I am as cheap as you are... but there are complications. I don't want to replace my existing radio because the head-unit is integrated into the dash (it is not a DIN unit) and serves a dual purpose as stereo and Sat-Nav. I would have settled for a new CD changer which copes with MP3 - but (sadly) it seems there are numerous compatibility problems. The Sony shop bloke recommended I buy a new car instead... which is something of a lost sale for him - and not very helpful for me.
I'm always suspicious about Microsoft motives - and I can't see any justification for MS to come over so pro-solid-state players. Sure solid state will likely prove more reliable (and probably requires less power) - but this is surely horses-for-courses?
I looked into getting an "MP3 solution" because I want to take my whole music collection with me in my car... 60GB would suffice - and if there was a _neat_ way to power the device from the car battery I wouldn't care if it wasn't truly portable. I was, however, under whelmed by what I could find... I can find expensive 20Gb players which require lots of wires to get them to work through the amp/speakers built into my car. Even the IPod (which is easily on of the better options) doesn't come with a simple cigarette-lighter cradle and built-in FM transmitter - at least not in the UK. I realise there are those who have devised home-brew solutions - but, to be honest, I don't have the motivation to put this together from scratch. I can hardly believe that manufacturers are crowding the "portable" player market while completely ignoring in-car entertainment.
When the content is properly priced, what's the need for DRM anyway? If the download offers value for money then anyone should be willing to pay for that. If it's overpriced then DRM is a way to force the high price down the customer's throat.
This is an interesting idea - but one which begs several further questions. The first is how to measure value. My own preference is to listen to albums while I do other things... I know what I like when I hear it in its entirety - and can usually decide if I don't like something after one listening. I like listening to new music - and if I were to buy fresh albums for a day I'd need (say) 16 - at a conservative price of £12 this comes out at £192 which is an awful lot of money for a day's music. I would even find it difficult to justify "value for money" for the albums I like - let alone those I conclude are nothing special or downright terrible. The only way to bring costs into the realms of reality here is to share music with friends.
When listening to music on the radio, for example, the cost per hour to listen to new material is substantially lower and most reasonable people would not assume they should have any right to copy, share or even keep this material. The reason for this distinction is a huge difference in price. You would be forgiven for assuming that I should listen to radio and only buy CDs when I find material I particularly enjoy... but this doesn't work so well in practice. In order to decide what I want to own I need to be in control of what music I hear... I need to be able to return to material I heard the previous day in order to make sure and I'd prefer to listen to whole albums (in order to better experience the intended atmosphere) which is where radio fails me.
If the price were fair for DRM material I'd accept if and only if the price for listening once was comparable to a good value-for money purchase CD which (by conservative estimates) may be played hundreds or thousands of times. I would be wiling to pay between 1% of the purchase price of an album to listen to it once... assuming it is offered in such a way as to allow me to easily find interesting music I may consider purchasing. The key to success here is in distributors taking the bull by the horns and making it easy for customers to enjoy diverse music and to experiment with their tastes. Unfortunately, evinced by the comically high price distributors attempt to charge for encumbered material, this doesn't fit their business model. The record industry desperately needs to encourage homogenous fleeting tastes in order to do mega-deals with a handful of heavily marketed popular icons. This culture is exactly what makes copying material such a serious concern for the distributors whose business model depends upon charging as many people as possible an inflated price for "the" album of the month pressed onto a bit of plastic. This is not how I want my music to be offered... I want to have the opportunity to listen to diverse music at my discretion for a reasonable price, with the option to purchase of my favourites. If DRM ever takes into account my wishes as a consumer I will accept it - but I'm not holding my breath.
I believe that the music industry would still be massively profitable if it sold albums without digital rights management at between 5 and 10% of the current prices - and the charge would be seen as a service charge for "finding" the album. At these prices I doubt many would even bother piracy - preferring the experience of choosing material themselves. While this might sound like something which would eat into the profits of the industry - I counter that I, for one, would buy more than twenty times as many albums if they were a twentieth of the price.
I'm not especially interested in using VOIP - I make very few outgoing calls... I seriously doubt that I'd find any cost saving myself. I would, however really like a full-featured voice mail system... I do want to be able to tailor responses depending upon which number is calling. For example I'd like all "number withheld" callers to only be able to leave voice messages... after a brief automated warning that I do not accept unsolicited commercial calls. I'd like callers with valid caller id to ring the phone for 10 rings if and only if I'm at home... before going to voice mail. It would be great to patch messages from my home phone through to my mobile from "known" numbers. I'd like to be able to access my voice mail over an internet VPN - so if I'm at work I can choose to securely check to see if I have messages.
Is Asterisk the right tool for this kind of job - or should I be looking at Bayonne or something else altogether?
There is a lot more to the idea of video security than the simple "alerting" or "non-alerting" you suggest.
