I thought of yet another check -- civil disobedience, or disregard for the law in an effort to win change. For your example, we could all bleach our hair blonde and have a rally -- they can't arrest us all!
Jury nullification, too... but you've fallen asleep.:)
To the responders, thank you. I'd like to draw folks' attention to the "good enough" portion of my query. After all, encryption is just a game of staying a step ahead of the decrypters.
Because any practical encryption can be cracked -- I assume SSL and whatever underlies ssh and, with difficulty, PGP -- what is "adequate" under what is currently readily available? ANything? I get the sense that breaking into a secured (not "secure") 802.11 link at least requires more than just getting a scanner to tap analog cellphones. (Remember Newt Gingrich's indiscretion?:)
Last, it should be reiterated that human weakness such as social engineering and administrator goofs is the most likely and traditionnal sources of security breaches. Thus a need for regular independent audits by trusted (gasp) humans.
"Dragging out" a case is frequently a tactic of wealthy litigants who can afford it to wear down their opponents, or to moot the underlying question (as with Microsoft). For that purpose, it is despicable.
I'm using an 802.11b network with 128-bit encryption, meaningless passwords (not "admin" or "router"), and the WAP will recognize only the MAC of the portable (yes, that can be spoofed, but it keeps out random strangers). Finally, the access point is in the basement, so its reception zone is mostly up, not horizontal.
There could be specific weaknesses in my brands of hardware, but that's another problem.
Am I mistaken that this provides reasonably good security? I don't expect to screen out the NSA, but do most snoops. If not, can someone type up a checklist for the well-meaning but slight clueless 802.11 administrator?
Human error certainly includes misconfiguration, but if configuration is too hard for most people to understand I think it is the technology that is faulty -- human factors design and all that.
I'm glad they're making these weaknesses more public. Doonesbury did a good job in the Sunday strip a while ago.
Honest, the numbers are "industry standard" in the medical community -- the Shriners are just random google hit. There is room to speculate whether the time-to-burn figures are correct.
These figures vary from individual to individual, which variation is ireelevant unless is was the victim's fault. The rule in torts is that you compensate people for the injury to do to them, not the injury your misconduct might theoretically have done to some imaginary average person (and if you did the latter, lightly-injured plaintiffs would get the windfall). So if you punch a frail 80 y.o. you pay for it, and if you punch Mike Tyson, well, you probably won't live to see a court, never mind.
Here's an even stricter version from Australia -- note it is for children, who burn much more easily, and get hurt by coffee even at household temps. 120 is the universal recommendation for tap water, questioned only by the potential of bacterial growth and homeowners who want endless hot showers despite their inadequate heater.
The facts: How do you know she just sat there and suffered? Why do people have an unlimited capacity for second-guessing what others did in an emergency? As for the pants, try getting your off while seatbelted in your car, in under a few seconds. Remember, you still have a half-full cup of scalding coffee in your lap, are in intense pain, and are panicking. Regardless, her portion of fault was accounted for in the 20% reduction in compensatory damages. Puntives focus on whether McDonald's condust was esp. blameworthy. The jury, which was there unlike us, thought yes.
One last way of looking at it is that even if you think scald burns don't occur at 190 (although it is well-documented that they do, and that they account for a majority of child burns), notice that the risk of burn increases rapidly with temperature. If the coffee is unnecessarily hot, it is an unnecessary risk, and the victim's injuries are going to be worse for no good reason; the restaurant may be liable for this increase in risk which in turn increases injury.
This is how a court would analyze it and, at least to lawyers and economists, this sort of risk allocation makes a lot of sense.
As for OT modders of deeply nested threads, they ought to have better things to do with their fun points.
There have been proposals to give punitive damages to the state, or a portion of them. This may or mat not be constitutional, but does make sense in punitives are intended as society's punishment of the guilty, not a windfall for the plaintiff.
This doesn't change that McDonald's deserved punishment (IMHO, and the jury's). Between the state and the woman, I'd give the lousy $480,000 to her -- won't the state promptly take half back through taxes anyway?
remember, you can't get it any hotter than 100 degrees
Er, are we on the same temperature scale here? It was 212 last time I checked. I posted elsewhere in this thread a link to a table of temperature vs. time to scald -- just seconds at 140.
Well said fellow star traveler, and with intriguing spelling.;-)
I am sane... I'm as certain the Enterprise D exists as I am that Osama is currently snoozing in the Lincoln bedroom. Do they have room service?
