There is more to dangerous driving than speeding however...
Speed limits are often too low, if your on a wide empty road with no other traffic driving a modern car then cruising along at 55mph is likely to send you to sleep because its so smooth, quiet and uneventful... The car is capable of more, the conditions allow it, your more likely to stay alert if your driving faster while less likely to grow tired due to the shorter journey time and if theres noone else around then you're not going to harm anyone else if you crash.
People who drive excessively slowly can often be more dangerous than those who speed... They cause a big queue, which causes other drivers to become impatient and to take unnecessary risks in an attempt to pass the slow driver. You also get slow drivers pulling out into a faster road causing other traffic to hit hard on the brakes.
People who drive while intoxicated, or excessively tired are also extremely dangerous. As are those who drive with unroadworthy vehicles or unsafe loads.
There are countries where speed limits either don't apply in places, or are much higher... Germany for instance has areas where it is permitted to drive much faster, many people do so and yet the accident rate is comparable to other european countries.
Making a parking ticket proportional to wealth is not discrimination against the rich, it is discrimination against those who break the parking rules. If the fines are the same for everyone, then those who are rich have no incentive to follow the rules since they can pay what to them is a trivial sum in order to ignore them.
Unfortunately, proportional fines in the current system would just cause the traffic enforcement to target the rich in the hopes of higher payouts.
Both community service and proportional fines would also see the rich using loopholes, such as claiming one of their lowest paid employees was driving at the time...
You need a system where the perpetrator is punished, while those charged with enforcement are rewarded when people actually follow the law rather than based on how many people they can catch breaking it. Instead you have the ridiculous situation now that if noone broke the rules, the enforcement officers would be punished for not bringing in enough revenue, rather than congratulated for ensuring people obey the rules.
Rewarding based on number of tickets issued is like rewarding software developers for how many lines of code they write, it encourages developers not to write quality efficient code, but rather to write bloated inefficient code while rushing and cutting corners doing it, because they will get paid more that way.
Any benefit derived from the punishment should not benefit those charged with enforcement.
Another question is how did someone become rich... Many became rich by lying cheating and stealing. Others who were born rich, may see no need to behave that way, while others may become extremely arrogant such that their ego cannot take being defeated at anything.
The punishment for most of these activities is a fine... To someone on a low to average wage, a $50 fine can be quite painful... To a millionaire, a $50 fine is nothing.
So someone on a low wage is discouraged from doing the activity, the guy with millions in the bank is not discouraged at all and simply considers it a privilege that he can pay a trivial (to him) amount of money for. I saw recently a story about a bugatti veyron which was parked in a disabled space and subsequently got a parking ticket, do you really think someone who can afford a car like that is going to care about a parking ticket? To him, he's just paid $50 for the convenience of parking closer, and will probably spend twice that on gas to get to/from the location anyway. The thought that someone genuinely disabled might require the space would have never occurred to him.
Punishments need to be equally painful for everyone, having fixed cost fines just gives the rich the ability to buy their way out of obeying the laws, and make them even more arrogant.
My reference to the commit rate, is that the connection should be advertised as such, its not a 100mbit connection its only burstable to 100mbit. A 100mbit connection is one that can do 100mbits/sec all the time.
Is that 1GB video file less than 10 minutes long? If it is, then it must be pretty high quality... If not, then you can just start watching it before the download is complete so the download speed becomes irrelevant once its faster than the playback speed.
A 200GB cap equates to around 600kbit/month, so what your actually getting is a 600kbit connection which is burstable to 100mbit.
Yes change tracking is most definitely better served by revision control systems... Many organisations have had the change tracking systems in programs like word come to bite them in the ass pretty badly as comments they thought had been removed were still visible...
What's really stopping ODF tho, is MS... They technically support it, but their support is of an older version, is generally poor and they have made bad faith moves by exploiting loopholes in the spec to intentionally create incompatibilities.