For example, using your example of a car - I'd consider myself a madman if I opted not only to have a car alarm - but also to make it as obvious as possible that I am equipped with one. The snag, however with alerting alarms is that after a few "false alarms" it is widely understood that alarms signals will be ignored - people assume it is a technical fault... and the criminals know this too. Another problem with the alerting alarm is in automatically deciding at what point to take issue with someone's actions. For example, I'm aware of areas in which organised youths check all the car doors in a neighbourhood - hoping someone has forgotten to lock and alarm their car. Under these circumstances an alarm system does no good... It is important to discriminate... Burglar alarms also offer no protection from vandals - whereas a CCTV with night vision may well do - if only by identifying weaknesses in manned security. I imagine an infra-red video surveillance system would be an extremely good way to improve security for applications such as monitoring business car parks; monitoring entranceways to identify where layabouts trespass before any real harm occurs - as well as providing some way to counter graffiti tagging and other illegal unpleasantness.
I've long thought this would be a fun project - but as yet I've not found time to tinker.
While the re-writing of an URL to gain access to access information ahead of time is obviously a huge grey area - and a mistake I would like to think I wouldn't have made myself - I don't believe this exclusion of those candidates who opted to look an ethical choice on the part of Harvard.
I have several clear problems with the ethics of Harvard itself though:
1. In the UK we have a law called the "Data Protection Act 1974 - amended 1990" which gives any adult the absolute right to see _any_ personal information stored about them on computer systems. If Harvard had done this in the UK then every student had the right to see that data anyway. I can't imagine anything more personal than someone's acceptance or rejection by a prestigious University. 2. Which cretin at Harvard decided to put sensitive data on a system available for public access? Is the real reason for the heavy-handed approach that Harvard academics are worried by inquisitive students? If this data was available to candidates - what assurance can Harvard credibly offer that they took proper precautions with the applicants' personal information? 3. How can Harvard expect to enforce such a decision? If every candidate whose details were exposed is declined then this is clearly unethical as there is no evidence of the involvement of the excluded candidate in any wrongdoing. If they rely on admission of guilt then this is clearly unreasonable as they would exclude exactly those students whose sound ethical principles prevent them from denying their own involvement!
The only sensible course of action for Harvard would have been to warn the candidates that the data that was accessed could not be assumed a final decision and that all applications were under review up-until letters are sent. Only this course of action would minimise damage, which (in my opinion) is primarily due to incompetence on the part of Harvard administrators and not due to the expected inquisitive behaviour of anxious applicants.
You take a very pragmatic position... I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the responsibility for spamming should not stop at the spammer - but also be a liability for spammers' customers. This would be a fantastic mechanism by which appropriate levels of fines may be recovered. My only reservation is that I suspect that anyone despicable enough to have sunk to spamming is likely to turn to other criminal activities when spamming becomes less lucrative. I can see the benefit to law abiding citizens where criminals are set apart - hence preventing other illegal activities (some of which may be difficult to prosecute) at least for the duration of the incarceration.
My morals are torn. Here's the problem - I agree that where people, through stupidity or thoughtlessness commit illegal transgressions I would like to see them dealt with leniently. A fine, for example, represents a straightforward way to impose a penalty and represents a fantastic solution - whenever, in all likelihood, similar transgressions are unlikely in future. I believe in leniency if and only if there is demonstrable regret.
I do not believe that punishments should only be applied in the case of sensational crimes such as murder... in fact I suspect that many of these criminals deserve compassion (if not leniency) as there must be something very wrong with someone to have driven them to commit these "evil" acts in the first place.
Spamming, however, fits neither of the above profiles. The act of spamming demonstrates a wanton disregard for the law; indifference to the legal and social rights of millions of victims and is driven by a reprehensible greed. If I had to pick a conventional crime on-par with spamming I'd probably choose organised gangs of pick-pockets. There are several similarities: With both crimes the victims survive and individually most sustain only modest and affordable losses; with both crimes the assailants behave with complete disregard for the law and the rights of strangers; both crimes have mercurial motivations; both are criminal behaviours which (by way of many individually relatively petty acts) are extremely time-consuming for law enforcement to pursue.
Like you I do not see it appropriate to require proof-of-identity before sending email - nor do I want to make unsolicited email illegal per-se. I want to see the prevention of the fraudulent presentation of unsolicited commercial email. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to send unsolicited commercial email to my computers - as long as it is clearly marked in the headers in such a way as to allow me to automatically reject the transmissions which do not meet the constraints of acceptable use on the servers which might otherwise propagate that mail. The problem here is that, given the international nature of spamming, is that the fines need to be sufficiently punitive to be a deterrent. Given the excessive costs involved in determining the identity of a spammer it seems reasonable to me that the minimum fine should be in the order of thousands of dollars for each fraudulent contact. While the spammer has sufficient cash reserves to any fines in full - this is likely to prove a sufficient deterrent... however - should the spammer have insufficient ready funds it seems only reasonable that alternative punishments are enforced.
Spamming is not a victimless crime - it represents criminal harassment; criminal misuse of computer services - and more often than not large-scale organised fraudulent activity. The victims are not just those unfortunates persuaded to do business with such human detritus, but rather the majority of intelligent people worldwide whose day-to-day communications, and - by consequence - quality of life is demonstrably hampered by the illegal and immoral activities of a relatively small number of organised criminals.
