I know what you mean about a knife, but it's a lot harder to kill someone with a kife - you actually have to stab someone to kill them. With a gun, it's a lot less personal - one squeeze and they're dead. That's the problem. Guns are too easy to use.
Either you know what you're talking about and are deliberately downplaying the danger posed by a knife, or you don't have a clue, but I confess I can't tell which.
Old martial arts joke #1: Q: What do you call a guy who dies in hospital two days after a knife fight? A: The winner.
Old martial arts joke #2: Don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Don't bring a gun to a knife fight.
Old (but true) martial arts story #3: Several law enforcement agencies changed their firearms rules of engagement after discovering accidentally (they were trying to study something else at the time) that even a highly trained officer cannot draw his firearm and reliably discharge it to stop a knife-wielding aggressor from 7 metres away before a fatal wound is inflicted using the knife.
If we're talking about home defence, you're welcome to keep your handguns, "smart" or otherwise. I'll take an assault weapon and kevlar body armour, a knife, and a handgun, in that order, thanks. And despite what you may have heard, you can teach anyone the basics of how to use a knife in about an hour, and they will be pretty much 100% lethal against anyone; the only question is whether what the other guy's packing will return the favour along the way. There are a lot more ways to fatally wound someone with a knife than just stabbing (though stabbing is most effective).
If what you are saying brings more good into the world than harm, then saying it is the morally correct thing to do. Otherwise you are usually still within your legal rights to say it provided it isn't a LIE (which damages the reputation), and it doesn't incite hatred or counsel criminal acts. (and inciting hatred is legal in a lot of places)
What's that you say? There are laws against saying things, even if they're the truth, sometimes? Now why could that be?
Only those persons which made some kind of NDA with Apple are required to keep anything a secret.
And that NDA is absolutely worthless if, should an individual choose to violate it and accept the legal consequences (which are, in monetary terms, obviously limited to bankrupting them) the other party has no further means of keeping information that legally should have remained confidential as secret as possible. Given that the financial damage to a major corp like Apple from a leak could be many times what the individual who first broke the law has the ability to repay, who's going to compensate all Apple's shareholders if the information can be freely circulated once the law has been broken?
And the scariest thing is that they're looking to BAE Systems next. I have (well, had) family there for a while. If their experience is anywhere close to typical, this is not an organisation you want to help you run critical security/intelligence concerns.
In this case your definition of "responsibility" seems to be 'if the corporation doesn't like it, you shouldn't do it'.
Not necessarily, but if the information is only available because the law has been broken, I have no problem with making it illegal to republish the information when the person doing so could reasonably have known the circumstances. In this case, the accused actively solicited that information, and doesn't have a leg to stand on morally speaking.
Anything else removes a lot of the legal protections that improve the efficiency of developing new products. While it may be fashionable around here to slam corporations, the fact remains that both the employees of those corporations and their shareholders (that's a lot of people's pensions, for a start) suffer to some degree when this happens.
The only place this technology has any applicability is in the hands of police if they feel they may lose their firearm to a suspect and have it used against them. And you don't hear about that happening to often because police have training.
And because a lot of the time when it does happen, the police officer winds up dead, and it's not considered good form to talk about it.
An average police officer's training in self-defence, firearms, control and restraint techniques, etc. is usually laughable compared to even a somewhat keen amateur shooter/martial artist/whatever. That includes both offensive skills with weaponry and weapon retention techniques.
The reason for this exemption is that the various police associations looked at this and realized what a completely fucking stupid idea it was and wanted to have nothing to do with it.
At the last count, the front line guys in the US military were similarly impressed with the OICW, for not unconnected reasons. And that at least has some major advantages over the current alternatives if it does work...
It's a bit of a moot point. The personnel area of most modern gunships is sufficiently well protected as to be effectively immune to small arms fire.
Then again, the optimum kill angle for a helicopter is normally to shoot down through the blades from above, so that's not looking so good for Joe Rebel-Without-A-RPG either...
What you appear to be ignoring (not that you're alone) is that "having freedom of speech" is not the same as "say what you like without any consequences". With freedom comes responsibility, always. Otherwise laws against defamation -- a widely accepted case where somebody can say something illegal despite never having promised another party explicitly that they would not -- would not be allowed.
