I've wondered about this for years: why are there no famous Spanish scientists? Russian, German, Italian, French, Polish, English... I can readily think of names from each of these nationalities that would be easily recognized by the man on the street. I can't come up with a single Spanish scientist whose name sparks recognition.
IANAL (and boy, is that acronym even funnier in this context), but if I understand TFA properly, this filing of Jack's is part of a legal proceeding to determine if the Florida Bar should be allowed to remove his license to practice law. Apparently that means only in the State of Florida, again I'm just talking out of my ass here.
That's an idea of incredible brilliance and clarity. Of course, the planet Krypton was mysteriously destroyed long ago, but that shouldn't be too high a hurdle. We can always send some sort of massively powerful explosive device back in time...
All the evidence collected so far suggests that kryptonite radiation affects only Kryptonians. Unless you're suggesting they've established a colony and managed to keep their remarkable superhuman abilities a secret... Oh, crap.
Oh, and I apologize for the salesman comment, that was snarky.
I use a wireless network at home. But I keep a firewall between it and the file servers, which are on a wired network. And I do what I can within reason to secure it. I'm not trying to say wireless networks can't be secured enough for any use at all. All I'm saying is that the day my bank switches to a wireless network is the day I switch banks.
A strong case can probably be made for the argument that the reason wired switches don't typically come with encryption or authentication built in is that there isn't a demand for it. And the reason there isn't a demand for it is that a wired network doesn't suffer from the inherent security concerns that you get from broadcasting your data, encrypted or unencrypted.
Regardless of what type of encryption is wrapped around the data, it's still hanging in the air for anyone with a receiver to gather and analyse. And they have all the time in the world to break your encryption, because you have no way of knowing they're there. To accomplish the same thing on a wired network, the intruder has to have physical access to the building.
Put together a cost/benefit analysis. How much money do pirate copies of your software cost you? Spending more than that developing a solution just isn't good business.
The tricky part of course is estimating how much piracy costs your business. You have to have some idea of how many pirate copies exist (and pirates aren't known for reporting these figures), but more than that you have to know what percentage of those users would buy your software if pirating it were not an option (again, difficult numbers to do more than guess at). Because really the mere existence of these copies costs you nothing (unless they provide access to a service for which you maintain servers, bandwidth, etc.).
It's a little bit apples to oranges, but one industry example that's interesting to look at is the restaurant industry. The old dine-and-dash definitely costs the restaurant money: they consume food which has a measurable cost in purchasing and labor for preparation. At the low end, fast-food restaurants avoid this cost by requiring the consumer to pay before receiving their food. Above that level, however, restaurants seem to rely mainly on the honour system.
At the end of the day, I personally would recommend a less is better approach because I'd estimate the kind of people who pirate your software aren't the same kind of people who buy your software. Remember that your software doesn't exist to enforce morality or punish the guilty. It exists to make money for you. You don't profit by reducing the number of pirate copies. You profit by increasing the number of legitimate copies. If the approach you take to increasing legitimate copies also increases pirate copies, keep in mind that that doesn't cost you money. If the approach you take to reducing pirate copies costs you money and ends up reducing legitimate copies, that's a lose-lose.
You sell wireless network equipment for a living, I assume?
Basically you're comparing apples to oranges here: an encrypted wireless connection to an unencrypted wired connection. Still the fact remains that an intruder has the opportunity to infiltrate a wireless network without entering the building. At the end of the day, I'd still prefer a strong dead-bolt on my front door to a safe with an elaborate combination sitting in the vacant lot next door.
The article appears to take (and having read some of them, does not appear to screen) submissions. Please rectify this disparity with the examples with which you're familiar.
Yeah, this isn't a double standard. This is a standard. A double standard would be if we praised a closed-source company for remaining closed, but damned an open source company for becoming more closed.
If you put it on television, people will watch it. I had a linux machine connected to the TV when I was experimenting with creating a media center. My friends would sit and watch the apt-get show.