P.S. I've not received a gmail account invite yet... and I asked for one on the day of the announcement! Unfortunately, Gmail probably won't meet my requirements anyhow...
Don't be mislead, however, I do not feel I get any benefit from automated suggestions, just from the green wiggles which encourage me to re-read a section which may be poorly structured or just drivel. I frequently find myself writing technically oriented memos -composed from various sources with cut-n-paste... all against the clock - often with interruptions. Just as I find a spell-check useful, I also find an automated grammar check a beneficial productivity tool. Rather than being dismissive of grammar checking based upon the limited functionality in Word, I'd like to see innovation in this field. I'd like to see the extension of grammar checkers to also provide style and consistency verification... preferably configurable. I think it would be great to have a tool which checks for consistent tense - or to verify that a whole document is written in first, second or third person. There is no need to give such a tool the final say on any aspect of prose - but in my opinion automated analysis of documents has the potential to be the single most important advancement in document processing this century.
Personally, I feel the BBC offers excellent value for money... I am particularly attached to advert-free radio and the excellent News-24 service. I do, however, feel the licence fee is unreasonable. My attitude was formed a few years ago when I bought my first house. I owned no bed, sofa, chairs or tables - and definitely no television - I was set to spend the next few months renovating and acquiring essentials on a shoe-string budget - a TV was not an essential. At this point I received an extremely threatening letter stating that they had proof that I was operating a television illegally. I've since discovered these false accusations are commonplace - but that does not leave me feeling any less disgusted. If the licence fee is intended to charge everyone for a public service then revenues should be collected with tax. While the fees are collected by a QANGO for the ownership/operation of a television decoder then I find it unacceptable that they make legal threats without grounds. I also find it distasteful that there is no option for an individual to forgo BBC programming (in order to avoid the licence charge) without disposing of all equipment which could feasibly be used to receive television in future.
In this case Google is selling the trademark to a competitor for ads. This does not serve the public well. If you search for Louis Vuiton (and I know/.'ers do) you should have every expectation that the ads are associated with that brand. This is not the case when Google sells the ad to a competitor.
This is not what I understand Google to have done. If I search for a "hoover" then you are right to assert that I should expect to find any available information about the hoover vacuum cleaner company prominently displayed. I don't think it would be reasonable to prevent my also being shown related offers, for example from Dyson, Electrolux et al. - assuming it is clear that the alternatives are different brands.
If google wrongly associates a trade mark with a different product then this is misleading and against the consumers' interest. If google displays advertising material which clearly differentiates alternative brands then this is a significant benefit to customers. The analogy is that the X-Widget company could request that its products are listed in mail-order catalogues in the same section as my more established competitor Y-widgets. I don't see how this need necessarily be a trademark violation issue.
I understand that in the UK consumer protection laws have provisions for returning mis-ordered goods, but that this right is not extended to business purchases. So, I guess that if a vendor believes a significant proportion of its goods will be returned by private buyers (for example because the goods do not live up to customer expectations) it seems reasonable for businesses to be offered a discount. Conversely, businesses often demand a higher standard of account management and are willing to pay over-the-odds for this improved service. [BTW - my last two laptops have been Dell - but after being seriously under-whelmed by Dell's poor customer service and underhand practices I intend to buy a different brand when this one requires replacement in a year or so.]
Having a bank account number is as good as having seen the ID of your business partner.
Unfortunately, particularly for international trades, knowing the identity of the person who has defrauded me would bring little advantage. As I mentioned earlier - it gave some degree of protection for relatively local transactions - due to the risk for a fraudulent vendor to get angry visits from disgruntled buyers... this is not a credible inter-continental threat.
I've only ever been an e-bay customer... I've never wanted to list anything for sale - and I've only ever bought stuff I couldn't get hold of elsewhere. For example I bought a Dell laptop 802.11g mini-PCI card (Not sold from dell.co.uk, and costs $50 in the USA - but they won't ship to the UK.) I paid 50 euros to get one shipped from Belgium. I was hesitant (concerned about the possibility of fraud) but considered it worth the risk. Recently I've bought a citizen watch from a US seller ($130) because with a budget of £250 I can't find anything comparable for sale in the UK [and I've been looking for a _decade_!] I'm now waiting anxiously - hoping it will arrive in the post sometime soon. I don't doubt that most of the vendors are honest, but at the moment the risk is disproportionately high for the buyers. Buyers are forced trade off the risk of fraud with the benefit of the (usually fairly cheap) often hard-to-find goods. If there had been a reputable company who would handle the trade (essentially eliminate the risk) when I bought the watch I'd have gladly paid. When I was a teenager I used to buy and sell computer 'junk' - the only protection was that buyer and seller had each others' address and phone number. For small trades this was sufficient - there was always the threat of a "visit" - as sales were only "national"... now when buying from those in different continents buyers like myself want better assurances... and within reason I think I for one would pay for this.
So M$ products are art? Hmm, hard to accept indeed.
I consider MS a work of art - don't you? If you don't consider their software worthy of the label, surely you consider that their business practises are?
In any case I think you intended to question the "if" part and not the "only if" - Doah!