Bottom line: if you say something that you know, or reasonably could have known, would damage another in some way, then you are morally responsible for the consequences. I don't see why you should have any right to complain if the law finds that your damage was unjustified in such a case and penalises you for it.
The core problem is that any information your employee tells me is free for me to use. Social engineering has to be thwarted by educating Apple's employees just like some government employees. If you divulge secret information owned by the government you go to jail
I'm betting that if you knowingly divulge government-confidential information, you're going to jail even if you received it second-hand, too, and why should you expect anything else?
Based on the little evidence I have been given, I see no legal stance from Apple that will hold up in court.
AIUI there is also a legal framework offering similar protection to publishing second-hand trade secrets and/or personal details in many jurisdictions, for example. Again, morally why would you object to that?
There are ways to not keep records on that kind of thing.. and i'd hope he's set up that way.
That's his choice, just as a number of currently imprisoned investigative journalists chose to go to prison rather than reveal their sources. But they still went to prison.
There may have been peculiar circumstances in the cases you refer to, but email retention (or more accurately the lack of it) is quite legal.
Not necessary it's not. If deleting the e-mail were negligent in some way, for example if you could reasonably have known about or anticipated its use in a criminal investigation and then fail to produce it in response to a subpoena, or you work in the public sector and fail to keep records that you should have done and are subject to a freedom of information request, you just became the legal system's bitch in most places.
It's funny, when I submitted the story, I momentarily contemplated the same point. I decided that I'd stick to the accepted practice -- using "m" -- and trust that no-one would bother commenting...
The UK credit reporting system is terrible. After surprisingly being completely denied credit, I asked the card company for the name of the credit reference agency they use (there are only three, and they are legally required to tell me which one(s) they use, if any). I got a copy of the report (which the agency is legally required to provide to me, for a nominal fee) and found numerous minor discrepancies. The best bit was when, having finally got through to one of their agents on the phone after something like half an hour in the queuing system, I was asked whether these blatant errors were really important "because it's 5:05 and I'm supposed to have finished my shift by now".
It turned out that I'd been refused because the web page taking the application had one of these automatic address database things -- enter your postcode and the number of your house, and it looks up the rest of your address. This is becoming quite common, and is often a convenient time saver, but in this case it got mine wrong, and so obviously they couldn't find any credit record for me at all, so I got automatic refusal of credit.
At least it's not to the same extent (i think) that it is in the UK. But that's not to say it won't be.
You're backwards, I'm afraid, at least for now. The ID card measures proposed by Blunkett, and now supported by Clarke (his successor as Home Secretary), are as yet only that: proposals. They'd love to drive them through, but there's enormous opposition even within the government, and given the current infighting among the majority party, it would be imprudent for them to attempt to force through measures to implement these things any time soon. They're only just now introducing the first bills into parliament to support these, and actually having them as compulsory things is around a decade away, assuming the government can even set up the system to run them effectively, which it probably can't.
And FWIW, my National Insurance number (the closest UK equivalent of the SSN) has only ever been needed for financial and employment dealings, where it's directly relevant.
Hmm... I don't know the law in the US, but here in the UK, that would be a gross breach of the data protection laws regardless of any call recording legislation. The bank would probably wind up in very serious **** if it was discovered. (If Slashdot post the story I've just submitted about the biggest ID theft case in history, the potential consequences of this sort of negligence will become pretty obvious, too.)
I'm glad that they explicitly state (in the description of the tool that pops up if you've got automatic updates on) that its presence on the list doesn't imply the presence of any malicious software.
The last time I got something like this popping up, some time in mid-'04, the message seemed to imply that I probably did have something unpleasant on my system. My anti-virus software hadn't found anything, though, so I had a couple of nervous days monitoring things to look for signs of any unusual activity. I don't know whether the text supplied with that update was just poorly edited, or something was misdiagnosed by part of Windows Update. Maybe there's still something lurking even now...:-/
The point I am trying to make, is that the Parent poster played the role of a typical PCWORLD saleman,
Excuse me, but whoever wrote that post was both funnier and much better informed than we are. But if you need anything, I'll be happy to help; just ask for Nick Mymoney.
