Also, one problem with the Limited User idea. Imagine the same people, who clicked on this attachment getting a dialog box roughly like: For free HOT SEX type your administrator password here:
(Standard text box)
(OK button)
Ok, so they wouldn't be able to infest their work PC's, but we would still have a million infested home machines. Social engineering is a social problem, the likelyhood of a technological fix is really slim. Sure, there are applications which are more secure by default, but an uninformed user is still going to create problems.
For example, imagine how this would work on Thunderbird. Users are going to turn on the preview pane, because they like it. Users are going to allow remote images to load, because they want to see them. Users are going to run the attachment, and click through all the warning messages about security, because they want to see naked women. Sure, the ActiveX crap will be stopped, and autoload scripts won't work, but the attachment, which the user specifically ran will still infest their PC; and the user will have provided it the administrator password to do it. And as Thunderbird grows, virus writters will start looking for it's address book too.
I realize I will get flamed to hell for this, but Linux is not the panacea of security. It's great, but put in the hands of untrained people, and given the virus attention of windows, it will get infested, it may just require more social engineering than is required on a windows box.
I've always thought along similar lines. Most people can't or won't bother learning enough about their computer to take care of it. They would rather pay for someone else to clean it up from time to time. To me this is a good thing! I can do something that isn't really that hard (try replacing an asphalt shingle roof sometime) and charge US$50/hour to do it.
Truth is we all do this in some places in our lives. Many of us (myself included) really don't want to do automotive work. I can, but I just don't enjoy it and am not that great at it, I would rather pay someone else, more talented than myself, to do it. Having tried it, I'll never do a roof again, I'll just pay someone else to do it. I eat meat regularly, but I haven't the slightest clue of how to do a butcher's job. If we all spent some time and thought about it, we'd find that there are services and products we consume, which we would be hard pressed to supply ourselves. This isn't a sign of a lack of intellegence, it's simply a symptom of our specialized society. There is simply too many jobs and to much knowledge for one person to have. So, we have different people who specialize in what they are good at. We use money for a medium of exchange, and all exchange our services with each other.
Those of us who happen to be good with computers and/or cleaning up an infected PC sell that service to others who don't want to spend their time in that area, so they hire us, making us valuable. In a lot of ways we are comparable to mechanics. We fix a broken machine for a price. We are paid because we have the knowledge and tools to do the job, and most people could care less about how the computer works, but it would require effort.
Anytime you think about insulting the end users, keep in mind that their ignorance is what is paying your bills. If everyone was able to keep their computer running smoothly and virus free by themselves, most of us would have to get a real job. Ya, it's not fun to clean up an infested Windows machine, but would you rather be flipping burgers?
Re:Meanwhile, on this side of the Atlantic...
on
Verizon vs. Europe
·
· Score: 1
That's actually not a bad idea. Personally I blocked the entirety of the Netherlands (80.0.0.0/8) as I kept getting spam from there, and don't have any reason to get legitimate email from there. If you don't ever expect to get legitimate email from a country and keep getting spam from that netblock, blackhole it.
Now if I could just get one of my friends to switch from Comcast I'd dump that spam laden network in the blackhole as well.
I know, those damn French are just itching to do horrible things to the US. First they oppose an invasion by our glorious leader, now they are stealing our ideas.
Let's get this straight once and for all, the US is where all of this type of idiotic legal nonsense is supposed to happen. The US is the source of all IP stupidity and patent system screwups. Not France, not Australia, just the US. Now the rest of you countries can just go somewhere else and find something else to do in a bad way, but leave the IP stuff for the US. You get me?
</Sarcasm> (Sarcasm tags added for the blindingly stupid)
Bad anaolgy. This is more like testing the dead bolt on your door, and discovering that it has a glaring weakness. You then explain in, a public forum, that weakness, so that other people can verify that weakness and/or find a fix for it. You might even publish such findings in a well read report about such things like, I don't know, Consumer Reports. So, hopefully, better informed consumers can avoid/replace/harden said dead bolt.
Sure, he might have gone about this differently. Inform the company about the flaw before posting, and give them a bit to sort it out. However, this has been shown to be a bad idea as well, since companies tend to sue people over this. Also, there is no knowing how long a patch will take, and if some malicious people have discovred this already. It's better to get the information out in the public realm so that the public can start dealing with the consequenses of the problem.
This guy is not responsible for exposing people's systems to harm or for breaking into anyone's system. The company is at fault, this guy just pointed out the problem.
Neat link, but one minor problem, it's unsupportable. Now, I'm not saying I like Bill Frist, but there's no point putting words in the guy's mouth. As the author of that link admits, and I checked on my own, finding a credible news source to back up the claim is basically impossible. Given the rather vindictive way politicians act towards one another, don't you think one side or the other would have made a huge flap over this? What about the ACLU or the EFF? This sounds like a great thing for one of them to latch onto, but a google search came up empty of credible news sources.
Now, I will grant that the idea of the current government wanting to create a "Brave New World" isn't that far fetched, but then most urban legends tend to do this sort of thing; they build a plausable story, with spurious support, and pass it off as fact. Because people either want to believe it, or are too sacred to question it, it grows like a weed.