A few years ago a woman had people hold up cards stating what they felt (emotional ideas?) and photographed them. I think this was a candidate for the Turner Prize. Some time later VW used the idea as part of a TV advert for their cars.
I was informed a while ago (to my surprise) that Sushi doesn't necessarily contain fish. I now understand that Sushi relates to the seasoning of rice and the style of presentation - typically with Nori (seaweed).
[Tell me if I'm wrong and you're the CEO of Sony or similar!]
Computers are misused by many teachers. I work for a school and my job is to make sure teachers understand how to use their computers, and when and why.
My, I guess you've an uphill struggle with that. I can believe that you can help teachers understand better how to use the technology at their disposal - though I suspect even that would be no mean feat.
Homeschooled kids will do better. One of the reasons is that a homeschooled kid isn't competing with 29 other kids for the teacher's attention. Sometimes a computer can give a student instant feedback that is just not otherwise possible with the size of current classrooms.
It probably is true, right now, that home-schooled pupils perform better at examinations - an interesting question, however, is if home schooling need necessarily always provide the better education. Opting out brings the obvious disadvantage of relative isolation - IMHO home schooling is only the better option when other options are failing... sadly this happens all too often.
Computers in the classroom allow teachers to present information in different ways, 3-D modeling, conferencing, visualizing abstract concepts, etc.
I do not believe this argument is reasonable. It is FAR more time consuming to attempt to present information in a clear and interesting way using a computer than it is, for example, to draw this on a blackboard - or hand it out on photocopied sheets of paper (which have the added advantage that, instead of being a transitory experience would provide a point of reference in future to re-enforce learning.
Federal law states that by the end of 8th grade that a student should be computer literate. There are many research skills that are necessary to understand on the computer. When was the last time you saw a card catalog that was not on a computer?
Your federal law dictates that "computer literate" means that a person has the basic understandings one would expect most 8 year olds to achieve.
And how is a school district going to keep track of all of their attendance, discipline issues, etc, without a computer in the classroom? Districts are becoming more efficient and saving money by using programs to enter and track student information including grades and attendance. How would this happen without a classroom computer?
There is no reason not to use computerised systems (once an appropriate one is developed which happens to work better than the manual system.) For decades teachers have managed to record attendance and impose discipline - paper records are simple, cheap, reliable and allow dedicated (typically cheaper to employ) administrative staff to perform routine administrative tasks. When a system is available at acceptable cost to replace the paper-based approach, and this system is sufficiently reliable, robust and secure for use "in the field" (so to speak) - then it will be a positive transition. While generic hap-hazard computing is forced on education all I'd expect is staff resistance and diminished overall performance.
And are you suggesting that every teacher should be forced to handwrite every assignment and test they give to the student? Where are they going to type it up without a classroom computer?
The classroom represents contact time - hence this argument does not hold. Are you trying to tell me that teachers do not (and are not expected to) prepare material outside the classroom?
Technology is just a word for the tools we use. Tools are not evil, they are not detrimental just for existing. Isn't it more true that the problem is that students aren't using how or when to use the correct tools? Do I understand that you are stating that computers should be used for computer classes but not used to enhance the core curriculum? What a waste of time and money to teach a kid to use a computer if you don't believe computers are beneficial.
I agree with this stance to a far greater extent. I personal
Further to your second point, this ties in nicely with an idea I had about unsolicited telephone calls. The bogus calls are very easy to recognise because the caller has no interest in exactly whom they are talking to... I usually wait for a pause, say "I'm not interested" and hang up - but this is a very dull approach.
I want to hand the call off to an automated time-waster - then set up league tables to show how long a call the automated system could provide. Heck - it could even become a competitive sport! A sophisticated system may 'listen' for keywords and then use them in its responses... but I think there would be great mileage in just asking the caller to repeat what they just said because "the line is bad and I'm a bit deaf..." by feigning memory problems or introducing bizarre non-sequiturs. I know it would be a lot of work - but I think the comedy value of the pay-back would make it all worth-while.
I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the world, but here in the UK I've long suspected that the whole mobile telecoms industry is "bent as a nine-bob note" (to use a local colloquialism!)
For example, looking at the phone I'd like to buy - it costs around £300 without a contract, but can be had for free on a 12 month contract costing approximately £20 to £25 per month plus calls. This suggests that a substantial portion of the contract price is subsidy for the phone. One would assume, therefore, that if I were to buy the phone outright that the airtime contract would be significantly cheaper? Well - it doesn't work like that. I'd still end up paying about the same for airtime and calls. What I feel we need far more than a cheap chip is an honest pricing policy. The whole business of subsidised handsets, IMHO stinks.
Slashdot Mirror
I am as cheap as you are... but there are complications. I don't want to replace my existing radio because the head-unit is integrated into the dash (it is not a DIN unit) and serves a dual purpose as stereo and Sat-Nav. I would have settled for a new CD changer which copes with MP3 - but (sadly) it seems there are numerous compatibility problems. The Sony shop bloke recommended I buy a new car instead... which is something of a lost sale for him - and not very helpful for me.
