Personally, I'd like it if more companies *actually lost* my personal information more often. As in, "oops, that personal information was irretrievably deleted."
Or even as in they don't store personal information beyond the point when it is actually needed. All sorts of companies appear to treat infrequent, even "once only" customers as though they are frequent repeat customers. It simply dosn't make much sense for a hotel chain to do this. With the possible exception of big corporate customers, the typical customer simply does not use their facilities that often. There is simply no good reason to store credit card details after any transactions (including those related to theft from/damage to rooms) are completed.
Corporations exist to shield people from liability, not to allow people to indirectly commit crimes.
The original idea was to shield people from financial liability so as to encourage people to invest money into a businesses. If the business failed an investor would only be liable for the amount they'd out in, unlike with sole ownership, partnership, etc, where an owner would be liable for all debts. Somehow this has mutated into the idea of protecting executives and employees from the consequences of their actions, even breaking the law. Together with the idea of corporate entities being "people" without the necessary infrastructure to enforce criminal laws against them.
No reason to stop business as usual while he RIAA tries to buy, err make "campaign donations" to more politicians.
Little things like questionable legality and ethics aside...
There are companies which have continued "business as usual" whilst effectivly on trial. Anyway what's to stop the RIAA setting up another front company?
Correction: pooly-made closed-source encryption ain't no guarantee.
It's more the case that proprietary cryptography equates to very poor cryptography. Thus you can probably be guaranteed that using such a system with not be very secure.
Good encryption (such as AES) is in practice unbreakable on a human time-scale, even knowing the encryption algorithm (with a few caveats for side-channels and grossly huge known-plaintext attacks).
It also matters how well the actual code follows the algorithm. Consider what happened with the Debian SSL code when an "optimisation" was made.
It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.
In which case the "tech" was an idiot. Since all they needed to do was replace the board.
We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)
Actually if you encrypt you should encrypt everything. Sending most things as plaintext with a few bits encrypted tells any evesdropper to pay special attention to the encrypted. About the only situation doing something is likely to be a good idea is where all the encrypted messages are trivial/garbage and you can be sure of fooling the evesdropper into overlooking important ones sent unencrypted.
Well, maybe, but is what they are proposing really nagging, and just how many people are avoid Ffx 3 for a reason, other than just not knowing it's out or being lazy?
You mean like FF3's SSL certificates issues. As well as not all addons working as they did with FF2. There's also still the issue that global extensions need to be installed via the command line and that the built in extensions updater won't update update global extensions.
Around here (Austria), there's a public "do not call these numbers for marketing" list and you can ask "the government" to put your phone number on it. When you get unsolicited calls from someone trying to sell you something despite your being on the list, sue them out of existence. (note that all the court costs are covered by the losing side)
How do you deal with someone calling you from outside the EU? Or someone who won't tell you their address...
The first thing I ask for is if they can give me a telephone number so I can call them back later. Because these phone calls are done by stupid call centers, they usually say they don't have one.
Most likely it's a third party doing the calling.
I tell them that's pretty damn stupid for a telephone company.... They usually try to explain to me that the sales department doesnt have a number to call but the support dep does, or a similar excuse.
Finally i tell them that's very unfortunate, because I have a strict policy of not buying anything from people I can't reach,
It's amazing how so many companies don't understand the idea of customers contacting them, looking on their website, etc.
I turned on a new land line to get DSL less than two weeks ago. I do not even *know* the number. The next day I started getting telespam, mostly recordings. I get a couple every day. The worst part is that all but one of them had no idea who they were calling.
If you only wanted the line for DSL why did you bother connecting a regular phone to it?
Well, either that or we follow actual history of forced voting and find out they vote for the first person on the ballot, so we end up with these choices:
- Politicians will change their names to start with the letter "A".