Wake me if this bill is actually introduced, or Frist is widely quoted as plannig on it. And no, a bunch of weblogs passing around the same story doesn't count. Yes, bloggers broke the Bush document hoax, but that doesn't mean they have the same credibility as the Associated Press. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And negative proof is much eaiser than affirmative evidence to come by
I always liked the line my friend's father used when his kids threw a fit about something like this, "If you don't stop crying, I'll give you a reson to cry." In other words, shut up, do it, or you'll get spanked.
I think there is a good place in tort law for this sort of thing. If you file a suit, where it's obvious, to a reasonable person, that you are just throwing a fit with no merit, you should be slapped down, and hard. Sueing someone over exposing your flaws sounds like a good start. Not only should the case be thrown out, but the company should have to pay this guy the 900,000 they are after him for. And, since there is a criminal suit against the guy, the company CEO and board members should be tossed in jail for whatever term this guy might be on the hook for.
I won't argue your points at all, I agree with them. My whole point is that healthcare is not a necessity for life, and therefore should not be considered a right. It's a damn good idea, and something I would highly recommend and take advantage of myself, but I don't think that there should be a requirement to make everyone pay to cover those people who either can't or won't get coverage.
It's probably worth noting that I tend to be a social darwanist (not to the full extreme, just a tendancy), also I tend towards social libertarianism. So I'm of the opinion that people are responsible for getting health coverage, and are subject to the consequences of their actions if they fail to get it or get adequate coverage. Perhaps it could be called egoism, but, why should I have to pay so that someone who isn't able to manage their finances can have coverage? Yes, I had certain advantages, like parents who had some foresight before having kids. Again, I fail to see how this creates a responsibility, on my part, to pay for those that didn't have such an advantage. With or without this advantage it is still possible to get healthcare, it all comes down to the choices you make in life. I've made some bad ones and am dealing with the consequences, and I don't expect anyone else to fix them for me, why should I have to pay for someone else's mistakes?
That was true a hundred years ago- if you were VERY lucky anyway and avoided most of the major diseases. I would suggest that in today's environement, we don't have enough unpolluted environment left to survive without it- we'd all get cancer and die rather quickly.
The same could be said of central heating, people used to die regularly in harsh winters, should this now be a right?
I will agree that we have done some horrible things to our environment, but I don't think I could agree with the statement that our environment is unlivable without heathcare. Though I think this is going to be a point of opinion, without some rather unethical studies to back it up, so I'll not argue with it.
It's that plethora of trace stuff that is good preventive (as opposed to reactive) medical care. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that without any medical care at all- you yourself would likely not have survived to see your first birthday- because in societies without medical care with our level of pollution, 90% of the children don't.
I'd love to see some studies to back that 90% number up. I will agree that, without heathcare, infant mortality is fairly common. But it is not an unlivable situation.
It's in what you call the plethora of trace stuff- vitamin & mineral supplements, vaccinations, all of those well baby visits I had to pay for in my son's first year of life because NASE is a bunch of con artists who won't pay for required stuff in Oregon (though they will happily take your premiums), and the occasional screening so some new virus doesn't wipe out whole cities before being stopped.
Good for you, you've given your children a better chance for survival, and for passing on their genes. I'm not saying that healthcare isn't a damn good idea, just that it is not a requirement for life. I would say that you should have researched the situation with your health insurance better, before having kids, so that you either would have been ready for the costs or found a better insurer.
Hmm- something that the lack of kills people is a luxury to you?
I think the difference here is, this is something which extends life, not a requirement for life. Lack of air will necessarilly kill you, lack of heathcare might kill you. In my opinion, it's up to you to get it or don't.
Depends on the night, of course. If it happened right before a major pollution spill or an outbreak of some new epidemic, not many would be allive to go on.
From a species standpoint, that may not be a bad thing. Going back to Darwinian "survival of the fittest". Those which are able to cope with the new disease and/or environment will survive to breed and produce a more sustainable species. When the Black Death came along to Europe, it wiped out a large part of the population, which generally sucked for them. But the species as a whole survived it and was better able to resist the disease because of it.
Like I said, a hundred years ago maybe- since then we've messed with our environment to the point where I rather doubt it.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I will agree that our environment is damaged, but I don't think it's unlivable. And this would seem to be at the heart of our disagreement.
Health care is not a right. It's a NEED. As in food, clothing, shelter, water, medical care.
I call bullshit. There is no actual need for healthcare, you can survive without it. Granted, it tends to prolong life, but that does not make it a need. If you take a look at the human body as a system, you'll find that it requires food, water, and oxygen to operate (ignoring the plethora of trace stuff). Nothing in that system requires healthcare. I challenge you to look somewhere in the functioning of a human body and point out the specific need for healthcare. Yes, heathcare tends to make life nicer, and longer. It also keeps people alive that would have, otherwise, died. This is more the definition of a luxury than a need.
Another way to look at it, what would happen if things magically disappeared overnight:
Food - We'd all starve, end of the human race.
Water - We'd all die of dehydration, end of the human race.