Note to other than the analog kid: If anyone else complains I made one stupid typo last night I'm gonna stick a phaser up their... ah, nose. I was making typos before you could walk.
You might enjoy www.learnhowtouseanapostropheyoucandoit.org (theres, it's)... must get coffee...
Yeah, and what if monkeys fly out of my butt? :)
on
More on Longhorn
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Moderators please note this is not a flame, but a literary reference to Wayne's World.
Yeow!! There goes another one. They're kinda cute, really. Once you get used to the Borg implants.
This is too early in the morning for diplomacy, I haven't had my coffee.
*
OK, OK, it *could* happen. MS has published good software in the past, which in time it felt compelled to modify and expand until it looked like a prisoner of war about to rupture from beriberi. In fairness but that should be attribute to Corporate Command, not the very bright programmers they have working there. (My college roommate was assimilated in 1989 and was very happy there. Getting rich tends to make people happy.)
I have to disagree vociferously about Outlook -- it's a ticking time bomb that has already gone off several times, yet is still installed on 3/4 of the hard drives out there. A clear example of bloat leading to unreliability, specifically irresistible evil hacker bait. Yes, I know they're finally closing the barn door, but that's not the point.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of management." Unk. (seen on a Depressories calendar {recommended -- new! Demotivators})
Your anecdotal experience is misleading. I seriously doubt that water was 185 unless you have unnatural rubbery skin.:) Scalding burns at temperatures well below boiling are common, and account for the majority of burns among children.
I have seen the figures many, many times, and I'm sure you can find much more online. Note that it takes time for the scald to occur, and that children and the elderly are more vulnerable than average. The woman in the lawsuit was older and wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and prolonged the exposure time.
Home water heaters are now recommended to be set at 120, which still can scald, but much more slowly.
OK, if you want to be hypertechnical, according to William Shatner in that oh-so-tragic SNL episode the whole Star Trek thing is make-believe. Many of us suspect that he is still under the control of the mind-control device in Episode #37.
This is a courtroom, not a democracy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how everybody else feels about the settlement, all that matters is the validity of Massachusetts complaints.
I'm a defender of the courts, but... ahh... interested in buying a bridge?
Not to criticize any particular member, but the D.C. Circuit does have a history of being more political that the other circuits. Many of its judge have been politicians in past lives, or resign to return to politics (Abner Mikva was one -- impressively he held high office in all 3 branches of gov't).
It was entirely CKK's job to judge the fairness of the settlement. It is a safety provision in antitrust law.
Let's hope Microsoft doesn't replay the Boston Massacre. Bunker Hill: Don't fire until you see the glow of their eyes! Paul Revere XXI: Steve Ballmer is coming! Steve Ballmer is coming! Run like hell!
EVERYONE big is incorporated in Delaware, kind of like all those ships registered in Liberia. And it's not like these places make life hard for their customers; that's their appeal.
It would take at least a criminal conviction to affect the corporation in any way but the checkbook. Honestly, I don't think they deserve that, either, though I wish the settlement had gone somewhat further.
... there won't be a trial here -- it's an appeal. Appeals run on pretty structured timetables, and no evidence is presented, no jurors, just argument. Everything is on paper. Should take at most a year.
Lawyers have slimy personalities? Hardly true of the dozens I've met. If anything lawyers tend to be a bit boring, but that's not a mortal sin.
Slashdot Mirror
No -- self-assessment. :)
Choosing the mortal sins, well that's a weekend hobby.
Actually, we're switching to Kelvin in the States, we like to be absolute about things.
:)
Farenheit = freeze/melt at 32 F; boil/condense at 212 F; scald above 120
I thought of yet another check -- civil disobedience, or disregard for the law in an effort to win change. For your example, we could all bleach our hair blonde and have a rally -- they can't arrest us all!
:)
Jury nullification, too... but you've fallen asleep.
One more time, in regular English? I understoon everything up to "nope." :)
VPN does raise the security bar, but isn't a direct answer to wireless security. I'd prefer all of my wireless communications to be private.
I also posted a follow-up to the original post which may clarify my intent.
To the responders, thank you. I'd like to draw folks' attention to the "good enough" portion of my query. After all, encryption is just a game of staying a step ahead of the decrypters.
