If the company provides free soft drinks for consumption on the premesis, during work hours... I think that the prize technically belongs to the company, just as it would if you used the company's internet connection, or email, or whatever to participate in a drawing, or whatever. Just as it would if you participated in a contest on company time.
But I think that it would, in general, be in the company's best interests to let the employee keep the winnings; just because you have a right, does not mean you have to militantly enforce it at every opportunity.
Would it be within the employer's rights to claim the prize? Yes
Would it be "oppressive" to do so? Yes
So, what if you paid for the subscription, and your manager pointed out the deal... who do you think that it should belong to, then?
Personally, were it my decision to make at your company, I would let you have them; it is a windfall, and would make for a good faith gesture on the company's part. But, if the company paid for the subscription, and this is a realized, tangible benefit of that subscription, then it is the company's property.
Look at it like this; the toy is not Truly Free, or I (not having an MSDN subscription) would have been eligible... eligibility for the offer was "bought", fair and square...
Besides, if you paid nothing, either for the subscription, or for the toy itself, where do you get your sense of entitlement?
Of course, for what it is worth, if the company wants to own the toys, they owe you some stamps...
Of course, since it came from Micro$oft, you could make a valid argument that you bartered your soul for it...:)
My SO works for a large online transaction processor; they don't accept transactions from entire countries or regions, due to rampant fraud in those areas.
I assume that it is due to lack of enforcement of support from law enforcement in those areas...
I love your idea, jafuser.
In fact, look at this in a broader context;
Many would agree that our (real world) judicial system is broken. Most would at least agree that it is imperfect. What an awesome venue to try out alternative systems, or tweaks to our current system?
I think that for online "sim" type games, the consequences should be entirely in-game, provided the actions took place in-game (i.e. not hacking the game, etc).
You win your "suit", you get some of their stuff. They get thrown in prison, whatever.
Would make an excellent testing ground for most any legal principle or system...
We really shouldn't be sending them up, it is just too risky...
So what, that they spent virtually their entire life training to do it, Knowing, better than anyone, the risks involved...
Bullshit.
These people are professionals, more knowledgeable of the risks than anyone else, and of the reasons for taking those risks.
Astronauts do not take any greater risk than, say, a soldier in wartime; and who would argue that the human race, in the long run, would benefit more from any given war than from space exploration/colonisation?
I see astonauts like I see soldiers: doing a job that is necessary, that they believe in to the degree that they are willing to risk their lives to do it
I think that space exploration is essential; I am happy to fund it with my tax dollars, grateful to those who do it, and, if called upon, would be willing to take those risks myself.
Some pursuits are worth the loss of human life, for the benefit of the species.
Make it Intrinsic
For example; if you have ever seen my code, knowing what it looks like, you would never be able to miss the muddy footprints I stomp all over anything I touch.
Immortality through Mediocrity!!
Do something right, or well, and you will soon be forgotten.
Do it really half assed, or fsck it up, and you will surely be remembered.
I am currently facing the same problem; here is my solution:
A couple of weeks ago, I convinced my boss to let me replace our entire windows network (workstations; all servers are *nix) with diskless Linux workstations (Gentoo/OpenOffice/Evolution/Mozilla), all participating in a big happy openmosix cluster!!!
(our builds will be speedy-speedy now!!!)
So, my backup procedure will be:
Step 1)back up the NFS server with the users' home dirs
Noone claims that SSH is perfect; but it is a hell of a lot better than Telnet
Besides; you can bitch about Microsoft; because they suck and you basically have to deal with it. But bitching about an Open Source product for which you paid nothing? Geez... the programmer Gave it to you; You are simply professing your ignorance.
If you know of a problem, let the maintaner know; if you are coherent I am sure he/she will be happy to receive your suggestion. If you are such an expert, though, perhaps you should implement this fix yourself, and submit a patch? Isn't that the whole point of open source?
I, for one, am thankful that I am not forced to use a) telnet or b) some proprietary "secure" tool.