Oxygen - We'd probably all die of asphixyation before we woke up, end of the human race.
Healthcare - A lot of people who can't survive without it would die off, the rest of the human race would go on about it's lives, probably a bit more carefully.
Humans existed before heathcare, and could make it without it, so it's not a need, no matter how many stuffed shirts you have saying otherwise.
Ever hear of a designated driver? Or, <insert diety here> forbid that you actually plan ahead. If you know you are going to be drinking arrange for a ride and/or call a cab. It's really not that hard to avoid driving under the influence, it just takes a little forethought.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that killing someone while driving drunk should be treated on the same level as premeditated murder. Afterall, you made several concious decisions leading up to the point where you killed that person. I don't care how OK you feel, or what antecdotal evidence you have about driving drunk, there's enough science to back up the claim that you are impared, you're just too stupid to accept it.
A few things the article seem to miss:
What is the longevity of this material? Can you spray once and leave it for years, or does it degrade over time?
How much does this stuff cost? They mention quantum dots, so are we talking about exotic materials which are going to be expensive?
How do environmental factors affect this stuff? Will it hold up to rain, wind, sun?
How nasty are the chemicals in making it? The process to make most solar cells involve some nasty chemicals, granted, compared to coal ash and massive pollution, it might be worth it.
It sounds exciting, 30% efficancy might make me a convert to solar.
That's the way it was in the court decision, I just copied and pasted and added a bit of formatting. I thought it was odd too, but who am I to question a Superior Court Judge, they can do things with the english language that I would never dream of.
Actualy, the judges addressed this. From the decision (With a bit of re-formatting):
This matter is hereby remanded so the district court may:
(1) Order the RIAA to return to Charter
any and all information obtained from the subpoenas;
(2) Order the RIAA to maintain no record of information derived from the subpoenas;
(3) Order the RIAA to make no further use of the subscriber data obtained via the subpoenas; and
(d) Grant such other relief not inconsistent with this order the district court deems appropriate in
these circumstances.
Basically, from the way I read that the RIAA has to give all of the information back, and cannot keep a copy, or act on it. What would be fun is, if they do act on it, or continue action on it, they might end up violating a court order and get smacked down by the courts. But, I'm guessing that won't happen, the RIAA people are scum, but they aren't stupid.
Actually, we used to have one of those dollar theaters here too, but that was many, many moons ago. In the end it was torn down and a car dealership put in it's place. I had assumed that none existed anymore, as I haven't heard of one for several years. Now, if one of the theaters near me was to go to the $1 ticket price, but delay movies by 6 months or so, I'd be perfectly happy to go to the movies there, I wouldn't really mind the prices for the snacks so much then, or the sub-par theater. But, I just have trouble dealing with the idea that taking my fiancee to the movies is going to run me $30-$40 (2 tickets $19, popcorn $4.50, 2 drinks $7.50, small candy item $2.50 = $33.50), and that doesn't include dinner. Figure $20-$40 for a good meal, and that is one damn expensive date. Sure we could skimp on dinner, and do usually, but everyonce in a while its's nice to not have fast food or Denny's. And if I have to put up with a crappy theater for that price, forget it, I'll throw in the extra 5 bucks in gas to get to a good theater.
This sounds like the area I live in. We have two theaters in the area, both generally suck (no stadium seating, aging projectors and sound systems, etc.) And both charge $9.50 for a ticket, last I checked; and <insert diety here> forbid that you actually want to buy snacks, this would require a home morgatge. The main reason for this is that they are both owned by Cinemark. Who's slogan "The best seat in town." would probably be better as, "The only seat in town". I no longer go to either, and instead drive 45 minutes to a better theater, though it's prices are the same, at least the experience is a heck of a lot better (I at least feel like there's some vasaline mixed in with the sand used for raping me in the ass). Mostly, I've stopped going to movies much. I do enjoy going to see a movie with friends, it's a fun outing, but I'm a lot more selective than I used to be.
Funny, I was just reading the Declaration of Independence earlier today, for another argument of rights. Part of the preamble is:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
According to the founders, natural rights are given us by our creator, not our fellow men. The only thing our fellow citizens are involved in is creating a government to secure those rights.
IANAL (I doubt a real lawyer would have the time, or the inclination, to read/.). But at a guess, the sites hosting.torrent files to copyrighted content could probably be nailed for contributory infringement. Sure, they don't have an actual hand in the infringement, but it seems quite obvious that they are enabling the infringment to take place.
Just going by the definition presented here Even though you may not actually make software directly available on your site, providing assistance (or supporting a forum in which others may provide assistance) in locating unauthorized copies of software, links to download sites, server space, or support for sites that do the above may contributorily infringe.
To succeed on a contributory infringement claim, the copyright owner must show that the webmaster or service provider actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity.
I would guess that hosting specific.torrent files would be ruled contributory infringement. e.g. If you host LotR:RotK-EE.torrent, and it is actually a valid tracker, you are knowingly assisting someone in the infringment of the copyright on the movie. And that specific file doesn't really have any non-infringement purposes.