Love, The guy with the big boot on that annoying PC world TV ad
Re:Questionable?
on
Top 50 DVDs
·
· Score: 2, Funny
So does that mean with #2 Alien Quadrilogy that Alien, Aliens, Alien3 and Alien Resurrection are all equally qualified to be the 2nd best DVD of all time?
No, just that Alien and Aliens were so good that they make up for having to have Alien3 and Alien: Resurrection in there as well...;-)
I can't believe that the film about how bad pirates are didn't make it into the list.
That's because once they've put the treasure back the first time, you lift the curse. As a result, you don't get the special effects on any subsequent viewing, which is pretty poor for a DVD, y'know?
Slashdot Mirror
Either you know what you're talking about and are deliberately downplaying the danger posed by a knife, or you don't have a clue, but I confess I can't tell which.
Old martial arts joke #1:
Q: What do you call a guy who dies in hospital two days after a knife fight?
A: The winner.
Old martial arts joke #2:
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
Don't bring a gun to a knife fight.
Old (but true) martial arts story #3:
Several law enforcement agencies changed their firearms rules of engagement after discovering accidentally (they were trying to study something else at the time) that even a highly trained officer cannot draw his firearm and reliably discharge it to stop a knife-wielding aggressor from 7 metres away before a fatal wound is inflicted using the knife.
If we're talking about home defence, you're welcome to keep your handguns, "smart" or otherwise. I'll take an assault weapon and kevlar body armour, a knife, and a handgun, in that order, thanks. And despite what you may have heard, you can teach anyone the basics of how to use a knife in about an hour, and they will be pretty much 100% lethal against anyone; the only question is whether what the other guy's packing will return the favour along the way. There are a lot more ways to fatally wound someone with a knife than just stabbing (though stabbing is most effective).
What's that you say? There are laws against saying things, even if they're the truth, sometimes? Now why could that be?
And that NDA is absolutely worthless if, should an individual choose to violate it and accept the legal consequences (which are, in monetary terms, obviously limited to bankrupting them) the other party has no further means of keeping information that legally should have remained confidential as secret as possible. Given that the financial damage to a major corp like Apple from a leak could be many times what the individual who first broke the law has the ability to repay, who's going to compensate all Apple's shareholders if the information can be freely circulated once the law has been broken?
Only a government would have something that doesn't work, and still pay for it at all...
And the scariest thing is that they're looking to BAE Systems next. I have (well, had) family there for a while. If their experience is anywhere close to typical, this is not an organisation you want to help you run critical security/intelligence concerns.
Not necessarily, but if the information is only available because the law has been broken, I have no problem with making it illegal to republish the information when the person doing so could reasonably have known the circumstances. In this case, the accused actively solicited that information, and doesn't have a leg to stand on morally speaking.
Anything else removes a lot of the legal protections that improve the efficiency of developing new products. While it may be fashionable around here to slam corporations, the fact remains that both the employees of those corporations and their shareholders (that's a lot of people's pensions, for a start) suffer to some degree when this happens.
And because a lot of the time when it does happen, the police officer winds up dead, and it's not considered good form to talk about it.
An average police officer's training in self-defence, firearms, control and restraint techniques, etc. is usually laughable compared to even a somewhat keen amateur shooter/martial artist/whatever. That includes both offensive skills with weaponry and weapon retention techniques.
And if you outlaw good guns, only outlaws will... Oh, wait, did we do that one already?
At the last count, the front line guys in the US military were similarly impressed with the OICW, for not unconnected reasons. And that at least has some major advantages over the current alternatives if it does work...
Your proposal is acceptable.
It's a bit of a moot point. The personnel area of most modern gunships is sufficiently well protected as to be effectively immune to small arms fire.
Then again, the optimum kill angle for a helicopter is normally to shoot down through the blades from above, so that's not looking so good for Joe Rebel-Without-A-RPG either...
Only if I'm part of an organised militia...
What you appear to be ignoring (not that you're alone) is that "having freedom of speech" is not the same as "say what you like without any consequences". With freedom comes responsibility, always. Otherwise laws against defamation -- a widely accepted case where somebody can say something illegal despite never having promised another party explicitly that they would not -- would not be allowed.
Bottom line: if you say something that you know, or reasonably could have known, would damage another in some way, then you are morally responsible for the consequences. I don't see why you should have any right to complain if the law finds that your damage was unjustified in such a case and penalises you for it.