I'm always suspicious about Microsoft motives - and I can't see any justification for MS to come over so pro-solid-state players. Sure solid state will likely prove more reliable (and probably requires less power) - but this is surely horses-for-courses?
I looked into getting an "MP3 solution" because I want to take my whole music collection with me in my car... 60GB would suffice - and if there was a _neat_ way to power the device from the car battery I wouldn't care if it wasn't truly portable. I was, however, under whelmed by what I could find... I can find expensive 20Gb players which require lots of wires to get them to work through the amp/speakers built into my car. Even the IPod (which is easily on of the better options) doesn't come with a simple cigarette-lighter cradle and built-in FM transmitter - at least not in the UK. I realise there are those who have devised home-brew solutions - but, to be honest, I don't have the motivation to put this together from scratch. I can hardly believe that manufacturers are crowding the "portable" player market while completely ignoring in-car entertainment.
When the content is properly priced, what's the need for DRM anyway? If the download offers value for money then anyone should be willing to pay for that. If it's overpriced then DRM is a way to force the high price down the customer's throat.
This is an interesting idea - but one which begs several further questions. The first is how to measure value. My own preference is to listen to albums while I do other things... I know what I like when I hear it in its entirety - and can usually decide if I don't like something after one listening. I like listening to new music - and if I were to buy fresh albums for a day I'd need (say) 16 - at a conservative price of £12 this comes out at £192 which is an awful lot of money for a day's music. I would even find it difficult to justify "value for money" for the albums I like - let alone those I conclude are nothing special or downright terrible. The only way to bring costs into the realms of reality here is to share music with friends.
When listening to music on the radio, for example, the cost per hour to listen to new material is substantially lower and most reasonable people would not assume they should have any right to copy, share or even keep this material. The reason for this distinction is a huge difference in price. You would be forgiven for assuming that I should listen to radio and only buy CDs when I find material I particularly enjoy... but this doesn't work so well in practice. In order to decide what I want to own I need to be in control of what music I hear... I need to be able to return to material I heard the previous day in order to make sure and I'd prefer to listen to whole albums (in order to better experience the intended atmosphere) which is where radio fails me.
If the price were fair for DRM material I'd accept if and only if the price for listening once was comparable to a good value-for money purchase CD which (by conservative estimates) may be played hundreds or thousands of times. I would be wiling to pay between 1% of the purchase price of an album to listen to it once... assuming it is offered in such a way as to allow me to easily find interesting music I may consider purchasing. The key to success here is in distributors taking the bull by the horns and making it easy for customers to enjoy diverse music and to experiment with their tastes. Unfortunately, evinced by the comically high price distributors attempt to charge for encumbered material, this doesn't fit their business model. The record industry desperately needs to encourage homogenous fleeting tastes in order to do mega-deals with a handful of heavily marketed popular icons. This culture is exactly what makes copying material such a serious concern for the distributors whose business model depends upon charging as many people as possible an inflated price for "the" album of the month pressed onto a bit of plastic. This is not how I want my music to be offered... I want to have the opportunity to listen to diverse music at my discretion for a reasonable price, with the option to purchase of my favourites. If DRM ever takes into account my wishes as a consumer I will accept it - but I'm not holding my breath.
I believe that the music industry would still be massively profitable if it sold albums without digital rights management at between 5 and 10% of the current prices - and the charge would be seen as a service charge for "finding" the album. At these prices I doubt many would even bother piracy - preferring the experience of choosing material themselves. While this might sound like something which would eat into the profits of the industry - I counter that I, for one, would buy more than twenty times as many albums if they were a twentieth of the price.
I'm not especially interested in using VOIP - I make very few outgoing calls... I seriously doubt that I'd find any cost saving myself. I would, however really like a full-featured voice mail system... I do want to be able to tailor responses depending upon which number is calling. For example I'd like all "number withheld" callers to only be able to leave voice messages... after a brief automated warning that I do not accept unsolicited commercial calls. I'd like callers with valid caller id to ring the phone for 10 rings if and only if I'm at home... before going to voice mail. It would be great to patch messages from my home phone through to my mobile from "known" numbers. I'd like to be able to access my voice mail over an internet VPN - so if I'm at work I can choose to securely check to see if I have messages.
Is Asterisk the right tool for this kind of job - or should I be looking at Bayonne or something else altogether?
I was aware of Courier - and I wasn't impressed by what I read about UW-IMAP... I think I'll give BINC a try... it sounds "just the ticket!"
Thanks!
There is a lot more to the idea of video security than the simple "alerting" or "non-alerting" you suggest.
For example, using your example of a car - I'd consider myself a madman if I opted not only to have a car alarm - but also to make it as obvious as possible that I am equipped with one. The snag, however with alerting alarms is that after a few "false alarms" it is widely understood that alarms signals will be ignored - people assume it is a technical fault... and the criminals know this too. Another problem with the alerting alarm is in automatically deciding at what point to take issue with someone's actions. For example, I'm aware of areas in which organised youths check all the car doors in a neighbourhood - hoping someone has forgotten to lock and alarm their car. Under these circumstances an alarm system does no good... It is important to discriminate... Burglar alarms also offer no protection from vandals - whereas a CCTV with night vision may well do - if only by identifying weaknesses in manned security. I imagine an infra-red video surveillance system would be an extremely good way to improve security for applications such as monitoring business car parks; monitoring entranceways to identify where layabouts trespass before any real harm occurs - as well as providing some way to counter graffiti tagging and other illegal unpleasantness.