Well, under a process of natural selection those with the crippling disability would die off, while those with superior intelligence would thrive... Natural selection doesn't work anymore, since modern society protects those who would have perished under nature.
Even if you are in such an area where you are unable to receive tv, im sure you will still get tv licensing hassling you constantly for not having a license...
The difference is that MS claimed their implementation was java, which it's clearly not. Google only ever claimed their language was similar to java, which it is.
Google can be completely avoided easily... Apple can also be completely avoided easily... MS you have to go out of your way to avoid, and even then you will encounter files in proprietary formats and other nasties forcing you back towards ms.
Vulnerable servers are no longer trustworthy wether they've been compromised or not... The fact they were sitting vulnerable for any length of time means they *could* have been compromised, and *could* still contain hidden backdoors.
A true blackhat with evil intentions would have taken considerably more effort to conceal their tracks, and would most likely have been operating from a country where the chance of finding and prosecuting him was slim to none. And even if caught, would not have admitted to it making the burden of proof that much harder.
Exactly, and he was effectively trying to blackmail business out of them... IE do the work first, and then try to get payment for it.
That said, the punishment seems far too severe, this guy is just misguided he's not a hardened criminal... But by the time he gets out of jail he will be, he'll have trouble getting legitimate work (especially in the security field) due to his criminal record and will have learned plenty from all the people he's locked up with...
The people who have suffered most is those who used these services for legitimate content, and there were quite considerable numbers of people who did so... Quite a few open source projects used such sites, for instance its not uncommon to have downloaded linux based firmware images for various devices including android phones from such sites.
Actually it makes perfect sense to have a walled garden for the vast majority of computer users. Most people simply lack the technical skills to properly manage a fully featured computer connected to a public network like the internet. It makes perfect sense for these people to have a computer that is managed for them by someone else who is presumably competent.
Of course, such an approach has to be done properly... You need multiple suppliers, so there is not a single entity in control of everyone's internet use, that would be terrible. People should be able to choose who they trust to manage their computer for them. Also you need to have a process, preferably a complex one, by which people who are technically competent can unlock the system and manage it themselves. Have this process fully supported, but difficult enough that only competent people will be able to do it.
The Android approach is actually quite good, by default you have the marketplace provided by google or amazon etc which suits most users, but you still have the option to install third party apps or install third party firmware if you know how.
The difference is that MS charge over $100 for the upgrade, while Apple charge $30... Because of the cheaper price, people will obviously have more tolerance for more frequent but smaller updates.
Also, Apple lets you install a single copy on multiple machines, MS doesn't, so if you have more than one mac the apple deal is even cheaper still.
On the other hand, with a move to more web based applications you can now easily access your data from a device like an ipad... Plus since the ipad doesn't store any data locally, it's less dangerous should it go missing.
Bitcoin is a perfectly good idea.. I use it regularly to exchange currencies, someone in one country buys bitcoins with his local currency and sends them to me, i then convert them to local currency. Doing this with bank transfers or paypal has massively higher fees for me.
I guess it varies a lot... I would assume the regular price to buy Coke in Mexico is a lot cheaper than its sold in the US not to mention the cheaper manufacturing costs when using fairly taxed real sugar instead of HFCS, but depending on how it was imported, your proximity to Mexico and what level of markup the various importer/wholesaler/retailers want to charge it can often work out more expensive.
Well yes, welcome to capitalism... A system that encourages business to think only about their own short term profits, and not about long term sustainability.
A system that encourages exactly what you describe, because there is more profit in selling more products and having working reliable products in the hands of consumers reduces demand for new ones.
A system that encourages improving the efficiency of your supply chain, so that ultimately all your goods will be mass produced by robots and the minimum of expensive staff to manage them... The end result being mass unemployment and noone able to afford to buy your products.
A system that discourages long term planning, because someone else will easily be able to undercut you in the short term and drive you out of business, rendering your long term planning useless.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't fix it, they improved it... There are still all manner of security weaknesses
There is more to dangerous driving than speeding however...