- We randomly sort the names on the ballot, so it is random who gets all the donkey votes for the election
- We have to give up on paper ballots entirely and go with Diebold-style machines that will "randomly" place a candidate in the first position so the donkey vote is statistically insignificant
- Print each individual ballots randomly, thus guaranteeing a higher level of human error when counting the votes
There are other options. Including having the first "candidate" be "Abstain", "None of following", "Donkey", etc. As well as avoiding broken STV which requires a preference to be given for every candidate, even when the voter either dosn't care about some of the candidates or feels that some of them are unsuitable for the office in question.
Perhaps the message from voting advocates should not be, "You have an obligation to vote, so go vote." I would think a more appropriate message would be, "We would like for everyone to inform themselves and make an educated decision about the candidates, but if you are unable to do so, by all means DON'T VOTE."
How do you know that an "educated decision..." does not equate to "none of the above"? It's perfectly possible to have a set of candidates (even with a large number of candidates) who do not represent the opinions of voters.
The problem that content providers face is that we don't care anymore. Times have changed. We have watched them rake in money for thirty years
It's rather longer than 30 years and these same companies are continuing to rake in money. Maybe just not quite as much. But compared with many other industries they are doing very well.
and now they want to give us toys, make us pay for them, and then take them back. That isn't going to work.
It isn't going to for for the simple reason that it's generally understood that when you give or sell things you have no further claim on them. Unless it is clearly stated that this is a loan, rental, lease, etc at the outset.
Government backdoors are bad NOT because the NSA is snooping, but because the idiots that designed them probably left the keys somewhere where the Russian mafia can find it.
You should probably consider yourself lucky if it's only the Russian Mafia who can get their hands on them.
The problem is that it is not a free market or unregulated. If I don't like the speed I get from my cable company, I can't switch. I am locked into one cable company, because the government has stopped other cable companies from offering service in my area.
Public utilities tend to be "natural monopolies". You really wouldn't want about a hundred sets of cables and pipes running down your street...
They are local monopolies, and people wonder why they don't offer more speed for the same price???
If they were simply local monopolies they'd be subject to the control of local government.
free market and unregulated business only work to provide a better product to the consumer when there's no collusion between said businesses.
Also where there is the potential for competition. When it comes to DSL and cable you have public utilities with "natural monopolies". There have been all sorts of attempts to introduce "competition" into public utilities over the last 20-30 years. Without that much in the way of success...
oh there's plenty of demand... why do you think telecoms are pushing so hard against net neutrality? they're already seeing load and demand on their networks exceeding or getting close to peak capacity. the right thing to do would be to upgrade their capacity.
Which is a rather different issue compared with the speed of connections they offer customers. Indeed increasing that speed without additional network capacity is only going to result in more annoyed customers.
The law says, "A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both."
If corporate "people" could actually be imprisoned this might be of some value.
I haven't even read any reviews yet but I am already drawing the conclusion its a dire film based on the fact they are attempting a cover up.
Trying to block reviews is probably more harmful to the movie than the worst possible review. Even a highly critical review might make someone curious to see if it really is that bad.
The disconnect between the reality of online culture and the actions of people trying to sell things to the Internet using public seems to be growing, not shrinking as you would expect it to do with more young people entering the workforce with direct experience of the culture.
Most likely these people are not the ones making the decisions...
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd like it if more companies *actually lost* my personal information more often. As in, "oops, that personal information was irretrievably deleted."
Or even as in they don't store personal information beyond the point when it is actually needed.
All sorts of companies appear to treat infrequent, even "once only" customers as though they are frequent repeat customers. It simply dosn't make much sense for a hotel chain to do this. With the possible exception of big corporate customers, the typical customer simply does not use their facilities that often. There is simply no good reason to store credit card details after any transactions (including those related to theft from/damage to rooms) are completed.
Corporations exist to shield people from liability, not to allow people to indirectly commit crimes.
The original idea was to shield people from financial liability so as to encourage people to invest money into a businesses. If the business failed an investor would only be liable for the amount they'd out in, unlike with sole ownership, partnership, etc, where an owner would be liable for all debts.