Well, I second the sentiment that it should not be illegal to remove them; my car, I can modify it if I want, right? I should not be legally obligated to allow my vehicle to record potentially incriminating info about me; this, I think, would violate (in intent, at least) my constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
However, if I do allow my car to do so, why should it be any different from any other search? I think a warrant should be necessary, just as it would be if they wanted to search my laptop (at least it is in theory;)
Fair use is when you have the permission of the author (or copyright holder, if they are not one and the same).
Period.
(Given that it sounds like you want to rip images off wholesale, and not create some sort of derivative work)
Perhaps the copyright holder placed the image into the public domain, or licenses it under something like the GPL; you need to find this out in order to use it, you cannot just assume that it is yours to have.
Because it looks free, does not make it so. Because you want it to be free, does not make it so.
Just because everyone does it, does not make it right. Your mother should have taught you that; what might make you think that because it is the internet, that no longer applies? Because you don't think that you will get caught?
Geez, I even know that you know better, cause you said "The decent thing to do would be to ask permission..."
Perhaps you should qualify your question, like:
"I am too damn lazy to ask permission to use someone else's work; How obvious a theft of someone else's work do you think I can get away with?"
I really cannot believe this question; this whole article reads like a troll to me...
Yes, insomuch as the corp expects or perceives that those actions will, even indirectly, increase the value of its stock (or, more correctly, increase the wealth of its shareholders).
It is commonplace for corps to do things seemingly not motivated by self-benefit; remember, the value of a corp's stock is not purely tangible and financial... this is difficult for me to define, so let me give you an example the/. crowd should be able to get, easily:
Suppose that there is a corporation. Now suppose that this corporation makes heavy use of opensource software. This corporation arguably would benefit greatly from being seen in a favorable light by the opensource community, right? So, isn't it in that corp's best interests to conduct its affairs in such a way as to generate goodwill within that community? Perhaps they contribute code back into projects that they use; we don't usually see that as philanthropy, but it really is; they don't have to. And in this case, it is clear what the corp recieves in return: improved software, as others improve upon their improvements, etc. etc. What about cash donations to certain products, jobs for key developers, etc. Why do you think that OReilly employed (employs?) Larry Wall? They expect a direct, or indirect, enhancement of the value of their stock.
Now, given the imaginary corp we just described; wouldn't you be sort of inclined to invest in that corp? I mean, when investing, do you simply look at the bottom line, or do you try to excercise some social responsibility in which companies you choose to invest in? So, the fact that a company acts generously and appreciatively towards the opensource community may (or may not) directly improve its bottom line, it very well likely may make its stock more desireable to potential investors. Which increases demand. Which increases the price of its stock, which makes its shareholders more wealthy, which is its goal in the first place.
It is shortsighted to think that a corporation's activities are strictly limited to sales/marketing and other strictly financial activities.
Corporations are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: to increase the value of its stock. Only the naive believe that corporations are designed or operate to turn a profit, contribute anything useful to any community, "philanthropize", or anything else. These are solely a means to an end.
The value of a corporation's stock is determined by the demand for that stock (classic supply/demand relationship). This is accomplished by convincing investors that the stock has value (the perception of value is value). This is done by increasing net assets (i.e. improving the balance sheet), paying dividends, etc. etc. One way of doing it is to create the impresion that there is an intangible value in the company; i.e. provide a "return" to the community that some investors might consider valueable and worthy of their support. This explains how corporations can be philanthropic and still be acting in the best interests of the shareholders. (Ignoring the effects of good PR on sales, possible gov't regulation, and other market/operating environment considerations)
Absolutely everything that a corporation does is designed to increase the value of its stock. Anything else would be in violation of the duty of the officers of the company to its shareholders.
It is an error to think about corporations with the same "mental template" that you use to thing about people; they do not "think" in the same way; rather, corporations "think" more like simpler forms of life; almost like a program (really, like a program with the introduced factor of human error). A corporation being philanthropic is less like a person being philanthropic, more like those ants that keep and feed aphids for food.
Bottom line: Corporations give gifts, not out of concience, or goodwill, but from a perception of self benefit of some sort.
Some companies operate entirely to maximize the implicit derived from philanthropy, such as charities that are organized as corps, etc.
This is why corporations act without conscience. You think that environmentally friendly companies are so because they care about the environment? Yeah, right. They act that way for legal, PR, or other reasons (but they will sure as hell claim to care, for the very same reasons).