If I infer correctly from the article, it's time to hold back on declaring your true major as long as possible. Take the classes you know you're going to need for the real major as "electives" while pursuing your declared major of underwater basketweaving or whatever is cheapest.
Your generalization should restrict itself to front-impact collisions. Vehicles do get struck from behind or the side by other vehicles. Friend of mine's mother was driving a convertible, waiting at a traffic light when a truck failed to come to a stop behind her. The car was rolled up like a jelly-roll; the back bumper ended up pinning her head to the steering wheel. Luckily there was no-one in the rear of that vehicle.
The experiment demonstrated the ability to block a learned fear reaction where the subject experiences fear when exposed to circumstances in which unpleasant stimuli were previously present. This is not about inhibitting the fear reaction to currently present stimuli. So no super-soldiers or serial killers here, move along.
See, this is why I used the words "ought to be". What I'm suggesting is that government and business concerns have gotten used to intellectual theft as a way of doing business. Maybe we should do something about it. And perhaps putting it in the very terms that business is using to explain their agenda to government is a good start.
I think one way to think about privacy is in terms of Intellectual Property. Information about an individual ought to be considered the property of the individual. Just like physical property, the government has the right to appropriate intellectual property but they must show a clear, strong public good for the specific appropriation in question. They also need to provide reasonable compensation for the use.
For example, information about the telephone numbers that I dial ought to be considered my property. I implicitly grant access to that information to the telephone company for the limited purposes of connecting my call and billing me for it. For any use of that information beyond those I've granted, the telephone company should have to seek my permission.
Actually, if we're going to ban everything that might possibly trigger an unbalanced mind, religion is going to have to be the first to go. It's about the most common denominator in the lives of disturbed individuals. So definitely no Sunday church.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your definition of faith?
I've wondered about this for years: why are there no famous Spanish scientists? Russian, German, Italian, French, Polish, English... I can readily think of names from each of these nationalities that would be easily recognized by the man on the street. I can't come up with a single Spanish scientist whose name sparks recognition.
IANAL (and boy, is that acronym even funnier in this context), but if I understand TFA properly, this filing of Jack's is part of a legal proceeding to determine if the Florida Bar should be allowed to remove his license to practice law. Apparently that means only in the State of Florida, again I'm just talking out of my ass here.
Okay, I really should stop while I'm ahead.
Trust me that you really, really don't want to hear the answer to your question.
In Soviet Russia... oh, I'm just tired. So very tired.
Are they gonna pull the rubber mask off of him in court? Because that would be sweet.
That's an idea of incredible brilliance and clarity. Of course, the planet Krypton was mysteriously destroyed long ago, but that shouldn't be too high a hurdle. We can always send some sort of massively powerful explosive device back in time...
All the evidence collected so far suggests that kryptonite radiation affects only Kryptonians. Unless you're suggesting they've established a colony and managed to keep their remarkable superhuman abilities a secret... Oh, crap.
Yes, because those recording industry guys really hate it when people give them money. Man that gets them riled.
Oh, and I apologize for the salesman comment, that was snarky.
I use a wireless network at home. But I keep a firewall between it and the file servers, which are on a wired network. And I do what I can within reason to secure it. I'm not trying to say wireless networks can't be secured enough for any use at all. All I'm saying is that the day my bank switches to a wireless network is the day I switch banks.
A strong case can probably be made for the argument that the reason wired switches don't typically come with encryption or authentication built in is that there isn't a demand for it. And the reason there isn't a demand for it is that a wired network doesn't suffer from the inherent security concerns that you get from broadcasting your data, encrypted or unencrypted.
Regardless of what type of encryption is wrapped around the data, it's still hanging in the air for anyone with a receiver to gather and analyse. And they have all the time in the world to break your encryption, because you have no way of knowing they're there. To accomplish the same thing on a wired network, the intruder has to have physical access to the building.
Put together a cost/benefit analysis. How much money do pirate copies of your software cost you? Spending more than that developing a solution just isn't good business.