Of course, this probably just means thet we will see torrent sites moving onto freenet, or just have wholseale distribution if torrent files on P2P networks. Whether you agree with mass copyright infringement, or not, its happening and its not going to go away any time soon. Such activity will probably ebb and flow as new techniques are invented to enable it, and new laws/lawsuits are invented to stop it. In the end, such activity will probably just become yet another accepted fact of life, with those affected doing what they can to minimize the damage.
It was truly sad to see EA devolve into the marketing, sports game monster which it is today. Some of my first video gaming memories, and very happy ones, come from EA, or ECA as they used to be. Starflight was one of the best games around for a long time, and occupied many a weekend. Also, Sentinel worlds is responsible for at least one summer flying by, and probably for much missed homework. I even kept my save game from that one for a year or two waiting for number 2 to release, but it was not to be. EA was, at one time, a wonderful company that put out quality games, and it was painful to see them become nothing more than NFL/NHL/(Whatever sports acronym) <insert year here>.
While I agree with most of your points. Clinton was asked, in a sworn deposition during a trial whether he had sexual relations with Lewinsky, to establish a pattern of behavior. This was during the Tripp trial (if memory serves), where the pattern of behavior would have been relevent.
What he did was perjury, something for which you and I, mere mortals, would have spent a little time on probation for (first offense, probably wouldn't have served any time). Now, did this warrant an impechement? Hell, no. Maybe a congressional censure, or a very firm letter, but that's about it. But let's not go to the other extreme and say he didn't do anything wrong. Lying under oath is treated differently for a whole host of reasons.
San Bernardino County, CA did all electronic voting AFAIK. At least that's what it said in the booklet. The ones in my polling place did not print a voter verifiable paper trail, so I would have know way of knowing who my vote went to. I refused to use the machine and voted on a paper ballot, so at least my vote was more likely to be counted for whom I voted. Until all of the voting machines provide such a paper trail, I usually recommend to people that they insist on a paper ballot. It's not that I expect any vote tampering, but why make it easy?
It won't matter whichever way they do it. The machine will have stored the votes the way it was programmed to store them (whether that was correct or not is open to debate). It's not going to make much of a difference if they print out each ballot and hand count them, or if they just let the computer give them an aggregate, the totals would be the same. This does assume that there is not some huge blunder in the adding process in the machine, but I don't think that is too much to expect. Where the real problem would be is if the program which counts the votes is broken/rigged and just looking at what the system stored won't tell you much about that. What should be done is every voting machine should be siezed, and have many, many tests run through it to verify that it is storing the data correctly. e.g. Use a known set of data, cast said data as votes in the machine, and check the records in the machine against the known data. If there is any variation, the people responsible should be found, and impaled in front of the White House to serve as a warning to anyone else who would consider vote rigging.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing, the people who count the votes decide everything.
--Paraphrasing Joseph Stalin
It would just become unfeseable to retire at that point.
The first thing to realize is that money is not wealth. Money is just funny looking bits of paper which all of us have agreed to use as a medium of exchange for wealth, which is really convient. Wealth is physical things, like a car or food. If the supply of money increses, from all of the people saving it and collecting intrest, but the supply of food does not increse in kind, the price of food will increse. It's a simple supply and demand balance. The food produced by the 10% of the population, which is working, will need to be spread across the entire 100%. People will be able to save ridiculous sums of money over their lives, the problem is, that the price of things will follow in kind.
This isn't to say that run-away inflation is inevitable. As the population grows, the number of workers creating wealth tends to increse in kind. If the supply of money is kept in check, inflation should be controlable.
Personally, what I would expect, if this comes to pass, is that people will end up working until they are hit by a bus. They will just be able to take long breaks every once in a while, if they are smart and save. Much like we take vacations now, just for a longer period. People will also be able to change jobs throughout their life. Imagine spending 40 years programming, getting bored with it, and spending the next 8-10 years learning to be a mechanic, or teacher.
The other argument I see, and a possible pitfall, is the idea of stagnation. Old people keep the world from changing. This begs the question: is stagnation in thinking based on just age, or is it caused by a reversable physical process? Studies have shown that people's ability to learn declines with age which means that it is probably a decay type process. If this were to be reversed, and 500 year olds were just as good at learning new things as 20 year olds, would this tendancy to gets stuck in one's way change? My guess is yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, one problem with the Limited User idea. Imagine the same people, who clicked on this attachment getting a dialog box roughly like:
For free HOT SEX type your administrator password here:
(Standard text box)
(OK button)
Ok, so they wouldn't be able to infest their work PC's, but we would still have a million infested home machines. Social engineering is a social problem, the likelyhood of a technological fix is really slim. Sure, there are applications which are more secure by default, but an uninformed user is still going to create problems.
For example, imagine how this would work on Thunderbird. Users are going to turn on the preview pane, because they like it. Users are going to allow remote images to load, because they want to see them. Users are going to run the attachment, and click through all the warning messages about security, because they want to see naked women. Sure, the ActiveX crap will be stopped, and autoload scripts won't work, but the attachment, which the user specifically ran will still infest their PC; and the user will have provided it the administrator password to do it. And as Thunderbird grows, virus writters will start looking for it's address book too.
