Since the 2000 debacle, politicians seem to have been clamoring all over each other to be the first to bring electronic voting to their constituants. It is obvious from reading this article (did you?) that these systems are far from ready to be used to determine something as important as the leader of the free world for 4 years.
So a few old goats in Florida don't know their right from their left. Big deal! It was hardly a symptom of a problem that, had it really been a problem, would have plagued the voting system since John Adams was elected president.
So now our politicians have decided that the solution to fix a complicated system is to replace it with an even more complicated system. How this kind of logic keeps these idiots in office, I will never understand, but it is clear that these new voting systems are not ready for next year's election.
Is it any wonder where names like "fanboy" come from? It sounds to me like these guys put far more effort on trying to cleverly denegrate Microsoft than objectively evaluating the products they are supposed to be promoting.
It always comes back to some variation of "Well, basically what we're offering isn't that great, but Microsoft is much worse!" It's going to take a lot more convincing argument than that before I will even be tempted to buy an Apple product.
I agree that Microsoft has a long way to go in terms of QU and good OS design, but their shortcomings hardly amount to criminal behavior.
Now if you can prove in civil court that, despite your best efforts (patching servers, closing non-essential ports, etc.), your machines were compromised and damage was done, I'd say you had a good lawsuit.
It's not Microsoft's job to make sure that everyone using their software acts with due diligence and patches their servers. Keep in mind that these problems had actually been dealt with by Microsoft, but was allowed to get out of control because the server admins didn't keep their machines patched.
If you're really determined to blame someone other than the writers of these worms, blame the lazy sysadmins.
I've used Windows for a long time, and never once have I seen a button or anything that says "Click here to disable every computer on your network" or any such thing.
A more appropriate analogy would be a house whose doors and windows are locked, but the padlock on the old cellar door is rusted to the point where a burglar who is looking for a way in may be able to break it.
Sure, does some responsibility lie with the homeowners to make sure their locks are in good shape? Yes! But let's blame the real criminals who commit the actual break-in.
Crackers and burglars seem to equate poor security as an invitation, but that doesn't make their actions any less illegal.
"a big red button in the middle of a highway with a sign saying "pressing this button lets explode 1000 atomic bombs"
We're not talking about a big red button here, we're talking about obscure little bits of code that allows people WHO LOOK FOR THEM to exploit whatever the poorly-written code allows them to do. It's not as obvious to the casual observer as you would have everyone believe.
"It may be cheap, but it's about the same cost to me to buy an album in a store"
...provided that you like EVERY song on that album. Chances are that you'd normally buy that album for 4 or maybe even 5 songs that you like, while still paying for the ones you don't like.
The value-added here is that you only pay for the songs you want, and instead of paying $45 for 3 full albums, you only pay $15 for the 15 songs from those 3 albums that you really wanted.
Of course, as another poster correctly pointed out, the only acceptable cost to them is $0.00.
If you don't consider Apple's $.99 per song cheap, I think you need to re-evaluate your expectations. In case you haven't noticed, you can't get a candy bar for a nickel anymore either.
Nothing like h4x0r-5p34k in the org name to give that little bost of credibility and air of professionalism required to get ahead in this troubled economy!
It was a tactical decision that saved far more military and civilian lives than the number that the bombs killed. The alternative, invasion, would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
"American troops used illegal weapons in Iraq war.. So many others dude!"
And illegally copying/sharing music isn't theft, right?
If spam is theft, than so is the junk mail I get in my mailbox. Of course, I don't try to make it illegal; I throw the junk in the trash.
"You mean my mother, who doesn't even know how to view headers, let alone understand them, is somehow able to prevent the spam from being transmitted to her ISP's SMTP server?"
You could be a nice son and setup some filters for her.
"If that web page or any of the web-bug images in the html email (which sadly we'll never be rid of now!) point to a server in US jurisdiction, thats where the enforcement action should be directed."
So then all someone would have to do is bounce an e-mail looking like a Microsoft advertisement off of a server in Malaysia and send it to Michael, and BAM!; instant legal action against the Evil Empire!
"First, I'm not quite sure why the Libertarian in you is objecting to anti-spam legislation, unless you as a Libertarian are also against the Do Not Call list?"
Because there isn't (to the best of my knowledge anyway) any way for people to stop these calls from coming in the first place. Sure, they can opt to not answer the phone, or leave it off the hook, but there is no way to stop the call from reaching your phone. Given that, regulation was the only solution until private industry comes up with a gadget to identify and block unwanted calls.