The tricky part of course is estimating how much piracy costs your business. You have to have some idea of how many pirate copies exist (and pirates aren't known for reporting these figures), but more than that you have to know what percentage of those users would buy your software if pirating it were not an option (again, difficult numbers to do more than guess at). Because really the mere existence of these copies costs you nothing (unless they provide access to a service for which you maintain servers, bandwidth, etc.).
It's a little bit apples to oranges, but one industry example that's interesting to look at is the restaurant industry. The old dine-and-dash definitely costs the restaurant money: they consume food which has a measurable cost in purchasing and labor for preparation. At the low end, fast-food restaurants avoid this cost by requiring the consumer to pay before receiving their food. Above that level, however, restaurants seem to rely mainly on the honour system.
At the end of the day, I personally would recommend a less is better approach because I'd estimate the kind of people who pirate your software aren't the same kind of people who buy your software. Remember that your software doesn't exist to enforce morality or punish the guilty. It exists to make money for you. You don't profit by reducing the number of pirate copies. You profit by increasing the number of legitimate copies. If the approach you take to increasing legitimate copies also increases pirate copies, keep in mind that that doesn't cost you money. If the approach you take to reducing pirate copies costs you money and ends up reducing legitimate copies, that's a lose-lose.
You sell wireless network equipment for a living, I assume?
Basically you're comparing apples to oranges here: an encrypted wireless connection to an unencrypted wired connection. Still the fact remains that an intruder has the opportunity to infiltrate a wireless network without entering the building. At the end of the day, I'd still prefer a strong dead-bolt on my front door to a safe with an elaborate combination sitting in the vacant lot next door.
If I may paraphrase Mahatma Ghandi, I think American democracy would be a good idea.
The article appears to take (and having read some of them, does not appear to screen) submissions. Please rectify this disparity with the examples with which you're familiar.
Yeah, this isn't a double standard. This is a standard. A double standard would be if we praised a closed-source company for remaining closed, but damned an open source company for becoming more closed.
That's the source code for the cops. The breathalizer is probably more complicated. ;)
If you put it on television, people will watch it. I had a linux machine connected to the TV when I was experimenting with creating a media center. My friends would sit and watch the apt-get show.
If I infer correctly from the article, it's time to hold back on declaring your true major as long as possible. Take the classes you know you're going to need for the real major as "electives" while pursuing your declared major of underwater basketweaving or whatever is cheapest.
Your generalization should restrict itself to front-impact collisions. Vehicles do get struck from behind or the side by other vehicles. Friend of mine's mother was driving a convertible, waiting at a traffic light when a truck failed to come to a stop behind her. The car was rolled up like a jelly-roll; the back bumper ended up pinning her head to the steering wheel. Luckily there was no-one in the rear of that vehicle.
Just don't cry about it.
The experiment demonstrated the ability to block a learned fear reaction where the subject experiences fear when exposed to circumstances in which unpleasant stimuli were previously present. This is not about inhibitting the fear reaction to currently present stimuli. So no super-soldiers or serial killers here, move along.
See, this is why I used the words "ought to be". What I'm suggesting is that government and business concerns have gotten used to intellectual theft as a way of doing business. Maybe we should do something about it. And perhaps putting it in the very terms that business is using to explain their agenda to government is a good start.
I think one way to think about privacy is in terms of Intellectual Property. Information about an individual ought to be considered the property of the individual. Just like physical property, the government has the right to appropriate intellectual property but they must show a clear, strong public good for the specific appropriation in question. They also need to provide reasonable compensation for the use.
For example, information about the telephone numbers that I dial ought to be considered my property. I implicitly grant access to that information to the telephone company for the limited purposes of connecting my call and billing me for it. For any use of that information beyond those I've granted, the telephone company should have to seek my permission.
Actually, if we're going to ban everything that might possibly trigger an unbalanced mind, religion is going to have to be the first to go. It's about the most common denominator in the lives of disturbed individuals. So definitely no Sunday church.