Somehow this has mutated into the idea of protecting executives and employees from the consequences of their actions, even breaking the law. Together with the idea of corporate entities being "people" without the necessary infrastructure to enforce criminal laws against them.
No reason to stop business as usual while he RIAA tries to buy, err make "campaign donations" to more politicians.
Little things like questionable legality and ethics aside...
There are companies which have continued "business as usual" whilst effectivly on trial. Anyway what's to stop the RIAA setting up another front company?
The article isn't too clear on this point, does it affect every Best Western Hotel or just in Europe?
Given that it says 13,000 hotels it most likely means every one, anywhere on the planet.
I wonder at what point the act of precisely pointing out how certain government actions are illegal, will become an illegal act?
Might photographs/videos of police officers breaking the law be the first example of this.
Correction: pooly-made closed-source encryption ain't no guarantee.
It's more the case that proprietary cryptography equates to very poor cryptography. Thus you can probably be guaranteed that using such a system with not be very secure.
Good encryption (such as AES) is in practice unbreakable on a human time-scale, even knowing the encryption algorithm (with a few caveats for side-channels and grossly huge known-plaintext attacks).
It also matters how well the actual code follows the algorithm. Consider what happened with the Debian SSL code when an "optimisation" was made.
It's motherboard failed and because it was under warranty I took it into the shop where I got it to have it repaired. I specifically told the tech not to erase or format that drive, it was the second hdd in the PC and used to store user data, but when reinstalling Linux he put it on automatic which did reformat the drive.
In which case the "tech" was an idiot. Since all they needed to do was replace the board.
We should start encrypting all our data, no matter how "unsuspicious" or "ordinary" it may be. Everything from conversations between family and friends to financial records (though you should be already encrypting the latter anyway.)
Actually if you encrypt you should encrypt everything. Sending most things as plaintext with a few bits encrypted tells any evesdropper to pay special attention to the encrypted. About the only situation doing something is likely to be a good idea is where all the encrypted messages are trivial/garbage and you can be sure of fooling the evesdropper into overlooking important ones sent unencrypted.
Well, maybe, but is what they are proposing really nagging, and just how many people are avoid Ffx 3 for a reason, other than just not knowing it's out or being lazy?
You mean like FF3's SSL certificates issues. As well as not all addons working as they did with FF2.
There's also still the issue that global extensions need to be installed via the command line and that the built in extensions updater won't update update global extensions.
Around here (Austria), there's a public "do not call these numbers for marketing" list and you can ask "the government" to put your phone number on it. When you get unsolicited calls from someone trying to sell you something despite your being on the list, sue them out of existence. (note that all the court costs are covered by the losing side)
How do you deal with someone calling you from outside the EU? Or someone who won't tell you their address...
The first thing I ask for is if they can give me a telephone number so I can call them back later. Because these phone calls are done by stupid call centers, they usually say they don't have one.
Most likely it's a third party doing the calling.
I tell them that's pretty damn stupid for a telephone company.... They usually try to explain to me that the sales department doesnt have a number to call but the support dep does, or a similar excuse.
Finally i tell them that's very unfortunate, because I have a strict policy of not buying anything from people I can't reach,
It's amazing how so many companies don't understand the idea of customers contacting them, looking on their website, etc.
I turned on a new land line to get DSL less than two weeks ago. I do not even *know* the number. The next day I started getting telespam, mostly recordings. I get a couple every day. The worst part is that all but one of them had no idea who they were calling.
If you only wanted the line for DSL why did you bother connecting a regular phone to it?
Well, either that or we follow actual history of forced voting and find out they vote for the first person on the ballot, so we end up with these choices:
- Politicians will change their names to start with the letter "A".