Granted, my attitude about corps is very, um, clinical (?); and granted, this holds true less for smaller companies, or, more correctly, companies that are controlled more by their own stockholders (i.e. the mom and pop shop where the shareholders are, in fact, the officers of the company), because in this situation, their duties are to themselves, so they can operate in a fashion that they deem to have the most value.
But I think you will find that the stark portrayal of companies is more accurate than most would like to believe when describing large, especially publicly traded companies.
My point is, given a proper understanding of how corporations operate; the question of "Are company A's actions philanthropy, or self-promoting" is really a question without meaning; It's like asking if the ocean is full of water, or is it full of dihydrogen oxide?"; the question arises from a misunderstanding of the definition of "philanthropy" in the context of corporate operations.
Open source empowers everyone!
It brings capabilities of all sorts to the "Common Man", and gives much more control and "power" to anyone who uses it...
If the user happens to be a terrorist, or a "terrorist oriented" nation, then, well, you do the math...
But no more than guns, or the Internet, or POTS, or Agricultural technology, or medical technology, or etc. etc. etc.
Most anything that you or I would find particularly useful, or empowering, a terrorist would also.
That is one of the fundamental risks of cool technology.
Remember the articles about Saddam ordering PS2s for weapons guidance systems (I dunno if they were accurate, but it proves the point, nontheless).
I picked up
Designing Embedded Hardware
a couple of weeks ago; being a software geek, with no hardware experience (except for assembling PC's, etc), I found this book to be amazing.
How to discard it?
Well, I would just throw it away, after erasing my key.
How would I erase my key, you ask?
Microwave it.
Give it 120 VAC.
I envision the ring as having a band with a "U"-like cross section, with the key stored in memory, like SDRAM, FLASH, or an EEPROM type of arrangement; the guts of which would live in the channel of the "U"... exposed, but slightly recessed, it would be a highlight or accent or whatever...
Then you could easily insulate the contacts you would need to talk to it from the ring, and you could easily dig the memory out with an ice pick (or other tool of your choice) and smash it into little bits.
My comment about it being easily discarded was admittedly unclear; easily was meant to be relative to having it embedded under my skin, etc.
I replaced my original (white gold) wedding band with a Ti one;
It is very functional; It will save my hand if I ever get a door/etc slammed on it. I know that this is so because it worked in the Abyss:)
Maybe you could make the ring out of a very powerful magnet; then you could erase floppies with a wave of your hand;) or have it contain many many loops of copper wire, with 2 exposed "terminals"; just hook it up to a power source, and you have an electromagnet!
On a serious note, this discussion has me thinking; I would love to have my pgp key in my band; that is the most secure place I can imagine having it, and still be able to discard it if I want.
If one were really clever, they would make the ring with a little tiny processor in it, able to verify signiatures as well...
OK, I will;)
You are correct in the most common case: a "recreational diver" defined as: breathing air, not exceeding 130 fsw, etc. etc.
However, mixed gas (Nitrox) and technical diving (well beyond 200 fsw) are pretty common nowadays, even amongst divers who would traditionally been considered recreational divers (esp. Nitrox).
You mentioned the problems that occur when inert gasses dissolve in the tissues (e.g. nitrogen, helium, etc). But there are, in fact, problems associated with O2.
Commonly called "Oxygen toxicity", it has 2 forms: pulmonary and CNS. Pulmonary affects the lining of the lungs, and is only relevant to chamber divers, commercial divers, etc. due to the very long exposure required to get it. CNS toxicity is a problem for rec. divers
here is how it works: you can calculate the partial pressures (remember Dalton's Law?) of each of the gasses in your bloodstream by multiplying your ambient pressure by the fraction of the gas in your breathing mix. So at sea level (14.7 psi/1 atm) your body is under about.2 pp O2. so, at 99 fsw (4 atm), your body is under.8 atm pp O2.
Now imagine that you are breathing a gas mix other than air, say, 32% O2/balance N2. at 99 fsw, your pp O2 would then be 1.28.
Exceed 1.2 pp O2, you are at risk.
Exceed 1.6, you are at high risk.