"Laws have proven effective in preventing just about any action one person takes against another"
Robbery, murder, trespass all still happen, so I wouldn't say the laws against those acts are particularly effective at preventing them.
"Planting land mines in your yard to prevent trespassers can be effective as well, but that ought not to be necessary."
It ought not be necessary to expect people to lock their doors every night, but it's a good idea, and a reasonable expectation. So is SPAM filtering.
"In every other case of unauthorized access to computers, theft of services, and fraud, the legal system is felt to be the proper venue for resolution."
SPAM is none of the above, unless you consider fliers, credit cards, and other physical junk mail to be unauthorized access to your property. That stuff isn't illegal; why should SPAM?
"Clearly, no person regardless of their distaste for spam or technical aptitude has yet discovered a reliable method for stopping spam"
I submit that most people would be happy enough with simply reducing SPAM to an acceptable level. There are ways to do it; hell I only get about 3 SPAMs per week, if that! And I don't even filter my mail!
"Anyway, baby steps... we don't have to stop the spam problem with one big, perfect piece of legislature all in one blow..."
Perhaps this is the Libertarian in me speaking out, but I'm not convinced that SPAM has or needs a government solution. ISP's that use products like SpamAssassin can help reduce the amount of SPAM that gets to users' inboxes, and client-side software can filter it further.
Like you said, there's no perfect solution. But in this case I'd say that government is not needed. People who are agitated by SPAM enough to want to take measures against it are probably within their ability to do so.
"Maybe a truer responce would have been acheved if every time someone told them to fuck off and slammed the phone down they treated this as an 'I dont respond to spam' reply"
You suggest this research would be more accurate if the people assumed that one response ('fuck off') correlated to an 'I don't respond to spam' reply? You utterly discount the notion that people feel that SPAM is less of an intrusion than being interrupted by a phone call?
It's that kind of flawed logic that produces these bunk survey results in the first place.
Exactly how would such a law be enforced? It's not as if these companies sending all this SPAM readily identify themselves. And what about SPAM originating from outside of the U.S.?
I see this as more toothless-tiger feel-good legislation that politicians sign to get votes. I for one don't buy it for a second.
"Can you imagine missing the last two weeks of 24, The West Wing, ER or whatever you're hooked on because some silly timestamped restriction is set to one week (or less)?"
If that's what you're worried about when you go on vacation, you should probably take a longer vacation.
"How do you tell your young kids that the show that you promised they could watch when they got back home from a long car journey to visit the grandparents can't be watched anymore because you exceeded the time limit?"
You should really be more concerned that your children need to suckle at the electronic teet. Try buying them a book, or heaven forbid, play with them outdoors!
"Let's face it, for a lot of people, life is more hectic now than it was ten years ago."
A myth. There's just more escapes from life, and people can't cope when they have to actually live.
Surely the Slashdot editors haven't become so blind in their zealotry to suggest that bugs and security flaws are exclusive to Microsoft products! The use of the Borg-Gates icon is inappropriate for this story, and demonstrates (IMHO) poor judgement and journalistic integrity.
Slashdot Mirror
So a few old goats in Florida don't know their right from their left. Big deal! It was hardly a symptom of a problem that, had it really been a problem, would have plagued the voting system since John Adams was elected president.
So now our politicians have decided that the solution to fix a complicated system is to replace it with an even more complicated system. How this kind of logic keeps these idiots in office, I will never understand, but it is clear that these new voting systems are not ready for next year's election.
It always comes back to some variation of "Well, basically what we're offering isn't that great, but Microsoft is much worse!" It's going to take a lot more convincing argument than that before I will even be tempted to buy an Apple product.
You're new here, aren't you...
Nope, but it could put the commercial service providers out of business.
Now if you can prove in civil court that, despite your best efforts (patching servers, closing non-essential ports, etc.), your machines were compromised and damage was done, I'd say you had a good lawsuit.
If you're really determined to blame someone other than the writers of these worms, blame the lazy sysadmins.
I've used Windows for a long time, and never once have I seen a button or anything that says "Click here to disable every computer on your network" or any such thing.
A more appropriate analogy would be a house whose doors and windows are locked, but the padlock on the old cellar door is rusted to the point where a burglar who is looking for a way in may be able to break it.
Sure, does some responsibility lie with the homeowners to make sure their locks are in good shape? Yes! But let's blame the real criminals who commit the actual break-in.
Crackers and burglars seem to equate poor security as an invitation, but that doesn't make their actions any less illegal.