I've long thought this would be a fun project - but as yet I've not found time to tinker.
I assume this experience has lead you to evaluate the various options for your IMAP server software. What do you use?
Can you suggest such a clear cut answer for the "cheap, fast" vertex?
/dev/null ?
/dev/null to be extremely reliable - it is the most consistent of any device I to which I have access.
How about
Ha-ha. But... I find
While the re-writing of an URL to gain access to access information ahead of time is obviously a huge grey area - and a mistake I would like to think I wouldn't have made myself - I don't believe this exclusion of those candidates who opted to look an ethical choice on the part of Harvard.
I have several clear problems with the ethics of Harvard itself though:
1. In the UK we have a law called the "Data Protection Act 1974 - amended 1990" which gives any adult the absolute right to see _any_ personal information stored about them on computer systems. If Harvard had done this in the UK then every student had the right to see that data anyway. I can't imagine anything more personal than someone's acceptance or rejection by a prestigious University.
2. Which cretin at Harvard decided to put sensitive data on a system available for public access? Is the real reason for the heavy-handed approach that Harvard academics are worried by inquisitive students? If this data was available to candidates - what assurance can Harvard credibly offer that they took proper precautions with the applicants' personal information?
3. How can Harvard expect to enforce such a decision? If every candidate whose details were exposed is declined then this is clearly unethical as there is no evidence of the involvement of the excluded candidate in any wrongdoing. If they rely on admission of guilt then this is clearly unreasonable as they would exclude exactly those students whose sound ethical principles prevent them from denying their own involvement!
The only sensible course of action for Harvard would have been to warn the candidates that the data that was accessed could not be assumed a final decision and that all applications were under review up-until letters are sent. Only this course of action would minimise damage, which (in my opinion) is primarily due to incompetence on the part of Harvard administrators and not due to the expected inquisitive behaviour of anxious applicants.
The cheap/reliable vertex of cheap; reliable; fast triangle is fairly obvious.
Can you suggest such a clear cut answer for the "cheap, fast" vertex?
[Yes - I would have a use. No - this wouldn't mean I'm playing fast-and-loose with unrecoverable data!]
You take a very pragmatic position... I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that the responsibility for spamming should not stop at the spammer - but also be a liability for spammers' customers. This would be a fantastic mechanism by which appropriate levels of fines may be recovered.
My only reservation is that I suspect that anyone despicable enough to have sunk to spamming is likely to turn to other criminal activities when spamming becomes less lucrative. I can see the benefit to law abiding citizens where criminals are set apart - hence preventing other illegal activities (some of which may be difficult to prosecute) at least for the duration of the incarceration.
My morals are torn. Here's the problem - I agree that where people, through stupidity or thoughtlessness commit illegal transgressions I would like to see them dealt with leniently. A fine, for example, represents a straightforward way to impose a penalty and represents a fantastic solution - whenever, in all likelihood, similar transgressions are unlikely in future. I believe in leniency if and only if there is demonstrable regret.
I do not believe that punishments should only be applied in the case of sensational crimes such as murder... in fact I suspect that many of these criminals deserve compassion (if not leniency) as there must be something very wrong with someone to have driven them to commit these "evil" acts in the first place.
Spamming, however, fits neither of the above profiles. The act of spamming demonstrates a wanton disregard for the law; indifference to the legal and social rights of millions of victims and is driven by a reprehensible greed. If I had to pick a conventional crime on-par with spamming I'd probably choose organised gangs of pick-pockets. There are several similarities: With both crimes the victims survive and individually most sustain only modest and affordable losses; with both crimes the assailants behave with complete disregard for the law and the rights of strangers; both crimes have mercurial motivations; both are criminal behaviours which (by way of many individually relatively petty acts) are extremely time-consuming for law enforcement to pursue.
Like you I do not see it appropriate to require proof-of-identity before sending email - nor do I want to make unsolicited email illegal per-se. I want to see the prevention of the fraudulent presentation of unsolicited commercial email. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to send unsolicited commercial email to my computers - as long as it is clearly marked in the headers in such a way as to allow me to automatically reject the transmissions which do not meet the constraints of acceptable use on the servers which might otherwise propagate that mail. The problem here is that, given the international nature of spamming, is that the fines need to be sufficiently punitive to be a deterrent. Given the excessive costs involved in determining the identity of a spammer it seems reasonable to me that the minimum fine should be in the order of thousands of dollars for each fraudulent contact. While the spammer has sufficient cash reserves to any fines in full - this is likely to prove a sufficient deterrent... however - should the spammer have insufficient ready funds it seems only reasonable that alternative punishments are enforced.
