing is the surest way to not solve a problem.
People judge all the time, all sorts of things. You judge your food, your TV program etc. Judging is an integral part of being human. Saying "people shouldn't judge others" is, at best, naive and, at worst, moronic (see ? I'm judging).
Condemning, on the other hand, is what people shouldn't do.
I have lots to hide. Just because it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral does not mean I do not want to hide it.
I am also do not want to spend my time complying with this kind of regulation.
I'm not sure about illegal or unethical, but man do I have immoral things to hide ...
Exactly. Not only they returned the server, they had a warrant. If anything, the one that is on the wrong here is the judge to issued the warrant.
So yeah, I agree with EFF that the warrant is too broad and overreaching. But isn't that the judge's fault ?
You know that is a completely different issue than the one of the OP, to which I replied, right ?
Adding 1 more antenna for 1 more freq range is totally possible.
Even if the radios can, the main problem is the antenna. Specially if you need power efficiency, which is the case of mobile devices. Losing 60% of your output power due to antenna impedance difference is not something you can afford to have. And that is only one of the issues, the first one that poped in my head, actually. I'm sure there are many others.
It is not a matter of cheap vs expensive. It is "cheapER". It is always comparative. That's free market for you.
What needs to change is the BUYING process. People would need to stop buying cheaper solutions. Yeah. For my next trick, I'm going to teleport myself to the moon and back.
What's next ? My dog ate my boundary checking ?
Seriously, blaming the language for the coding bug is one of the lamest things I've ever heard. Bugs (exploitable or not) will be found on any sufficiently large piece of code, written in any language. Heck, there were 1 or 2 cases of bugs introduced by the compiler.
The real problem is that companies need to get the software out "fast". It is cheaper for the company to fix the code after it is released and payed for, and to keep developing out of it own pockets. It is that simple.
Or you could do something "new and radical" and use SNMP objects with all that information, and just name the server whatever you want.
On any network big enough to need those controls you are speaking of, you will have some kind of management platform.
Way to miss the joke.
Wil Wheaton is Sheldon's archenemy on The Big Bang Theory.
I'm pretty sure Wil would be the first one laughing at this one.
Actually, I find it much more common to have problems because of the (windows only) text font than the formatting itself.
EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!?!?!
There are actually much more secure ways to do it than with SSL, but your idea is correct.
The main point people will object is regarding bugs, intentional backdoors and such.
Thank you for posting a valid question, and not only the standard "it will be hacked!!!" kind of comment we see above.
This is the only real question. There is always talks about making the manufacturer immune. The government is the government, so we know what to expect there. In the end, the owner will be held responsible. Which, in turn, will open a very nice market for companies that can make protection systems, remote logging and even insure against this kind of thing (think: medical malpractice insurance). Of course it will take some time before these systems are accepted in court, and we will see the usual dance, but there is hope.
This CAN be done securely. And it might even be. However, any system can be disrupted, or even simply ignored, by those in power. Then again, it already can be done without computerized cars, so I really don't see things getting any worse than they are right now.
Good news is, since the vehicle is computer based, to pull the vehicle over the police would most likely have to issue a computer command, which could be logged, including date, time and identity of the police officer who issue the other. If it is related to a warrant, it could even be linked to court data.
Obligatory reference:
http://suicidegirls.com/girls/Kemper/photos/Droids+Youre+Looking+For/
In the US, companies can monitor employee e-mail usage. I don't know about Brazil.
In theory, not only company can do it in Brazil, but they are obligated by law to do so. The law states that "any crime or offense committed using companies resources make the company in question automatically co-responsible" (that is not the exact wording, and it is a rough translation). It was already tested in court in one case, and the company won, so there is jurisprudence. However, this kind of issue is so expensive for the company that, unless they have very deep pocket and big interest in this kind of fight, it is virtually impossible for them to do so.
Although criminal and civil lawsuits are nowhere as expensive in Brazil as they are in the US, labor lawsuits are EXTREMELY expensive, once the law inverts the burden of proof: for all practical effects, it is the company that has to prove it is not guilty.
Companies in the US can prohibit employees from using the company email for personal things. Whether they can stop it is a different matter.
The difference between prohibiting something, and stopping it from happening is a big one.
This is also true in the US; it's to avoid the obvious dodge of having overtime explicitly unauthorized but implicitly required. The employer must enforce any policy against overtime.
Yup. And enforcing it is the big problem. It is very easy for the company to be sued for wrongful dismissal (or whatever it is called in the US) if they fire someone because of this. Even if the company wins, the cost of this kind of lawsuit is extraordinarily expensive.
Overall, the feeling among micro, small and medium business owners in Brazil is: finding ways to hire less. The costs are just too high. Even if you consider the minimum costs, it averages to an extra 102%. So lets say we have an employee who has a salary of $1000/month. No benefits. That employee will cost the company an average of $2020/month. Or you could say the employee is only receiving has the money. On top of that you have to add mandatory benefits (how can it be a benefit if it is mandatory?!?!?!), legal costs, HR costs etc etc, and each employee can easily cost 3x what he actually makes. I would know, since I was an employee for 10+ years, then a contractor, then a business owner.
You can't be that naive. I refuse to believe that.
Labour union, in Brazil or anywhere in the world, are more interested in politics than worker's interests these days. They make decisions based on what will gain votes for their politician of choice, who in return will get public offices for key people from the unions, or benefit the union in some other way.
Any role that can't be monitored can't be enforced. I invite you to try.
And the key word here is "required".
Yes, if you are REQUIRED to do it, then yes, it should count as overtime.
So companies cannot monitor employees e-mail usage. That is unfair and violate their privacy.
Companies cannot stop employees from using the company e-mail for personal things. That would be unfair.
But if the employees use e-mail after hours, it is considered overtime.
It is also interesting that, in Brazil, you have to pay the employee for overtime even if it was UNAUTHORIZED. Even if the company has a policy in place that authorization is needed. Since (according mostly to unions), authorized or not, the company benefited from it.
As a small business owners myself, I can attest how difficult it is to hire people here. The government and unions make it such a pain that even my employees hate them.
Brazil and US are, in some aspects, at the opposite ends of the labor law spectrum. And trust me, I don't think one end if much better than the other.
Does that even qualify as entertainment ? I figured those were religious programs you had to watch to pay for your sins.
I would totally chip in for that. However, I'm not sure we could get away with it:
- We could be accused of libel/defamation
- We could have problems with trademark (Microsoft)
- We could have problems with copyright (Matrix's authors)
However, if we had the backing of any established comedy/humor media, we could get away with it. Maybe The Onion. SNL could pull this one, but I doubt they would buy the idea. Hummmm ... Does anyone know the people from SNL ? :)