Exceed 2.0, you are most likely dead. (Grand Mal seizures tend to interfere with your breathing from a regulator)
You are referring to dysbaric osteonecrosis... and it is a form of decompression sickness (Caisson's Disease). Problem is, it is caused my nitrogen, not strictly pressure. So those working under pressure, or being treated, who are breathing oxygen, are at no risk for this malady.
Furthermore, it takes *years* of significant exposure to cause this
(Significant == depth and long duration)
Fire is a risk, but not a HUGE one, because multi-seat chambers are filled with air, not oxygen; the person receiving treatment breathes O2; the tenders? depends on who operates the chamber...
Office Space portrays my career to this point, as well as my wife's, pretty much as accurately as you could ask.
At work, we made our boss watch it; she even admits she saw herself in Lumbergh; now, she says "Yeaaah, I'm gonna have to ask you to, go ahead and..." whenever she wants something;)
Kind of a big disadvantage, one might thing...
Heh. Yup. No doubt about that. But, I think, easily dealt with in my specific circumstances (or I obviously wouldn't go that route)
Calling it extortion is inaccurate, they have trust and that's a big thing....
It is not trust that they have. It is the fact that they are installed in browsers out of the box. I don't trust VeriSign; neither does my grandmother; she's never heard of them. But Microsoft (et al.) have decided for her that VeriSign, Thawte, etc are trustworthy.
You can argue that, but it's a loser. People are far, far more lax about security than verisign is.
What the hell? Verisign is a company. That is, Verisign is a bunch of people, operating in the form of a bureaucracy. Point A: people tend to get stupider in large numbers. Point B: Verisign has demonstrated on more than one occasion, and in more than one manner that they are careless and/or generally untrustworthy.
Besides; we are not talking about "people" in general here... I gave myself as a specific example; you know nothing of my security practices, how can you even begin to back up a statement that general?
Slashdot Mirror
If the company provides free soft drinks for consumption on the premesis, during work hours ...
I think that the prize technically belongs to the company, just as it would if you used the company's internet connection, or email, or whatever to participate in a drawing, or whatever. Just as it would if you participated in a contest on company time.
But I think that it would, in general, be in the company's best interests to let the employee keep the winnings; just because you have a right, does not mean you have to militantly enforce it at every opportunity.
Would it be within the employer's rights to claim the prize? Yes
Would it be "oppressive" to do so? Yes
So, what if you paid for the subscription, and your manager pointed out the deal ... who do you think that it should belong to, then?
... eligibility for the offer was "bought", fair and square ...
...
... :)
Personally, were it my decision to make at your company, I would let you have them; it is a windfall, and would make for a good faith gesture on the company's part.
But, if the company paid for the subscription, and this is a realized, tangible benefit of that subscription, then it is the company's property.
Look at it like this; the toy is not Truly Free, or I (not having an MSDN subscription) would have been eligible
Besides, if you paid nothing, either for the subscription, or for the toy itself, where do you get your sense of entitlement?
Of course, for what it is worth, if the company wants to own the toys, they owe you some stamps
Of course, since it came from Micro$oft, you could make a valid argument that you bartered your soul for it
My SO works for a large online transaction processor; they don't accept transactions from entire countries or regions, due to rampant fraud in those areas.
...
I assume that it is due to lack of enforcement of support from law enforcement in those areas
I love your idea, jafuser.
In fact, look at this in a broader context;
Many would agree that our (real world) judicial system is broken. Most would at least agree that it is imperfect. What an awesome venue to try out alternative systems, or tweaks to our current system?
I think that for online "sim" type games, the consequences should be entirely in-game, provided the actions took place in-game (i.e. not hacking the game, etc).
You win your "suit", you get some of their stuff. They get thrown in prison, whatever.
Would make an excellent testing ground for most any legal principle or system...
We really shouldn't be sending them up, it is just too risky ... ...
So what, that they spent virtually their entire life training to do it, Knowing, better than anyone, the risks involved
Bullshit.
These people are professionals, more knowledgeable of the risks than anyone else, and of the reasons for taking those risks.