:)
Because any practical encryption can be cracked -- I assume SSL and whatever underlies ssh and, with difficulty, PGP -- what is "adequate" under what is currently readily available? ANything? I get the sense that breaking into a secured (not "secure") 802.11 link at least requires more than just getting a scanner to tap analog cellphones. (Remember Newt Gingrich's indiscretion?
Last, it should be reiterated that human weakness such as social engineering and administrator goofs is the most likely and traditionnal sources of security breaches. Thus a need for regular independent audits by trusted (gasp) humans.
Was sagen sie?
can't you tell I'd be a top-notch journalist?
:)
Sadly, yes.
"Dragging out" a case is frequently a tactic of wealthy litigants who can afford it to wear down their opponents, or to moot the underlying question (as with Microsoft). For that purpose, it is despicable.
I'm using an 802.11b network with 128-bit encryption, meaningless passwords (not "admin" or "router"), and the WAP will recognize only the MAC of the portable (yes, that can be spoofed, but it keeps out random strangers). Finally, the access point is in the basement, so its reception zone is mostly up, not horizontal.
There could be specific weaknesses in my brands of hardware, but that's another problem.
Am I mistaken that this provides reasonably good security? I don't expect to screen out the NSA, but do most snoops. If not, can someone type up a checklist for the well-meaning but slight clueless 802.11 administrator?
Human error certainly includes misconfiguration, but if configuration is too hard for most people to understand I think it is the technology that is faulty -- human factors design and all that.
I'm glad they're making these weaknesses more public. Doonesbury did a good job in the Sunday strip a while ago.
Honest, the numbers are "industry standard" in the medical community -- the Shriners are just random google hit. There is room to speculate whether the time-to-burn figures are correct.
These figures vary from individual to individual, which variation is ireelevant unless is was the victim's fault. The rule in torts is that you compensate people for the injury to do to them, not the injury your misconduct might theoretically have done to some imaginary average person (and if you did the latter, lightly-injured plaintiffs would get the windfall). So if you punch a frail 80 y.o. you pay for it, and if you punch Mike Tyson, well, you probably won't live to see a court, never mind.
Here's an even stricter version from Australia -- note it is for children, who burn much more easily, and get hurt by coffee even at household temps. 120 is the universal recommendation for tap water, questioned only by the potential of bacterial growth and homeowners who want endless hot showers despite their inadequate heater.
The facts: How do you know she just sat there and suffered? Why do people have an unlimited capacity for second-guessing what others did in an emergency? As for the pants, try getting your off while seatbelted in your car, in under a few seconds. Remember, you still have a half-full cup of scalding coffee in your lap, are in intense pain, and are panicking. Regardless, her portion of fault was accounted for in the 20% reduction in compensatory damages. Puntives focus on whether McDonald's condust was esp. blameworthy. The jury, which was there unlike us, thought yes.
One last way of looking at it is that even if you think scald burns don't occur at 190 (although it is well-documented that they do, and that they account for a majority of child burns), notice that the risk of burn increases rapidly with temperature. If the coffee is unnecessarily hot, it is an unnecessary risk, and the victim's injuries are going to be worse for no good reason; the restaurant may be liable for this increase in risk which in turn increases injury.
This is how a court would analyze it and, at least to lawyers and economists, this sort of risk allocation makes a lot of sense.
As for OT modders of deeply nested threads, they ought to have better things to do with their fun points.
There have been proposals to give punitive damages to the state, or a portion of them. This may or mat not be constitutional, but does make sense in punitives are intended as society's punishment of the guilty, not a windfall for the plaintiff.
This doesn't change that McDonald's deserved punishment (IMHO, and the jury's). Between the state and the woman, I'd give the lousy $480,000 to her -- won't the state promptly take half back through taxes anyway?
remember, you can't get it any hotter than 100 degrees
Er, are we on the same temperature scale here? It was 212 last time I checked. I posted elsewhere in this thread a link to a table of temperature vs. time to scald -- just seconds at 140.
Well said fellow star traveler, and with intriguing spelling. ;-)
... I'm as certain the Enterprise D exists as I am that Osama is currently snoozing in the Lincoln bedroom. Do they have room service?
... ah, nose. I was making typos before you could walk.
I am sane
Note to other than the analog kid: If anyone else complains I made one stupid typo last night I'm gonna stick a phaser up their
I didn't even know an URL could be so long.
... must get coffee ...