- We randomly sort the names on the ballot, so it is random who gets all the donkey votes for the election
- We have to give up on paper ballots entirely and go with Diebold-style machines that will "randomly" place a candidate in the first position so the donkey vote is statistically insignificant
- Print each individual ballots randomly, thus guaranteeing a higher level of human error when counting the votes
There are other options. Including having the first "candidate" be "Abstain", "None of following", "Donkey", etc. As well as avoiding broken STV which requires a preference to be given for every candidate, even when the voter either dosn't care about some of the candidates or feels that some of them are unsuitable for the office in question.
Perhaps the message from voting advocates should not be, "You have an obligation to vote, so go vote." I would think a more appropriate message would be, "We would like for everyone to inform themselves and make an educated decision about the candidates, but if you are unable to do so, by all means DON'T VOTE."
How do you know that an "educated decision..." does not equate to "none of the above"? It's perfectly possible to have a set of candidates (even with a large number of candidates) who do not represent the opinions of voters.
The problem that content providers face is that we don't care anymore. Times have changed. We have watched them rake in money for thirty years
It's rather longer than 30 years and these same companies are continuing to rake in money. Maybe just not quite as much. But compared with many other industries they are doing very well.
and now they want to give us toys, make us pay for them, and then take them back. That isn't going to work.
It isn't going to for for the simple reason that it's generally understood that when you give or sell things you have no further claim on them. Unless it is clearly stated that this is a loan, rental, lease, etc at the outset.
Government backdoors are bad NOT because the NSA is snooping, but because the idiots that designed them probably left the keys somewhere where the Russian mafia can find it.
You should probably consider yourself lucky if it's only the Russian Mafia who can get their hands on them.
The problem is that it is not a free market or unregulated. If I don't like the speed I get from my cable company, I can't switch. I am locked into one cable company, because the government has stopped other cable companies from offering service in my area.
Public utilities tend to be "natural monopolies". You really wouldn't want about a hundred sets of cables and pipes running down your street...
They are local monopolies, and people wonder why they don't offer more speed for the same price???
If they were simply local monopolies they'd be subject to the control of local government.
free market and unregulated business only work to provide a better product to the consumer when there's no collusion between said businesses.
Also where there is the potential for competition. When it comes to DSL and cable you have public utilities with "natural monopolies". There have been all sorts of attempts to introduce "competition" into public utilities over the last 20-30 years. Without that much in the way of success...
oh there's plenty of demand... why do you think telecoms are pushing so hard against net neutrality? they're already seeing load and demand on their networks exceeding or getting close to peak capacity.
the right thing to do would be to upgrade their capacity.
Which is a rather different issue compared with the speed of connections they offer customers. Indeed increasing that speed without additional network capacity is only going to result in more annoyed customers.
It's a little bit like stalking isn't it? Maybe this company should face criminal charges for stalking.
Until "corporate prisons" exist criminal law is likely to continue to be ineffective against "corporate people".
The law says, "A person violating this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both."
If corporate "people" could actually be imprisoned this might be of some value.
I haven't even read any reviews yet but I am already drawing the conclusion its a dire film based on the fact they are attempting a cover up.
Trying to block reviews is probably more harmful to the movie than the worst possible review. Even a highly critical review might make someone curious to see if it really is that bad.
The disconnect between the reality of online culture and the actions of people trying to sell things to the Internet using public seems to be growing, not shrinking as you would expect it to do with more young people entering the workforce with direct experience of the culture.
Most likely these people are not the ones making the decisions...
And if the government wants you they can just route your car to the nearest police station(or off nearest cliff).
It's more likely to be the case that "the government" will equate to "some disgruntled government official". As well as the terrorist possibilities.
yeh, but most people aren't busy stockpiling vast quantities of dihydrogen-monoxide and hydrohydroxic acid!
What about "hydrogen hydroxide"?
I have a digital camera powered by a steam engine. And it is portable too (depending on rail locations)!
:)
Presumably Google will be coming out with one which just needs a road. IIRC the USAF even has some powered by avgas