Speed limits are often too low, if your on a wide empty road with no other traffic driving a modern car then cruising along at 55mph is likely to send you to sleep because its so smooth, quiet and uneventful... The car is capable of more, the conditions allow it, your more likely to stay alert if your driving faster while less likely to grow tired due to the shorter journey time and if theres noone else around then you're not going to harm anyone else if you crash.
People who drive excessively slowly can often be more dangerous than those who speed... They cause a big queue, which causes other drivers to become impatient and to take unnecessary risks in an attempt to pass the slow driver. You also get slow drivers pulling out into a faster road causing other traffic to hit hard on the brakes.
People who drive while intoxicated, or excessively tired are also extremely dangerous. As are those who drive with unroadworthy vehicles or unsafe loads.
There are countries where speed limits either don't apply in places, or are much higher... Germany for instance has areas where it is permitted to drive much faster, many people do so and yet the accident rate is comparable to other european countries.
Making a parking ticket proportional to wealth is not discrimination against the rich, it is discrimination against those who break the parking rules. If the fines are the same for everyone, then those who are rich have no incentive to follow the rules since they can pay what to them is a trivial sum in order to ignore them.
Unfortunately, proportional fines in the current system would just cause the traffic enforcement to target the rich in the hopes of higher payouts.
Both community service and proportional fines would also see the rich using loopholes, such as claiming one of their lowest paid employees was driving at the time...
You need a system where the perpetrator is punished, while those charged with enforcement are rewarded when people actually follow the law rather than based on how many people they can catch breaking it. Instead you have the ridiculous situation now that if noone broke the rules, the enforcement officers would be punished for not bringing in enough revenue, rather than congratulated for ensuring people obey the rules.
Rewarding based on number of tickets issued is like rewarding software developers for how many lines of code they write, it encourages developers not to write quality efficient code, but rather to write bloated inefficient code while rushing and cutting corners doing it, because they will get paid more that way.
Any benefit derived from the punishment should not benefit those charged with enforcement.
Another question is how did someone become rich...
Many became rich by lying cheating and stealing.
Others who were born rich, may see no need to behave that way, while others may become extremely arrogant such that their ego cannot take being defeated at anything.
The punishment for most of these activities is a fine...
To someone on a low to average wage, a $50 fine can be quite painful... To a millionaire, a $50 fine is nothing.
So someone on a low wage is discouraged from doing the activity, the guy with millions in the bank is not discouraged at all and simply considers it a privilege that he can pay a trivial (to him) amount of money for.
I saw recently a story about a bugatti veyron which was parked in a disabled space and subsequently got a parking ticket, do you really think someone who can afford a car like that is going to care about a parking ticket? To him, he's just paid $50 for the convenience of parking closer, and will probably spend twice that on gas to get to/from the location anyway. The thought that someone genuinely disabled might require the space would have never occurred to him.
Punishments need to be equally painful for everyone, having fixed cost fines just gives the rich the ability to buy their way out of obeying the laws, and make them even more arrogant.
My reference to the commit rate, is that the connection should be advertised as such, its not a 100mbit connection its only burstable to 100mbit. A 100mbit connection is one that can do 100mbits/sec all the time.
Is that 1GB video file less than 10 minutes long?
If it is, then it must be pretty high quality... If not, then you can just start watching it before the download is complete so the download speed becomes irrelevant once its faster than the playback speed.
A 200GB cap equates to around 600kbit/month, so what your actually getting is a 600kbit connection which is burstable to 100mbit.
Yes change tracking is most definitely better served by revision control systems... Many organisations have had the change tracking systems in programs like word come to bite them in the ass pretty badly as comments they thought had been removed were still visible...
What's really stopping ODF tho, is MS... They technically support it, but their support is of an older version, is generally poor and they have made bad faith moves by exploiting loopholes in the spec to intentionally create incompatibilities.
Do your servers use IPv6?
Well, under a process of natural selection those with the crippling disability would die off, while those with superior intelligence would thrive...
