And yet society still performs remarkably well, with very few people being convicted of crimes without intent. Even the examples in the book you reference are incredibly poor. E.g., the article makes it sound like one Mr. Councilman was innocently routing mail, and was charged merely because his server made copies incidental to that function. In reality, he was siphoning certain e-mails to use them for personal financial gain. It was not an "unknowing crime," it was a malicious act that was eventually (and erroneously, I believe) decided NOT to be a violation of federal wiretap laws:
"Councilman directed Interloc employees to intercept and copy all incoming communications to subscriber dealers from Amazon.com, an Internet retailer that sells books and other products. Interloc's systems administrator modified the server's procmail recipe so that, before delivering any message from Amazon.com to the recipient's mailbox, procmail would copy the message and place the copy in a separate mailbox that Councilman could access. Thus, procmail would intercept and copy all incoming messages from Amazon.com before they were delivered to the recipient's mailbox, and therefore, before the intended recipient could read the message. This diversion intercepted thousands of messages, and Councilman and other Interloc employees routinely read the e-mail messages sent to Interloc subscribers in the hope of gaining a commercial advantage."
According to the jury, the defendant in this case had clear intent to block access for malicious purposes. I trust their insights over anyone else on Slashdot, because they *saw* the evidence, they *heard* the testimony, and they acted accordingly. Yes, this was an unfortunate incident that could have been handled without the courts, but the party on trial was not without fault. When you play with fire...
The point in having a jury is that you have disinterested third parties reviewing the facts instead of some guy in a wig & powder who a) wants to exercise his power, and b) stands to gain from a high conviction rate. Juries live in (relative) anonymity, have little incentive to do anything other than weigh the evidence, have typically not been jaded by years of trying cases, and what gain they might receive (say, by writing a book) is not contingent upon the verdict returned, but by the first-hand experience and insight they can provide to the specifics of the case.
That said, I don't disagree that as the party rendering judgment, a jury should also provide a counterbalance to the misapplication of the law, but it's not their sole raison d'etre.
On a related note, is there anything to enable low-level remote access? Something like Dell DRAC, so that you can actually change BIOS settings and the like? Sometimes I need to reboot Windows remotely, which isn't the default OS, and I can't access the boot manager configuration from Windows. I imagine something like that would be difficult to implement in software, and obviously a software solution would be impossible to use if the machine is off, so I don't really care if it's third-party hardware as long as I don't have to buy a Dell server.
To be fair, Flight 225 "crashed" in Romulus shortly after takeoff, and it was never determined whether the loss of power to the Flaps Warning System was accidental or deliberate.
...using less of almost anything is an environmental positive.
Which is why I'm launching my new campaign: Chicks Gone Green -- Using Less Judgment, Fewer Clothes, and Zero Inhibition
Also keep an eye out for my environmentalist videos: Eating Organic with Protein Shakes; Cleaning up the Environment (Starts at Home); and Saving Water by Showering Together.
And of course, my educational series for the classroom: Things That Shouldn't Be Green; Being Positive You're Negative; and my personal favorite, Keeping Methane Out Of The Air -- The Unexpected Benefits of Kegel Exercise.
Yes and no. Just like in the civilian world, input isn't necessarily either accepted or valued going up the chain. You have idealistic and apathetic middle management. What neither really understands is that the end result in either case is very much the same -- the idealists don't believe they're wasting time, and the apathetic bunch don't care if they are.
That, and most of the PowerPoint presentations are more to show you "did something," than to actually perform a useful function. Very little real training or dissemination of information occurs during such events -- most of that is hands on in day to day work -- but it fulfills a checklist of required activities. PT - check. Cleaning - check. Maintenance - check. Training (via PowerPoint)- check.
Alternately, if it was your own life on the line, what price would you put on it?
What price would *you* put on it? Food for your family, for life? Guaranteed college education? Good jobs? I'm sure there's a price you'd accept for your life, even if you weren't around to collect it. People kill themselves and others every day for money. People pay to have babies. People pay to own other people. There is absolutely a monetary value for human lives, even if that value isn't fixed.
Actually, something you could do that wouldn't violate any ethical or legal principles would be to provide contact information for non-purchasers to air their displeasure... preferably multiple physical or electronic addresses that don't resolve to a circular file.
Perhaps, but at the same time it means people who were *likely* to buy the game will still buy it regardless of onerous DRM. That's bad news for those of us who abstained on principle.
Both of those issues have been addressed by the latest Battlefield, which has servers all over the world (which addresses latency) but only allows trusted providers to host servers (which addresses security). AFAIK, the server code hasn't been publicly leaked. In this case, it's done in the name of anti-cheat protections, but the end result is the same.