I realize I will get flamed to hell for this, but Linux is not the panacea of security. It's great, but put in the hands of untrained people, and given the virus attention of windows, it will get infested, it may just require more social engineering than is required on a windows box.
I've always thought along similar lines. Most people can't or won't bother learning enough about their computer to take care of it. They would rather pay for someone else to clean it up from time to time. To me this is a good thing! I can do something that isn't really that hard (try replacing an asphalt shingle roof sometime) and charge US$50/hour to do it.
Truth is we all do this in some places in our lives. Many of us (myself included) really don't want to do automotive work. I can, but I just don't enjoy it and am not that great at it, I would rather pay someone else, more talented than myself, to do it. Having tried it, I'll never do a roof again, I'll just pay someone else to do it. I eat meat regularly, but I haven't the slightest clue of how to do a butcher's job. If we all spent some time and thought about it, we'd find that there are services and products we consume, which we would be hard pressed to supply ourselves. This isn't a sign of a lack of intellegence, it's simply a symptom of our specialized society. There is simply too many jobs and to much knowledge for one person to have. So, we have different people who specialize in what they are good at. We use money for a medium of exchange, and all exchange our services with each other.
Those of us who happen to be good with computers and/or cleaning up an infected PC sell that service to others who don't want to spend their time in that area, so they hire us, making us valuable. In a lot of ways we are comparable to mechanics. We fix a broken machine for a price. We are paid because we have the knowledge and tools to do the job, and most people could care less about how the computer works, but it would require effort.
Anytime you think about insulting the end users, keep in mind that their ignorance is what is paying your bills. If everyone was able to keep their computer running smoothly and virus free by themselves, most of us would have to get a real job. Ya, it's not fun to clean up an infested Windows machine, but would you rather be flipping burgers?
That's actually not a bad idea. Personally I blocked the entirety of the Netherlands (80.0.0.0 /8) as I kept getting spam from there, and don't have any reason to get legitimate email from there. If you don't ever expect to get legitimate email from a country and keep getting spam from that netblock, blackhole it.
Now if I could just get one of my friends to switch from Comcast I'd dump that spam laden network in the blackhole as well.
I know, those damn French are just itching to do horrible things to the US. First they oppose an invasion by our glorious leader, now they are stealing our ideas.
Let's get this straight once and for all, the US is where all of this type of idiotic legal nonsense is supposed to happen. The US is the source of all IP stupidity and patent system screwups. Not France, not Australia, just the US. Now the rest of you countries can just go somewhere else and find something else to do in a bad way, but leave the IP stuff for the US. You get me?
</Sarcasm>
(Sarcasm tags added for the blindingly stupid)
Bad anaolgy. This is more like testing the dead bolt on your door, and discovering that it has a glaring weakness. You then explain in, a public forum, that weakness, so that other people can verify that weakness and/or find a fix for it. You might even publish such findings in a well read report about such things like, I don't know, Consumer Reports. So, hopefully, better informed consumers can avoid/replace/harden said dead bolt.
Sure, he might have gone about this differently. Inform the company about the flaw before posting, and give them a bit to sort it out. However, this has been shown to be a bad idea as well, since companies tend to sue people over this. Also, there is no knowing how long a patch will take, and if some malicious people have discovred this already. It's better to get the information out in the public realm so that the public can start dealing with the consequenses of the problem.
This guy is not responsible for exposing people's systems to harm or for breaking into anyone's system. The company is at fault, this guy just pointed out the problem.
Neat link, but one minor problem, it's unsupportable. Now, I'm not saying I like Bill Frist, but there's no point putting words in the guy's mouth. As the author of that link admits, and I checked on my own, finding a credible news source to back up the claim is basically impossible. Given the rather vindictive way politicians act towards one another, don't you think one side or the other would have made a huge flap over this? What about the ACLU or the EFF? This sounds like a great thing for one of them to latch onto, but a google search came up empty of credible news sources.
Now, I will grant that the idea of the current government wanting to create a "Brave New World" isn't that far fetched, but then most urban legends tend to do this sort of thing; they build a plausable story, with spurious support, and pass it off as fact. Because people either want to believe it, or are too sacred to question it, it grows like a weed.
Wake me if this bill is actually introduced, or Frist is widely quoted as plannig on it. And no, a bunch of weblogs passing around the same story doesn't count. Yes, bloggers broke the Bush document hoax, but that doesn't mean they have the same credibility as the Associated Press. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. And negative proof is much eaiser than affirmative evidence to come by
I always liked the line my friend's father used when his kids threw a fit about something like this, "If you don't stop crying, I'll give you a reson to cry." In other words, shut up, do it, or you'll get spanked.
I think there is a good place in tort law for this sort of thing. If you file a suit, where it's obvious, to a reasonable person, that you are just throwing a fit with no merit, you should be slapped down, and hard. Sueing someone over exposing your flaws sounds like a good start. Not only should the case be thrown out, but the company should have to pay this guy the 900,000 they are after him for. And, since there is a criminal suit against the guy, the company CEO and board members should be tossed in jail for whatever term this guy might be on the hook for.