Spamming is not a victimless crime - it represents criminal harassment; criminal misuse of computer services - and more often than not large-scale organised fraudulent activity. The victims are not just those unfortunates persuaded to do business with such human detritus, but rather the majority of intelligent people worldwide whose day-to-day communications, and - by consequence - quality of life is demonstrably hampered by the illegal and immoral activities of a relatively small number of organised criminals.
P.S. I've not received a gmail account invite yet... and I asked for one on the day of the announcement! Unfortunately, Gmail probably won't meet my requirements anyhow...
Emphatically - YES!
Don't be mislead, however, I do not feel I get any benefit from automated suggestions, just from the green wiggles which encourage me to re-read a section which may be poorly structured or just drivel. I frequently find myself writing technically oriented memos -composed from various sources with cut-n-paste... all against the clock - often with interruptions. Just as I find a spell-check useful, I also find an automated grammar check a beneficial productivity tool. Rather than being dismissive of grammar checking based upon the limited functionality in Word, I'd like to see innovation in this field. I'd like to see the extension of grammar checkers to also provide style and consistency verification... preferably configurable. I think it would be great to have a tool which checks for consistent tense - or to verify that a whole document is written in first, second or third person. There is no need to give such a tool the final say on any aspect of prose - but in my opinion automated analysis of documents has the potential to be the single most important advancement in document processing this century.
Personally, I feel the BBC offers excellent value for money... I am particularly attached to advert-free radio and the excellent News-24 service. I do, however, feel the licence fee is unreasonable. My attitude was formed a few years ago when I bought my first house. I owned no bed, sofa, chairs or tables - and definitely no television - I was set to spend the next few months renovating and acquiring essentials on a shoe-string budget - a TV was not an essential. At this point I received an extremely threatening letter stating that they had proof that I was operating a television illegally. I've since discovered these false accusations are commonplace - but that does not leave me feeling any less disgusted. If the licence fee is intended to charge everyone for a public service then revenues should be collected with tax. While the fees are collected by a QANGO for the ownership/operation of a television decoder then I find it unacceptable that they make legal threats without grounds. I also find it distasteful that there is no option for an individual to forgo BBC programming (in order to avoid the licence charge) without disposing of all equipment which could feasibly be used to receive television in future.
In this case Google is selling the trademark to a competitor for ads. This does not serve the public well. If you search for Louis Vuiton (and I know /.'ers do) you should have every expectation that the ads are associated with that brand. This is not the case when Google sells the ad to a competitor.
This is not what I understand Google to have done. If I search for a "hoover" then you are right to assert that I should expect to find any available information about the hoover vacuum cleaner company prominently displayed. I don't think it would be reasonable to prevent my also being shown related offers, for example from Dyson, Electrolux et al. - assuming it is clear that the alternatives are different brands.
If google wrongly associates a trade mark with a different product then this is misleading and against the consumers' interest. If google displays advertising material which clearly differentiates alternative brands then this is a significant benefit to customers. The analogy is that the X-Widget company could request that its products are listed in mail-order catalogues in the same section as my more established competitor Y-widgets. I don't see how this need necessarily be a trademark violation issue.
I understand that in the UK consumer protection laws have provisions for returning mis-ordered goods, but that this right is not extended to business purchases. So, I guess that if a vendor believes a significant proportion of its goods will be returned by private buyers (for example because the goods do not live up to customer expectations) it seems reasonable for businesses to be offered a discount. Conversely, businesses often demand a higher standard of account management and are willing to pay over-the-odds for this improved service.
[BTW - my last two laptops have been Dell - but after being seriously under-whelmed by Dell's poor customer service and underhand practices I intend to buy a different brand when this one requires replacement in a year or so.]
Having a bank account number is as good as having seen the ID of your business partner.
Unfortunately, particularly for international trades, knowing the identity of the person who has defrauded me would bring little advantage. As I mentioned earlier - it gave some degree of protection for relatively local transactions - due to the risk for a fraudulent vendor to get angry visits from disgruntled buyers... this is not a credible inter-continental threat.
I've only ever been an e-bay customer... I've never wanted to list anything for sale - and I've only ever bought stuff I couldn't get hold of elsewhere. For example I bought a Dell laptop 802.11g mini-PCI card (Not sold from dell.co.uk, and costs $50 in the USA - but they won't ship to the UK.) I paid 50 euros to get one shipped from Belgium. I was hesitant (concerned about the possibility of fraud) but considered it worth the risk. Recently I've bought a citizen watch from a US seller ($130) because with a budget of £250 I can't find anything comparable for sale in the UK [and I've been looking for a _decade_!] I'm now waiting anxiously - hoping it will arrive in the post sometime soon.
I don't doubt that most of the vendors are honest, but at the moment the risk is disproportionately high for the buyers. Buyers are forced trade off the risk of fraud with the benefit of the (usually fairly cheap) often hard-to-find goods. If there had been a reputable company who would handle the trade (essentially eliminate the risk) when I bought the watch I'd have gladly paid. When I was a teenager I used to buy and sell computer 'junk' - the only protection was that buyer and seller had each others' address and phone number. For small trades this was sufficient - there was always the threat of a "visit" - as sales were only "national"... now when buying from those in different continents buyers like myself want better assurances... and within reason I think I for one would pay for this.