Astronauts do not take any greater risk than, say, a soldier in wartime; and who would argue that the human race, in the long run, would benefit more from any given war than from space exploration/colonisation?
I see astonauts like I see soldiers: doing a job that is necessary, that they believe in to the degree that they are willing to risk their lives to do it I think that space exploration is essential; I am happy to fund it with my tax dollars, grateful to those who do it, and, if called upon, would be willing to take those risks myself.
Some pursuits are worth the loss of human life, for the benefit of the species.
Make it Intrinsic
For example; if you have ever seen my code, knowing what it looks like, you would never be able to miss the muddy footprints I stomp all over anything I touch.
Immortality through Mediocrity!! Do something right, or well, and you will soon be forgotten.
Do it really half assed, or fsck it up, and you will surely be remembered.
I am currently facing the same problem; here is my solution:
A couple of weeks ago, I convinced my boss to let me replace our entire windows network (workstations; all servers are *nix) with diskless Linux workstations (Gentoo/OpenOffice/Evolution/Mozilla), all participating in a big happy openmosix cluster!!!
(our builds will be speedy-speedy now!!!)
So, my backup procedure will be:
Step 1)back up the NFS server with the users' home dirs
Step 2)Drink BEER!!!!
And you will be posting this fix of yours when?
Noone claims that SSH is perfect; but it is a hell of a lot better than Telnet
Besides; you can bitch about Microsoft; because they suck and you basically have to deal with it.
But bitching about an Open Source product for which you paid nothing? Geez... the programmer Gave it to you; You are simply professing your ignorance. If you know of a problem, let the maintaner know; if you are coherent I am sure he/she will be happy to receive your suggestion. If you are such an expert, though, perhaps you should implement this fix yourself, and submit a patch? Isn't that the whole point of open source?
I, for one, am thankful that I am not forced to use a) telnet or b) some proprietary "secure" tool.
Well, I second the sentiment that it should not be illegal to remove them; my car, I can modify it if I want, right? I should not be legally obligated to allow my vehicle to record potentially incriminating info about me; this, I think, would violate (in intent, at least) my constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
;)
However, if I do allow my car to do so, why should it be any different from any other search? I think a warrant should be necessary, just as it would be if they wanted to search my laptop (at least it is in theory
Fair use is when you have the permission of the author (or copyright holder, if they are not one and the same).
...
Period.
(Given that it sounds like you want to rip images off wholesale, and not create some sort of derivative work)
Perhaps the copyright holder placed the image into the public domain, or licenses it under something like the GPL; you need to find this out in order to use it, you cannot just assume that it is yours to have.
Because it looks free, does not make it so. Because you want it to be free, does not make it so. Just because everyone does it, does not make it right. Your mother should have taught you that; what might make you think that because it is the internet, that no longer applies? Because you don't think that you will get caught?
Geez, I even know that you know better, cause you said "The decent thing to do would be to ask permission..."
Perhaps you should qualify your question, like:
"I am too damn lazy to ask permission to use someone else's work; How obvious a theft of someone else's work do you think I can get away with?"
I really cannot believe this question; this whole article reads like a troll to me
Yes, insomuch as the corp expects or perceives that those actions will, even indirectly, increase the value of its stock (or, more correctly, increase the wealth of its shareholders). ... this is difficult for me to define, so let me give you an example the /. crowd should be able to get, easily:
It is commonplace for corps to do things seemingly not motivated by self-benefit; remember, the value of a corp's stock is not purely tangible and financial
Suppose that there is a corporation. Now suppose that this corporation makes heavy use of opensource software. This corporation arguably would benefit greatly from being seen in a favorable light by the opensource community, right? So, isn't it in that corp's best interests to conduct its affairs in such a way as to generate goodwill within that community? Perhaps they contribute code back into projects that they use; we don't usually see that as philanthropy, but it really is; they don't have to. And in this case, it is clear what the corp recieves in return: improved software, as others improve upon their improvements, etc. etc. What about cash donations to certain products, jobs for key developers, etc. Why do you think that OReilly employed (employs?) Larry Wall? They expect a direct, or indirect, enhancement of the value of their stock.