I won't argue your points at all, I agree with them. My whole point is that healthcare is not a necessity for life, and therefore should not be considered a right. It's a damn good idea, and something I would highly recommend and take advantage of myself, but I don't think that there should be a requirement to make everyone pay to cover those people who either can't or won't get coverage.
It's probably worth noting that I tend to be a social darwanist (not to the full extreme, just a tendancy), also I tend towards social libertarianism. So I'm of the opinion that people are responsible for getting health coverage, and are subject to the consequences of their actions if they fail to get it or get adequate coverage. Perhaps it could be called egoism, but, why should I have to pay so that someone who isn't able to manage their finances can have coverage? Yes, I had certain advantages, like parents who had some foresight before having kids. Again, I fail to see how this creates a responsibility, on my part, to pay for those that didn't have such an advantage. With or without this advantage it is still possible to get healthcare, it all comes down to the choices you make in life. I've made some bad ones and am dealing with the consequences, and I don't expect anyone else to fix them for me, why should I have to pay for someone else's mistakes?
Funny, I didn't need any sort of game to come up with this one. I've viewed pedestrians as points since before I could drive. Now, more so when they do stupid things, like walk across a dark street in dark clothes, when a perfectly good, lighted, crosswalk isn't that far away. Don't know how many times I (or they, really) have been lucky I spotted their shoes. Also, the ones who decide that the best place to walk in a parking lot is in the middle of the lane, usually with half a dozen kids, and their slow waddling, overgrown ass can't or won't make an effort to get out of the way. I tend to belive that I'd get bonus darwin points if I took out the whole family in one pass.
Fortunatly, I understand the difference between Real Life© and games. Yes, I do find that the games I play can cause me to think about stuff in a different light, but actually pulling on a steering wheel because of a game, give me a break. If the lady in the article really did that, she needs therapy. Maybe its because I grew up playing D&D, but I'm very good at drawing a line between fantasy and reality. I know that, if I was to run someone through with a longsword, they would probably die a messy death. Speed begin dependent upon what vital organs I hit on the way through. I also know that my fighter wielding a Longsword will only injure most enemies above a CR of 1, a good roll might down an orc in one blow.
Heck, I spent 4 days playing Rainbow 6:Raven Shield, for the better part of 16 hours each day (gotta love having a week off, up at noon play till 5am) at a LAN party. Yet, short of a popular revolt against the government, the idea of assulting buildings and eliminating an opposing force doesn't cross my mind.
I think games causing people to do things is kind of like the Jedi Mind Trick, the stronger minded people will feel its effects, but shrug it off; the weaker minded people will actually do what they are told. If you find yourself just thinking about taking in game actions in the real life, but don't ever do anything, you're probably OK; if you reach for the steering wheel to run over something, quit playing games and go find a way to build up your sense of self.
That was true a hundred years ago- if you were VERY lucky anyway and avoided most of the major diseases. I would suggest that in today's environement, we don't have enough unpolluted environment left to survive without it- we'd all get cancer and die rather quickly.
The same could be said of central heating, people used to die regularly in harsh winters, should this now be a right?
I will agree that we have done some horrible things to our environment, but I don't think I could agree with the statement that our environment is unlivable without heathcare. Though I think this is going to be a point of opinion, without some rather unethical studies to back it up, so I'll not argue with it.
It's that plethora of trace stuff that is good preventive (as opposed to reactive) medical care. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that without any medical care at all- you yourself would likely not have survived to see your first birthday- because in societies without medical care with our level of pollution, 90% of the children don't.
I'd love to see some studies to back that 90% number up. I will agree that, without heathcare, infant mortality is fairly common. But it is not an unlivable situation.
It's in what you call the plethora of trace stuff- vitamin & mineral supplements, vaccinations, all of those well baby visits I had to pay for in my son's first year of life because NASE is a bunch of con artists who won't pay for required stuff in Oregon (though they will happily take your premiums), and the occasional screening so some new virus doesn't wipe out whole cities before being stopped.
Good for you, you've given your children a better chance for survival, and for passing on their genes. I'm not saying that healthcare isn't a damn good idea, just that it is not a requirement for life. I would say that you should have researched the situation with your health insurance better, before having kids, so that you either would have been ready for the costs or found a better insurer.
Hmm- something that the lack of kills people is a luxury to you?
I think the difference here is, this is something which extends life, not a requirement for life. Lack of air will necessarilly kill you, lack of heathcare might kill you. In my opinion, it's up to you to get it or don't.
Depends on the night, of course. If it happened right before a major pollution spill or an outbreak of some new epidemic, not many would be allive to go on.
From a species standpoint, that may not be a bad thing. Going back to Darwinian "survival of the fittest". Those which are able to cope with the new disease and/or environment will survive to breed and produce a more sustainable species. When the Black Death came along to Europe, it wiped out a large part of the population, which generally sucked for them. But the species as a whole survived it and was better able to resist the disease because of it.
Like I said, a hundred years ago maybe- since then we've messed with our environment to the point where I rather doubt it.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I will agree that our environment is damaged, but I don't think it's unlivable. And this would seem to be at the heart of our disagreement.