I'm betting that if you knowingly divulge government-confidential information, you're going to jail even if you received it second-hand, too, and why should you expect anything else?
AIUI there is also a legal framework offering similar protection to publishing second-hand trade secrets and/or personal details in many jurisdictions, for example. Again, morally why would you object to that?
That's his choice, just as a number of currently imprisoned investigative journalists chose to go to prison rather than reveal their sources. But they still went to prison.
Not necessary it's not. If deleting the e-mail were negligent in some way, for example if you could reasonably have known about or anticipated its use in a criminal investigation and then fail to produce it in response to a subpoena, or you work in the public sector and fail to keep records that you should have done and are subject to a freedom of information request, you just became the legal system's bitch in most places.
It's funny, when I submitted the story, I momentarily contemplated the same point. I decided that I'd stick to the accepted practice -- using "m" -- and trust that no-one would bother commenting...
The UK credit reporting system is terrible. After surprisingly being completely denied credit, I asked the card company for the name of the credit reference agency they use (there are only three, and they are legally required to tell me which one(s) they use, if any). I got a copy of the report (which the agency is legally required to provide to me, for a nominal fee) and found numerous minor discrepancies. The best bit was when, having finally got through to one of their agents on the phone after something like half an hour in the queuing system, I was asked whether these blatant errors were really important "because it's 5:05 and I'm supposed to have finished my shift by now".
It turned out that I'd been refused because the web page taking the application had one of these automatic address database things -- enter your postcode and the number of your house, and it looks up the rest of your address. This is becoming quite common, and is often a convenient time saver, but in this case it got mine wrong, and so obviously they couldn't find any credit record for me at all, so I got automatic refusal of credit.
Ain't modern technology wonderful?
You're backwards, I'm afraid, at least for now. The ID card measures proposed by Blunkett, and now supported by Clarke (his successor as Home Secretary), are as yet only that: proposals. They'd love to drive them through, but there's enormous opposition even within the government, and given the current infighting among the majority party, it would be imprudent for them to attempt to force through measures to implement these things any time soon. They're only just now introducing the first bills into parliament to support these, and actually having them as compulsory things is around a decade away, assuming the government can even set up the system to run them effectively, which it probably can't.
And FWIW, my National Insurance number (the closest UK equivalent of the SSN) has only ever been needed for financial and employment dealings, where it's directly relevant.
Hmm... I don't know the law in the US, but here in the UK, that would be a gross breach of the data protection laws regardless of any call recording legislation. The bank would probably wind up in very serious **** if it was discovered. (If Slashdot post the story I've just submitted about the biggest ID theft case in history, the potential consequences of this sort of negligence will become pretty obvious, too.)
Perhaps the same way as the widely-used and open source libpng library had a number of vulnerabilities last year? (ref 1, ref 2)
Or the same sort or way the Mozilla XBM vulnerability arose? (ref)
This isn't a new thing, and it's not unique to Microsoft, either.
I'm glad that they explicitly state (in the description of the tool that pops up if you've got automatic updates on) that its presence on the list doesn't imply the presence of any malicious software.
The last time I got something like this popping up, some time in mid-'04, the message seemed to imply that I probably did have something unpleasant on my system. My anti-virus software hadn't found anything, though, so I had a couple of nervous days monitoring things to look for signs of any unusual activity. I don't know whether the text supplied with that update was just poorly edited, or something was misdiagnosed by part of Windows Update. Maybe there's still something lurking even now... :-/
s/foresees/is actively trying to create/
s/hardware/consultancy services/
s/software/software and hardware/
Smart people, IBM. They worked out and worked with the economics of this particular new world far faster than most others.
Excuse me, but whoever wrote that post was both funnier and much better informed than we are. But if you need anything, I'll be happy to help; just ask for Nick Mymoney.
Love,
The guy with the big boot on that annoying PC world TV ad
No, just that Alien and Aliens were so good that they make up for having to have Alien3 and Alien: Resurrection in there as well... ;-)
That's because once they've put the treasure back the first time, you lift the curse. As a result, you don't get the special effects on any subsequent viewing, which is pretty poor for a DVD, y'know?