Now, given the imaginary corp we just described; wouldn't you be sort of inclined to invest in that corp? I mean, when investing, do you simply look at the bottom line, or do you try to excercise some social responsibility in which companies you choose to invest in? So, the fact that a company acts generously and appreciatively towards the opensource community may (or may not) directly improve its bottom line, it very well likely may make its stock more desireable to potential investors. Which increases demand. Which increases the price of its stock, which makes its shareholders more wealthy, which is its goal in the first place.
It is shortsighted to think that a corporation's activities are strictly limited to sales/marketing and other strictly financial activities.
Corporations are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: to increase the value of its stock. Only the naive believe that corporations are designed or operate to turn a profit, contribute anything useful to any community, "philanthropize", or anything else. These are solely a means to an end.
The value of a corporation's stock is determined by the demand for that stock (classic supply/demand relationship). This is accomplished by convincing investors that the stock has value (the perception of value is value). This is done by increasing net assets (i.e. improving the balance sheet), paying dividends, etc. etc. One way of doing it is to create the impresion that there is an intangible value in the company; i.e. provide a "return" to the community that some investors might consider valueable and worthy of their support. This explains how corporations can be philanthropic and still be acting in the best interests of the shareholders. (Ignoring the effects of good PR on sales, possible gov't regulation, and other market/operating environment considerations)
Absolutely everything that a corporation does is designed to increase the value of its stock. Anything else would be in violation of the duty of the officers of the company to its shareholders.
It is an error to think about corporations with the same "mental template" that you use to thing about people; they do not "think" in the same way; rather, corporations "think" more like simpler forms of life; almost like a program (really, like a program with the introduced factor of human error). A corporation being philanthropic is less like a person being philanthropic, more like those ants that keep and feed aphids for food.
Bottom line: Corporations give gifts, not out of concience, or goodwill, but from a perception of self benefit of some sort.
Some companies operate entirely to maximize the implicit derived from philanthropy, such as charities that are organized as corps, etc.
This is why corporations act without conscience. You think that environmentally friendly companies are so because they care about the environment? Yeah, right. They act that way for legal, PR, or other reasons (but they will sure as hell claim to care, for the very same reasons).
Granted, my attitude about corps is very, um, clinical (?); and granted, this holds true less for smaller companies, or, more correctly, companies that are controlled more by their own stockholders (i.e. the mom and pop shop where the shareholders are, in fact, the officers of the company), because in this situation, their duties are to themselves, so they can operate in a fashion that they deem to have the most value.
But I think you will find that the stark portrayal of companies is more accurate than most would like to believe when describing large, especially publicly traded companies.
My point is, given a proper understanding of how corporations operate; the question of "Are company A's actions philanthropy, or self-promoting" is really a question without meaning; It's like asking if the ocean is full of water, or is it full of dihydrogen oxide?"; the question arises from a misunderstanding of the definition of "philanthropy" in the context of corporate operations.
Lookie Lookie
What is a 941??
Open source empowers everyone! ...
It brings capabilities of all sorts to the "Common Man", and gives much more control and "power" to anyone who uses it
If the user happens to be a terrorist, or a "terrorist oriented" nation, then, well, you do the math...
But no more than guns, or the Internet, or POTS, or Agricultural technology, or medical technology, or etc. etc. etc.
Most anything that you or I would find particularly useful, or empowering, a terrorist would also.
That is one of the fundamental risks of cool technology.
Remember the articles about Saddam ordering PS2s for weapons guidance systems (I dunno if they were accurate, but it proves the point, nontheless).
I have a Hard Cover copy of Applied Cryptography, 2e, so I can say, at least, that they do exist.
I picked up Designing Embedded Hardware a couple of weeks ago; being a software geek, with no hardware experience (except for assembling PC's, etc), I found this book to be amazing.
I highly recommend it.
sarcasm
... exposed, but slightly recessed, it would be a highlight or accent or whatever ...
How to discard it?
Well, I would just throw it away, after erasing my key.
How would I erase my key, you ask?
Microwave it.
Give it 120 VAC.
I envision the ring as having a band with a "U"-like cross section, with the key stored in memory, like SDRAM, FLASH, or an EEPROM type of arrangement; the guts of which would live in the channel of the "U"
Then you could easily insulate the contacts you would need to talk to it from the ring, and you could easily dig the memory out with an ice pick (or other tool of your choice) and smash it into little bits.