I call bullshit. There is no actual need for healthcare, you can survive without it. Granted, it tends to prolong life, but that does not make it a need. If you take a look at the human body as a system, you'll find that it requires food, water, and oxygen to operate (ignoring the plethora of trace stuff). Nothing in that system requires healthcare. I challenge you to look somewhere in the functioning of a human body and point out the specific need for healthcare. Yes, heathcare tends to make life nicer, and longer. It also keeps people alive that would have, otherwise, died. This is more the definition of a luxury than a need.
Another way to look at it, what would happen if things magically disappeared overnight:
- Food - We'd all starve, end of the human race.
- Water - We'd all die of dehydration, end of the human race.
- Oxygen - We'd probably all die of asphixyation before we woke up, end of the human race.
- Healthcare - A lot of people who can't survive without it would die off, the rest of the human race would go on about it's lives, probably a bit more carefully.
Humans existed before heathcare, and could make it without it, so it's not a need, no matter how many stuffed shirts you have saying otherwise.Ever hear of a designated driver? Or, <insert diety here> forbid that you actually plan ahead. If you know you are going to be drinking arrange for a ride and/or call a cab. It's really not that hard to avoid driving under the influence, it just takes a little forethought.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that killing someone while driving drunk should be treated on the same level as premeditated murder. Afterall, you made several concious decisions leading up to the point where you killed that person. I don't care how OK you feel, or what antecdotal evidence you have about driving drunk, there's enough science to back up the claim that you are impared, you're just too stupid to accept it.
A few things the article seem to miss:
What is the longevity of this material? Can you spray once and leave it for years, or does it degrade over time?
How much does this stuff cost? They mention quantum dots, so are we talking about exotic materials which are going to be expensive?
How do environmental factors affect this stuff? Will it hold up to rain, wind, sun?
How nasty are the chemicals in making it? The process to make most solar cells involve some nasty chemicals, granted, compared to coal ash and massive pollution, it might be worth it.
It sounds exciting, 30% efficancy might make me a convert to solar.
That's the way it was in the court decision, I just copied and pasted and added a bit of formatting. I thought it was odd too, but who am I to question a Superior Court Judge, they can do things with the english language that I would never dream of.
Actualy, the judges addressed this. From the decision (With a bit of re-formatting):
This matter is hereby remanded so the district court may:
(1) Order the RIAA to return to Charter any and all information obtained from the subpoenas;
(2) Order the RIAA to maintain no record of information derived from the subpoenas;
(3) Order the RIAA to make no further use of the subscriber data obtained via the subpoenas; and
(d) Grant such other relief not inconsistent with this order the district court deems appropriate in these circumstances.
Basically, from the way I read that the RIAA has to give all of the information back, and cannot keep a copy, or act on it. What would be fun is, if they do act on it, or continue action on it, they might end up violating a court order and get smacked down by the courts. But, I'm guessing that won't happen, the RIAA people are scum, but they aren't stupid.
Actually, we used to have one of those dollar theaters here too, but that was many, many moons ago. In the end it was torn down and a car dealership put in it's place. I had assumed that none existed anymore, as I haven't heard of one for several years. Now, if one of the theaters near me was to go to the $1 ticket price, but delay movies by 6 months or so, I'd be perfectly happy to go to the movies there, I wouldn't really mind the prices for the snacks so much then, or the sub-par theater. But, I just have trouble dealing with the idea that taking my fiancee to the movies is going to run me $30-$40 (2 tickets $19, popcorn $4.50, 2 drinks $7.50, small candy item $2.50 = $33.50), and that doesn't include dinner. Figure $20-$40 for a good meal, and that is one damn expensive date. Sure we could skimp on dinner, and do usually, but everyonce in a while its's nice to not have fast food or Denny's. And if I have to put up with a crappy theater for that price, forget it, I'll throw in the extra 5 bucks in gas to get to a good theater.
This sounds like the area I live in. We have two theaters in the area, both generally suck (no stadium seating, aging projectors and sound systems, etc.) And both charge $9.50 for a ticket, last I checked; and <insert diety here> forbid that you actually want to buy snacks, this would require a home morgatge. The main reason for this is that they are both owned by Cinemark. Who's slogan "The best seat in town." would probably be better as, "The only seat in town". I no longer go to either, and instead drive 45 minutes to a better theater, though it's prices are the same, at least the experience is a heck of a lot better (I at least feel like there's some vasaline mixed in with the sand used for raping me in the ass). Mostly, I've stopped going to movies much. I do enjoy going to see a movie with friends, it's a fun outing, but I'm a lot more selective than I used to be.
Funny, I was just reading the Declaration of Independence earlier today, for another argument of rights. Part of the preamble is:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
According to the founders, natural rights are given us by our creator, not our fellow men. The only thing our fellow citizens are involved in is creating a government to secure those rights.