We're not talking about a big red button here, we're talking about obscure little bits of code that allows people WHO LOOK FOR THEM to exploit whatever the poorly-written code allows them to do. It's not as obvious to the casual observer as you would have everyone believe.
I know you're just trolling, but unfortunately a lot of people really believe this. It's like blaming homeowners for burglary.
...provided that you like EVERY song on that album. Chances are that you'd normally buy that album for 4 or maybe even 5 songs that you like, while still paying for the ones you don't like.
The value-added here is that you only pay for the songs you want, and instead of paying $45 for 3 full albums, you only pay $15 for the 15 songs from those 3 albums that you really wanted.
Of course, as another poster correctly pointed out, the only acceptable cost to them is $0.00.
If you don't consider Apple's $.99 per song cheap, I think you need to re-evaluate your expectations. In case you haven't noticed, you can't get a candy bar for a nickel anymore either.
Comon! I know this question almost always gets modded down, but I think in this case especially, it's as valid a question as any!
What, was this site started by 14-year-olds?
Just so you know, the grandparent AC poster with the filthy mouth was not me.
It was a tactical decision that saved far more military and civilian lives than the number that the bombs killed. The alternative, invasion, would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
"American troops used illegal weapons in Iraq war.. So many others dude!"
Such as...?
So the obvious solution is to waste time making laws that do nothing about it.
Sometimes I wonder how people this dumb come to represent us... through feel-good do-nothing legislation like this, I suppose.
And illegally copying/sharing music isn't theft, right?
If spam is theft, than so is the junk mail I get in my mailbox. Of course, I don't try to make it illegal; I throw the junk in the trash.
"You mean my mother, who doesn't even know how to view headers, let alone understand them, is somehow able to prevent the spam from being transmitted to her ISP's SMTP server?"
You could be a nice son and setup some filters for her.
So then all someone would have to do is bounce an e-mail looking like a Microsoft advertisement off of a server in Malaysia and send it to Michael, and BAM!; instant legal action against the Evil Empire!
I think you get my point.
Because there isn't (to the best of my knowledge anyway) any way for people to stop these calls from coming in the first place. Sure, they can opt to not answer the phone, or leave it off the hook, but there is no way to stop the call from reaching your phone. Given that, regulation was the only solution until private industry comes up with a gadget to identify and block unwanted calls.
"Laws have proven effective in preventing just about any action one person takes against another"
Robbery, murder, trespass all still happen, so I wouldn't say the laws against those acts are particularly effective at preventing them.
"Planting land mines in your yard to prevent trespassers can be effective as well, but that ought not to be necessary."
It ought not be necessary to expect people to lock their doors every night, but it's a good idea, and a reasonable expectation. So is SPAM filtering.
"In every other case of unauthorized access to computers, theft of services, and fraud, the legal system is felt to be the proper venue for resolution."
SPAM is none of the above, unless you consider fliers, credit cards, and other physical junk mail to be unauthorized access to your property. That stuff isn't illegal; why should SPAM?
"Clearly, no person regardless of their distaste for spam or technical aptitude has yet discovered a reliable method for stopping spam"
I submit that most people would be happy enough with simply reducing SPAM to an acceptable level. There are ways to do it; hell I only get about 3 SPAMs per week, if that! And I don't even filter my mail!
Perhaps this is the Libertarian in me speaking out, but I'm not convinced that SPAM has or needs a government solution. ISP's that use products like SpamAssassin can help reduce the amount of SPAM that gets to users' inboxes, and client-side software can filter it further.
Like you said, there's no perfect solution. But in this case I'd say that government is not needed. People who are agitated by SPAM enough to want to take measures against it are probably within their ability to do so.
You decide!
You suggest this research would be more accurate if the people assumed that one response ('fuck off') correlated to an 'I don't respond to spam' reply? You utterly discount the notion that people feel that SPAM is less of an intrusion than being interrupted by a phone call?
It's that kind of flawed logic that produces these bunk survey results in the first place.
I see this as more toothless-tiger feel-good legislation that politicians sign to get votes. I for one don't buy it for a second.
If that's what you're worried about when you go on vacation, you should probably take a longer vacation.
"How do you tell your young kids that the show that you promised they could watch when they got back home from a long car journey to visit the grandparents can't be watched anymore because you exceeded the time limit?"
You should really be more concerned that your children need to suckle at the electronic teet. Try buying them a book, or heaven forbid, play with them outdoors!
"Let's face it, for a lot of people, life is more hectic now than it was ten years ago."
A myth. There's just more escapes from life, and people can't cope when they have to actually live.
And no, I'm not new here!