For all X: X is art if someone buys it.
So M$ products are art? Hmm, hard to accept indeed.
I consider MS a work of art - don't you? If you don't consider their software worthy of the label, surely you consider that their business practises are?
In any case I think you intended to question the "if" part and not the "only if" - Doah!
A few years ago a woman had people hold up cards stating what they felt (emotional ideas?) and photographed them. I think this was a candidate for the Turner Prize. Some time later VW used the idea as part of a TV advert for their cars.
Does anyone know the name of the artist?
For all X: X is art iff someone buys it.
I was informed a while ago (to my surprise) that Sushi doesn't necessarily contain fish. I now understand that Sushi relates to the seasoning of rice and the style of presentation - typically with Nori (seaweed).
[Tell me if I'm wrong and you're the CEO of Sony or similar!]
Computers are misused by many teachers. I work for a school and my job is to make sure teachers understand how to use their computers, and when and why.
My, I guess you've an uphill struggle with that. I can believe that you can help teachers understand better how to use the technology at their disposal - though I suspect even that would be no mean feat.
Homeschooled kids will do better. One of the reasons is that a homeschooled kid isn't competing with 29 other kids for the teacher's attention. Sometimes a computer can give a student instant feedback that is just not otherwise possible with the size of current classrooms.
It probably is true, right now, that home-schooled pupils perform better at examinations - an interesting question, however, is if home schooling need necessarily always provide the better education. Opting out brings the obvious disadvantage of relative isolation - IMHO home schooling is only the better option when other options are failing... sadly this happens all too often.
Computers in the classroom allow teachers to present information in different ways, 3-D modeling, conferencing, visualizing abstract concepts, etc.
I do not believe this argument is reasonable. It is FAR more time consuming to attempt to present information in a clear and interesting way using a computer than it is, for example, to draw this on a blackboard - or hand it out on photocopied sheets of paper (which have the added advantage that, instead of being a transitory experience would provide a point of reference in future to re-enforce learning.
Federal law states that by the end of 8th grade that a student should be computer literate. There are many research skills that are necessary to understand on the computer. When was the last time you saw a card catalog that was not on a computer?
Your federal law dictates that "computer literate" means that a person has the basic understandings one would expect most 8 year olds to achieve.
And how is a school district going to keep track of all of their attendance, discipline issues, etc, without a computer in the classroom? Districts are becoming more efficient and saving money by using programs to enter and track student information including grades and attendance. How would this happen without a classroom computer?
There is no reason not to use computerised systems (once an appropriate one is developed which happens to work better than the manual system.) For decades teachers have managed to record attendance and impose discipline - paper records are simple, cheap, reliable and allow dedicated (typically cheaper to employ) administrative staff to perform routine administrative tasks. When a system is available at acceptable cost to replace the paper-based approach, and this system is sufficiently reliable, robust and secure for use "in the field" (so to speak) - then it will be a positive transition. While generic hap-hazard computing is forced on education all I'd expect is staff resistance and diminished overall performance.
And are you suggesting that every teacher should be forced to handwrite every assignment and test they give to the student? Where are they going to type it up without a classroom computer?
The classroom represents contact time - hence this argument does not hold. Are you trying to tell me that teachers do not (and are not expected to) prepare material outside the classroom?
Technology is just a word for the tools we use. Tools are not evil, they are not detrimental just for existing. Isn't it more true that the problem is that students aren't using how or when to use the correct tools? Do I understand that you are stating that computers should be used for computer classes but not used to enhance the core curriculum? What a waste of time and money to teach a kid to use a computer if you don't believe computers are beneficial.
I agree with this stance to a far greater extent. I personal
Further to your second point, this ties in nicely with an idea I had about unsolicited telephone calls. The bogus calls are very easy to recognise because the caller has no interest in exactly whom they are talking to... I usually wait for a pause, say "I'm not interested" and hang up - but this is a very dull approach.
I want to hand the call off to an automated time-waster - then set up league tables to show how long a call the automated system could provide. Heck - it could even become a competitive sport! A sophisticated system may 'listen' for keywords and then use them in its responses... but I think there would be great mileage in just asking the caller to repeat what they just said because "the line is bad and I'm a bit deaf..." by feigning memory problems or introducing bizarre non-sequiturs. I know it would be a lot of work - but I think the comedy value of the pay-back would make it all worth-while.
I'm not sure how it is in the rest of the world, but here in the UK I've long suspected that the whole mobile telecoms industry is "bent as a nine-bob note" (to use a local colloquialism!)
For example, looking at the phone I'd like to buy - it costs around £300 without a contract, but can be had for free on a 12 month contract costing approximately £20 to £25 per month plus calls. This suggests that a substantial portion of the contract price is subsidy for the phone. One would assume, therefore, that if I were to buy the phone outright that the airtime contract would be significantly cheaper? Well - it doesn't work like that. I'd still end up paying about the same for airtime and calls. What I feel we need far more than a cheap chip is an honest pricing policy. The whole business of subsidised handsets, IMHO stinks.