Natural selection doesn't work anymore, since modern society protects those who would have perished under nature.
Even if you are in such an area where you are unable to receive tv, im sure you will still get tv licensing hassling you constantly for not having a license...
The difference is that MS claimed their implementation was java, which it's clearly not.
Google only ever claimed their language was similar to java, which it is.
Google can be completely avoided easily...
Apple can also be completely avoided easily...
MS you have to go out of your way to avoid, and even then you will encounter files in proprietary formats and other nasties forcing you back towards ms.
Does it support CDXL format?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDXL
Vulnerable servers are no longer trustworthy wether they've been compromised or not... The fact they were sitting vulnerable for any length of time means they *could* have been compromised, and *could* still contain hidden backdoors.
A true blackhat with evil intentions would have taken considerably more effort to conceal their tracks, and would most likely have been operating from a country where the chance of finding and prosecuting him was slim to none. And even if caught, would not have admitted to it making the burden of proof that much harder.
Exactly, and he was effectively trying to blackmail business out of them...
IE do the work first, and then try to get payment for it.
That said, the punishment seems far too severe, this guy is just misguided he's not a hardened criminal...
But by the time he gets out of jail he will be, he'll have trouble getting legitimate work (especially in the security field) due to his criminal record and will have learned plenty from all the people he's locked up with...
The people who have suffered most is those who used these services for legitimate content, and there were quite considerable numbers of people who did so... Quite a few open source projects used such sites, for instance its not uncommon to have downloaded linux based firmware images for various devices including android phones from such sites.
Actually it makes perfect sense to have a walled garden for the vast majority of computer users.
Most people simply lack the technical skills to properly manage a fully featured computer connected to a public network like the internet. It makes perfect sense for these people to have a computer that is managed for them by someone else who is presumably competent.
Of course, such an approach has to be done properly...
You need multiple suppliers, so there is not a single entity in control of everyone's internet use, that would be terrible. People should be able to choose who they trust to manage their computer for them.
Also you need to have a process, preferably a complex one, by which people who are technically competent can unlock the system and manage it themselves. Have this process fully supported, but difficult enough that only competent people will be able to do it.
The Android approach is actually quite good, by default you have the marketplace provided by google or amazon etc which suits most users, but you still have the option to install third party apps or install third party firmware if you know how.
The difference is that MS charge over $100 for the upgrade, while Apple charge $30...
Because of the cheaper price, people will obviously have more tolerance for more frequent but smaller updates.
Also, Apple lets you install a single copy on multiple machines, MS doesn't, so if you have more than one mac the apple deal is even cheaper still.
On the other hand, with a move to more web based applications you can now easily access your data from a device like an ipad...
Plus since the ipad doesn't store any data locally, it's less dangerous should it go missing.
In the UK, it's easy to lose hundreds of pounds just by joining the gym...
Bitcoin is a perfectly good idea.. I use it regularly to exchange currencies, someone in one country buys bitcoins with his local currency and sends them to me, i then convert them to local currency. Doing this with bank transfers or paypal has massively higher fees for me.
I guess it varies a lot...
I would assume the regular price to buy Coke in Mexico is a lot cheaper than its sold in the US not to mention the cheaper manufacturing costs when using fairly taxed real sugar instead of HFCS, but depending on how it was imported, your proximity to Mexico and what level of markup the various importer/wholesaler/retailers want to charge it can often work out more expensive.
Well yes, welcome to capitalism...
A system that encourages business to think only about their own short term profits, and not about long term sustainability.
A system that encourages exactly what you describe, because there is more profit in selling more products and having working reliable products in the hands of consumers reduces demand for new ones.
A system that encourages improving the efficiency of your supply chain, so that ultimately all your goods will be mass produced by robots and the minimum of expensive staff to manage them... The end result being mass unemployment and noone able to afford to buy your products.
A system that discourages long term planning, because someone else will easily be able to undercut you in the short term and drive you out of business, rendering your long term planning useless.