My comment about it being easily discarded was admittedly unclear; easily was meant to be relative to having it embedded under my skin, etc.
oops, should have previewed it, then I would have known I needed another <\b> in there ...
I replaced my original (white gold) wedding band with a Ti one; It is very functional; It will save my hand if I ever get a door/etc slammed on it. :)
Maybe you could make the ring out of a very powerful magnet; then you could erase floppies with a wave of your hand ;)
...
I know that this is so because it worked in the Abyss
or have it contain many many loops of copper wire, with 2 exposed "terminals"; just hook it up to a power source, and you have an electromagnet!
On a serious note, this discussion has me thinking; I would love to have my pgp key in my band; that is the most secure place I can imagine having it, and still be able to discard it if I want.
If one were really clever, they would make the ring with a little tiny processor in it, able to verify signiatures as well
Like this?
OK, I will ;)
You are correct in the most common case: a "recreational diver" defined as: breathing air, not exceeding 130 fsw, etc. etc.
.2 pp O2. so, at 99 fsw (4 atm), your body is under .8 atm pp O2.
However, mixed gas (Nitrox) and technical diving (well beyond 200 fsw) are pretty common nowadays, even amongst divers who would traditionally been considered recreational divers (esp. Nitrox).
You mentioned the problems that occur when inert gasses dissolve in the tissues (e.g. nitrogen, helium, etc). But there are, in fact, problems associated with O2.
Commonly called "Oxygen toxicity", it has 2 forms: pulmonary and CNS. Pulmonary affects the lining of the lungs, and is only relevant to chamber divers, commercial divers, etc. due to the very long exposure required to get it. CNS toxicity is a problem for rec. divers
here is how it works: you can calculate the partial pressures (remember Dalton's Law?) of each of the gasses in your bloodstream by multiplying your ambient pressure by the fraction of the gas in your breathing mix. So at sea level (14.7 psi/1 atm) your body is under about
Now imagine that you are breathing a gas mix other than air, say, 32% O2/balance N2. at 99 fsw, your pp O2 would then be 1.28.
Exceed 1.2 pp O2, you are at risk. Exceed 1.6, you are at high risk. Exceed 2.0, you are most likely dead. (Grand Mal seizures tend to interfere with your breathing from a regulator)
You are referring to dysbaric osteonecrosis ... and it is a form of decompression sickness (Caisson's Disease). Problem is, it is caused my nitrogen, not strictly pressure. So those working under pressure, or being treated, who are breathing oxygen, are at no risk for this malady.
...
Furthermore, it takes *years* of significant exposure to cause this
(Significant == depth and long duration)
Fire is a risk, but not a HUGE one, because multi-seat chambers are filled with air, not oxygen; the person receiving treatment breathes O2; the tenders? depends on who operates the chamber
Office Space portrays my career to this point, as well as my wife's, pretty much as accurately as you could ask.
..." whenever she wants something ;)
At work, we made our boss watch it; she even admits she saw herself in Lumbergh; now, she says "Yeaaah, I'm gonna have to ask you to, go ahead and
Kind of a big disadvantage, one might thing...
...
... I gave myself as a specific example; you know nothing of my security practices, how can you even begin to back up a statement that general?
Heh. Yup. No doubt about that. But, I think, easily dealt with in my specific circumstances (or I obviously wouldn't go that route)
Calling it extortion is inaccurate, they have trust and that's a big thing.
It is not trust that they have. It is the fact that they are installed in browsers out of the box. I don't trust VeriSign; neither does my grandmother; she's never heard of them. But Microsoft (et al.) have decided for her that VeriSign, Thawte, etc are trustworthy.
You can argue that, but it's a loser. People are far, far more lax about security than verisign is.
What the hell? Verisign is a company. That is, Verisign is a bunch of people, operating in the form of a bureaucracy. Point A: people tend to get stupider in large numbers. Point B: Verisign has demonstrated on more than one occasion, and in more than one manner that they are careless and/or generally untrustworthy.
Besides; we are not talking about "people" in general here