You might enjoy www.learnhowtouseanapostropheyoucandoit.org (theres, it's)
Moderators please note this is not a flame, but a literary reference to Wayne's World.
Yeow!! There goes another one. They're kinda cute, really. Once you get used to the Borg implants.
This is too early in the morning for diplomacy, I haven't had my coffee.
*
OK, OK, it *could* happen. MS has published good software in the past, which in time it felt compelled to modify and expand until it looked like a prisoner of war about to rupture from beriberi. In fairness but that should be attribute to Corporate Command, not the very bright programmers they have working there. (My college roommate was assimilated in 1989 and was very happy there. Getting rich tends to make people happy.)
I have to disagree vociferously about Outlook -- it's a ticking time bomb that has already gone off several times, yet is still installed on 3/4 of the hard drives out there. A clear example of bloat leading to unreliability, specifically irresistible evil hacker bait. Yes, I know they're finally closing the barn door, but that's not the point.
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of management." Unk. (seen on a Depressories calendar {recommended -- new! Demotivators})
Or that people will all buy Macs and Linux boxes.
Ok, I'm fantasizing.
Your anecdotal experience is misleading. I seriously doubt that water was 185 unless you have unnatural rubbery skin. :) Scalding burns at temperatures well below boiling are common, and account for the majority of burns among children.
I have seen the figures many, many times, and I'm sure you can find much more online. Note that it takes time for the scald to occur, and that children and the elderly are more vulnerable than average. The woman in the lawsuit was older and wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and prolonged the exposure time.
Home water heaters are now recommended to be set at 120, which still can scald, but much more slowly.
I notice you omit which state. :)
Personally I hope not to see anyone's butt in a nonconsensual situation. But (heh) it's nice to know we have that freedom.
I suppose mooning would be illegal in a situation where it might incite immediate violence. Just a word to the wise.
No, the Enterprise "D" was destroyed in 2372 by a Klingon Bird of Prey under the command of the Duras sisters. Don't you know anything? :) (I don't get many chances to out-geek anyone.)
OK, if you want to be hypertechnical, according to William Shatner in that oh-so-tragic SNL episode the whole Star Trek thing is make-believe. Many of us suspect that he is still under the control of the mind-control device in Episode #37.
This is a courtroom, not a democracy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how everybody else feels about the settlement, all that matters is the validity of Massachusetts complaints.
... ahh ... interested in buying a bridge?
I'm a defender of the courts, but
Not to criticize any particular member, but the D.C. Circuit does have a history of being more political that the other circuits. Many of its judge have been politicians in past lives, or resign to return to politics (Abner Mikva was one -- impressively he held high office in all 3 branches of gov't).
It was entirely CKK's job to judge the fairness of the settlement. It is a safety provision in antitrust law.
Yay MA!
:)
What about your PA?
(Heh, get it?) (Sorry.)
I live in MA
Oh wait, jettison metaphor, full reverse!
(Congrats Mass. for being, as usual, a pain. I miss living there.
You didn't have to vote for Mr. Reilly for Attorney General, if what someone here said is correct, that he ran unopposed.
The federal AG is nominated by the President.
dump XP discs into Boston Harbor
;-)
Where, what, they'd dissolve?
Let's hope Microsoft doesn't replay the Boston Massacre. Bunker Hill: Don't fire until you see the glow of their eyes! Paul Revere XXI: Steve Ballmer is coming! Steve Ballmer is coming! Run like hell!
OK, it's late, I'm getting silly.
EVERYONE big is incorporated in Delaware, kind of like all those ships registered in Liberia. And it's not like these places make life hard for their customers; that's their appeal.
It would take at least a criminal conviction to affect the corporation in any way but the checkbook. Honestly, I don't think they deserve that, either, though I wish the settlement had gone somewhat further.
/. generally hates MS ... but it also hates governement. Quandary time.
... there won't be a trial here -- it's an appeal. Appeals run on pretty structured timetables, and no evidence is presented, no jurors, just argument. Everything is on paper. Should take at most a year.
:)
Lawyers have slimy personalities? Hardly true of the dozens I've met. If anything lawyers tend to be a bit boring, but that's not a mortal sin.
IAAL
Wow. Someone actually follows my links?
... poetic ... for such a common and untrademarkable (!) word.
I was tired of dictionary.com's rather thin definitions, but hardly expected one so
at one time windows contained no glass
And just how cold did THAT get?