Granted, the code will probably leak one day, and if "remote gaming" were universally the standard, some titles would still leak then as well. Still, in such a scenario, you may see a few titles leaked here and there, but that's still less than the 100% of today, so it would be a net gain from the perspective of publishers.
The story existed without Gizmodo paying for it. They didn't pay the guy to lose his phone -- they just paid for exclusive information *about* the phone (and how it was lost).
It's a feature of these small lithium batteries that they need to bed in. It's very noticeable on the iPhone, where I was charging the phone once a day from red to doing it every couple of days without changing my usage at all.
I've heard lots of myths about batteries, but that's a new one. Batteries definitely do not have a "break in" period -- if anything they will lose capacity (however minute) from the very first cycle, as well as over time.
As for the anecdotal evidence, I'd wager that you were probably using your phone more when you first got it than a couple days later after the luster wore off, whether you noticed or not.
That's like saying HIV doesn't kill people -- while technically true, it ignores the root cause. The jails *are* overcrowded, and if you've ever been in one, you'll realize very quickly that they're filled with *very* stupid people, or in the best case, persons of average or better intelligence who have made a stupid decision. Stupid might not be illegal, but the effects of stupidity quite often tend to be.
Meh.. in most cases I would agree with you, but Gizmodo made it known that they had the property (after the finder himself tried to contact Apple), and returned it to the rightful owner when asked. Purchasing the property may have been an offense within the letter of the law, but it's a very weak chain of events for claiming damages when the property was promptly returned.
The only real damage here was the loss of confidentiality. But if Apple didn't want the information in public, they (or Mr. Powell acting as their agent) shouldn't have brought the phone out in public. If they didn't give him permission, then he's really the one to blame. But if they did, which is probably the case, then it was a risk they deemed acceptable. Even if they didn't consider the possibility outright, that would be negligence; i.e. not an excuse.
If your assessment were true, any startup would be able to step in and offer people what they "really" want. The real issue is that once the price/performance ratio starts increasing, the number of customers diminish at least proportionally, if not more. Unless there's a large target audience that isn't being adequately served by the current product offerings *and* is willing and able to pay more for a product tailored to their needs, the product won't exist (for very long, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
And yet society still performs remarkably well, with very few people being convicted of crimes without intent. Even the examples in the book you reference are incredibly poor. E.g., the article makes it sound like one Mr. Councilman was innocently routing mail, and was charged merely because his server made copies incidental to that function. In reality, he was siphoning certain e-mails to use them for personal financial gain. It was not an "unknowing crime," it was a malicious act that was eventually (and erroneously, I believe) decided NOT to be a violation of federal wiretap laws:
According to the jury, the defendant in this case had clear intent to block access for malicious purposes. I trust their insights over anyone else on Slashdot, because they *saw* the evidence, they *heard* the testimony, and they acted accordingly. Yes, this was an unfortunate incident that could have been handled without the courts, but the party on trial was not without fault. When you play with fire...
The point in having a jury is that you have disinterested third parties reviewing the facts instead of some guy in a wig & powder who a) wants to exercise his power, and b) stands to gain from a high conviction rate. Juries live in (relative) anonymity, have little incentive to do anything other than weigh the evidence, have typically not been jaded by years of trying cases, and what gain they might receive (say, by writing a book) is not contingent upon the verdict returned, but by the first-hand experience and insight they can provide to the specifics of the case.
That said, I don't disagree that as the party rendering judgment, a jury should also provide a counterbalance to the misapplication of the law, but it's not their sole raison d'etre.
Y'ruoe rghit, it's cpetlelmoy libelge. Fantacising!
On a related note, is there anything to enable low-level remote access? Something like Dell DRAC, so that you can actually change BIOS settings and the like? Sometimes I need to reboot Windows remotely, which isn't the default OS, and I can't access the boot manager configuration from Windows. I imagine something like that would be difficult to implement in software, and obviously a software solution would be impossible to use if the machine is off, so I don't really care if it's third-party hardware as long as I don't have to buy a Dell server.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
[This post removed under the first rule of USENET.]
Is that 'have' as in possess, or consume?
1.It may not be using the standard floppy disk controler interface and may not be able to support that particular gizmo
Well, if you RTFL (I know, I know ....) then you'd have seen this:
The device connects to your existing power and data (ribbon) cables.
It's not entirely clear, but I'm pretty sure you're interpreting the original sentence ass backwards.
To be fair, Flight 225 "crashed" in Romulus shortly after takeoff, and it was never determined whether the loss of power to the Flaps Warning System was accidental or deliberate.