IANAL (I doubt a real lawyer would have the time, or the inclination, to read /.). But at a guess, the sites hosting .torrent files to copyrighted content could probably be nailed for contributory infringement. Sure, they don't have an actual hand in the infringement, but it seems quite obvious that they are enabling the infringment to take place. .torrent files would be ruled contributory infringement. e.g. If you host LotR:RotK-EE.torrent, and it is actually a valid tracker, you are knowingly assisting someone in the infringment of the copyright on the movie. And that specific file doesn't really have any non-infringement purposes.
Just going by the definition presented here
Even though you may not actually make software directly available on your site, providing assistance (or supporting a forum in which others may provide assistance) in locating unauthorized copies of software, links to download sites, server space, or support for sites that do the above may contributorily infringe.
To succeed on a contributory infringement claim, the copyright owner must show that the webmaster or service provider actually knew or should have known of the infringing activity.
I would guess that hosting specific
Of course, this probably just means thet we will see torrent sites moving onto freenet, or just have wholseale distribution if torrent files on P2P networks. Whether you agree with mass copyright infringement, or not, its happening and its not going to go away any time soon. Such activity will probably ebb and flow as new techniques are invented to enable it, and new laws/lawsuits are invented to stop it. In the end, such activity will probably just become yet another accepted fact of life, with those affected doing what they can to minimize the damage.
It was truly sad to see EA devolve into the marketing, sports game monster which it is today. Some of my first video gaming memories, and very happy ones, come from EA, or ECA as they used to be. Starflight was one of the best games around for a long time, and occupied many a weekend. Also, Sentinel worlds is responsible for at least one summer flying by, and probably for much missed homework. I even kept my save game from that one for a year or two waiting for number 2 to release, but it was not to be. EA was, at one time, a wonderful company that put out quality games, and it was painful to see them become nothing more than NFL/NHL/(Whatever sports acronym) <insert year here>.
While I agree with most of your points. Clinton was asked, in a sworn deposition during a trial whether he had sexual relations with Lewinsky, to establish a pattern of behavior. This was during the Tripp trial (if memory serves), where the pattern of behavior would have been relevent.
What he did was perjury, something for which you and I, mere mortals, would have spent a little time on probation for (first offense, probably wouldn't have served any time). Now, did this warrant an impechement? Hell, no. Maybe a congressional censure, or a very firm letter, but that's about it. But let's not go to the other extreme and say he didn't do anything wrong. Lying under oath is treated differently for a whole host of reasons.
San Bernardino County, CA did all electronic voting AFAIK. At least that's what it said in the booklet. The ones in my polling place did not print a voter verifiable paper trail, so I would have know way of knowing who my vote went to. I refused to use the machine and voted on a paper ballot, so at least my vote was more likely to be counted for whom I voted. Until all of the voting machines provide such a paper trail, I usually recommend to people that they insist on a paper ballot. It's not that I expect any vote tampering, but why make it easy?
It won't matter whichever way they do it. The machine will have stored the votes the way it was programmed to store them (whether that was correct or not is open to debate). It's not going to make much of a difference if they print out each ballot and hand count them, or if they just let the computer give them an aggregate, the totals would be the same. This does assume that there is not some huge blunder in the adding process in the machine, but I don't think that is too much to expect. Where the real problem would be is if the program which counts the votes is broken/rigged and just looking at what the system stored won't tell you much about that. What should be done is every voting machine should be siezed, and have many, many tests run through it to verify that it is storing the data correctly. e.g. Use a known set of data, cast said data as votes in the machine, and check the records in the machine against the known data. If there is any variation, the people responsible should be found, and impaled in front of the White House to serve as a warning to anyone else who would consider vote rigging.
The people who cast the votes decide nothing, the people who count the votes decide everything.
--Paraphrasing Joseph Stalin
It would just become unfeseable to retire at that point.
The first thing to realize is that money is not wealth. Money is just funny looking bits of paper which all of us have agreed to use as a medium of exchange for wealth, which is really convient. Wealth is physical things, like a car or food. If the supply of money increses, from all of the people saving it and collecting intrest, but the supply of food does not increse in kind, the price of food will increse. It's a simple supply and demand balance. The food produced by the 10% of the population, which is working, will need to be spread across the entire 100%. People will be able to save ridiculous sums of money over their lives, the problem is, that the price of things will follow in kind.
This isn't to say that run-away inflation is inevitable. As the population grows, the number of workers creating wealth tends to increse in kind. If the supply of money is kept in check, inflation should be controlable.
Personally, what I would expect, if this comes to pass, is that people will end up working until they are hit by a bus. They will just be able to take long breaks every once in a while, if they are smart and save. Much like we take vacations now, just for a longer period. People will also be able to change jobs throughout their life. Imagine spending 40 years programming, getting bored with it, and spending the next 8-10 years learning to be a mechanic, or teacher.
The other argument I see, and a possible pitfall, is the idea of stagnation. Old people keep the world from changing. This begs the question: is stagnation in thinking based on just age, or is it caused by a reversable physical process? Studies have shown that people's ability to learn declines with age which means that it is probably a decay type process. If this were to be reversed, and 500 year olds were just as good at learning new things as 20 year olds, would this tendancy to gets stuck in one's way change? My guess is yes.
PA has a great review of PoP:WW, and a really funny comic on this.
comic