Coincidence? I think not. Never trust a Romulan.
...using less of almost anything is an environmental positive.
Which is why I'm launching my new campaign: Chicks Gone Green -- Using Less Judgment, Fewer Clothes, and Zero Inhibition
Also keep an eye out for my environmentalist videos: Eating Organic with Protein Shakes; Cleaning up the Environment (Starts at Home); and Saving Water by Showering Together.
And of course, my educational series for the classroom: Things That Shouldn't Be Green; Being Positive You're Negative; and my personal favorite, Keeping Methane Out Of The Air -- The Unexpected Benefits of Kegel Exercise.
I think that warning is rather unwarranted...
given that nobody reads the articles anyway.
Yes and no. Just like in the civilian world, input isn't necessarily either accepted or valued going up the chain. You have idealistic and apathetic middle management. What neither really understands is that the end result in either case is very much the same -- the idealists don't believe they're wasting time, and the apathetic bunch don't care if they are.
That, and most of the PowerPoint presentations are more to show you "did something," than to actually perform a useful function. Very little real training or dissemination of information occurs during such events -- most of that is hands on in day to day work -- but it fulfills a checklist of required activities. PT - check. Cleaning - check. Maintenance - check. Training (via PowerPoint)- check.
And some movies are nothing more than filler between the parts that were included in the trailer.
Alternately, if it was your own life on the line, what price would you put on it?
What price would *you* put on it? Food for your family, for life? Guaranteed college education? Good jobs? I'm sure there's a price you'd accept for your life, even if you weren't around to collect it. People kill themselves and others every day for money. People pay to have babies. People pay to own other people. There is absolutely a monetary value for human lives, even if that value isn't fixed.
Actually, something you could do that wouldn't violate any ethical or legal principles would be to provide contact information for non-purchasers to air their displeasure... preferably multiple physical or electronic addresses that don't resolve to a circular file.
At the very least, save them to release after you've left the company. Or perhaps summarize the arguments.
Perhaps, but at the same time it means people who were *likely* to buy the game will still buy it regardless of onerous DRM. That's bad news for those of us who abstained on principle.
Both of those issues have been addressed by the latest Battlefield, which has servers all over the world (which addresses latency) but only allows trusted providers to host servers (which addresses security). AFAIK, the server code hasn't been publicly leaked. In this case, it's done in the name of anti-cheat protections, but the end result is the same.
Granted, the code will probably leak one day, and if "remote gaming" were universally the standard, some titles would still leak then as well. Still, in such a scenario, you may see a few titles leaked here and there, but that's still less than the 100% of today, so it would be a net gain from the perspective of publishers.
The story existed without Gizmodo paying for it. They didn't pay the guy to lose his phone -- they just paid for exclusive information *about* the phone (and how it was lost).
It's a feature of these small lithium batteries that they need to bed in. It's very noticeable on the iPhone, where I was charging the phone once a day from red to doing it every couple of days without changing my usage at all.
I've heard lots of myths about batteries, but that's a new one. Batteries definitely do not have a "break in" period -- if anything they will lose capacity (however minute) from the very first cycle, as well as over time.
As for the anecdotal evidence, I'd wager that you were probably using your phone more when you first got it than a couple days later after the luster wore off, whether you noticed or not.
That's like saying HIV doesn't kill people -- while technically true, it ignores the root cause. The jails *are* overcrowded, and if you've ever been in one, you'll realize very quickly that they're filled with *very* stupid people, or in the best case, persons of average or better intelligence who have made a stupid decision. Stupid might not be illegal, but the effects of stupidity quite often tend to be.
Meh.. in most cases I would agree with you, but Gizmodo made it known that they had the property (after the finder himself tried to contact Apple), and returned it to the rightful owner when asked. Purchasing the property may have been an offense within the letter of the law, but it's a very weak chain of events for claiming damages when the property was promptly returned.
The only real damage here was the loss of confidentiality. But if Apple didn't want the information in public, they (or Mr. Powell acting as their agent) shouldn't have brought the phone out in public. If they didn't give him permission, then he's really the one to blame. But if they did, which is probably the case, then it was a risk they deemed acceptable. Even if they didn't consider the possibility outright, that would be negligence; i.e. not an excuse.
That only works for 3 years.
I'd say relations between the two are cooling.
If your assessment were true, any startup would be able to step in and offer people what they "really" want. The real issue is that once the price/performance ratio starts increasing, the number of customers diminish at least proportionally, if not more. Unless there's a large target audience that isn't being adequately served by the current product offerings *and* is willing and able to pay more for a product tailored to their needs, the product won't exist (for very long, anyway).