The difference is large enough that it's a no-brainer. I agree that taking a principled stance is nice -- in theory. But you have to choose your battles and battling the insurance industry over this issue is not one I am going to undertake.
Does it suck? Yes. Do I hate it? Yes. Do I comply with it? Absolutely.
Saw it this past weekend and it's very very interesting. Not to say it's fullproof. There are plenty of remaining questions but it is good insight on this whole "war on terror" and the history (or lack thereof) of Al Quaeda
I am a small employer. The reason we have pre-employment drug screens has absolutely nothing to do with me or my company's opinion of them.
Our insurance rates are cheaper if we do them.
It is a VERY simple cost/benefit anaylysis. We save money by requiring drug tests. Not in productivity or anything like that. Just our insurance rates.
I suspect we are not the only ones who are faced with this choice.
I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "you don't need to backup that much data" (pr0n, etc).
I agree. But if your data backup needs are so light, why would you even bother with online backup? Seems like a nice little tape drive would be much easier, cheaper, and more reliable.
And if you DO need to back up a large volume of data, then again, online backup is not for you because of the bandwidth requirements.
So I still don't get it. What niche is online backup filling? For every condition, I can think of a MUCH better solution than sending it over the internet.
So, umm, how long - exactly - does it take to upload 560 GB over a broadband connection?
Actually, you'd better make that 560 + 560 GB because I may want to back up my OTHER PC as well.
I realize I am being sarchastic but I am always confused by "online" backup simply because it doesn't make much sense from a practicality standpoint. A semi-modern PC has a minimum 40GB sized hard drive. And it only goes up from there. I've been online for quite sometime and while things have gotten MUCH better, with respect to bandwidth, it still takes a LONG, LONG, LONG time to transfer huge amounts of data. Note, I am not talking about your 4.5gig ISO image. I'm talking 20 of them. In a row.
From my point of view: it's dead. Please enlighten me, if you experience is different.
"It's about meeting and exceeding expectations, not just posting a profit."
Close, but not quite. It's about the investors next best alternative. If MSFT makes less money than Company B, then I buy Company B, all other things being the same.
Your statement seems to imply that expectations drive everything. And they do -- but that's only because investors are constantly comparing their current investments with the next best alternative.
You are dead on about one thing: Wall Street IS a cruel mistress.
Yep, just another example of a "technical" person being stumbled by DRM.
...and these crazy companies actually think my mom is going to be able to figure this out? Sheesh, right. Remember, 95% of the people out there have no clue what DRM is or even what it means. They just want to take that cool video over to their friends house and watch it. DRM prevents that. And that's why DRM will ultimately fail in the long run.
And don't give me the "implemented wrongly" line. DRM's purpose is to prevent playback on unauthorized devices. In other words, restricting playback to a small set of devices that the purchaser owns. That is, absolutely, opposite of what people generally do with their media. People share. They take it to friends houses. They play it in churches. They show it at Elks club meetings. *ALL* of those things are eliminated with DRM.
Yout just wait...once the general public can not do what I describe above, there will be a minor revolt.
What about multiple streams? Will they allow that?
I am dreaming of a Tivo-like device that can archive LOTS of different "channels" (ie: streams) at the same time. Given enough storage, I could Tivo EVERY channel and every show for a period of about 2 weeks. And storage is only getting cheaper so this is technically possible.
In the non-IP world, I'd have to have a tuner for each channel. In the IP-world, the channel becomes a stream. And we all know that PC's can handle many many streams at once.
Not the part where you actually explained it, rather, the part where I realized I understood everything you were speaking about. If you do too, then congrats. You're a nerd.
Always remember that for 95% of the population, your reply might as well have been in Alien pig latin. Yes. Computers are THAT foreign and scary to people.:-)
You assume that the shareholders are different from the people running the company. In the vast majority of businesses, they are one and the same.
While the "stock market" companies get all the press, most of the companies in the US are NOT public and don't answer to the public or the regulatory bodies (ie: SEC). It is very common, once again, for the shareholders = board = operators. They are all the same people.
It doesn't take creative accounting to make zero profit. MANY MANY small businesses are run like this so as to minimize the tax impact.
My point is that it's not just Hollywood. It is a preferred method for many people all across America.
Now, having said that, negotiating for a cut of the net profit is just a bad idea. For anything. By doing so, you give the payor the opportunity to let his costs get out of control without any negative consequences.
Steve-
I am very familiar with Phosgene and it's effects. You are dead (excuse the pun) right -- it would make for a bad bad day. I haven't ever heard of burned PTFE creating Phosgene so I am interested in hearing more about this.
As you may have noticed, I work with and sell PTFE soft goods on the stuff I sell. I go into almost every kind of plant known (chemical, power, food, etc) and I have never heard of any smoker having this concern. I am not saying your claim is BS, but I am curious where you got this info. Can you provide me a link?
My company has been selling PTFE since it came on the market and none of our mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineers have ever heard of this either.
You are correct...it was solved. And the solution was to NOT have a paper trail and just trust the secret vote. There were NO mechanisms in place to determine whether there was ballot stuffing, fraud, or anything else we are talking about here.
It's hard to make things secret if you have to count them and audit them. Anonymity and audit trail just don't go very well together.
Anything with a timestamp can be reverse engineered to see who was at that terminal at that time. That's exactly how they catch ATM crooks.
If it can be done on ATM's, then it can be done on voting machines. And my contention is that the general public will not accept that. They don't even want the POSSIBILITY of someone reverse engineering their vote.
Second....and what happens if you have a discrepancy? Then what?
The fear I was explaining is that people don't want a system that can re-engineer their vote. In other words, if there is ANY way a vote can be tied to a voter, then ppl will not accept that. So, with your system, you have a count - that doesn't match. Now what the f*ck do you do? You can't match it back to each voter so what the hell do you do with that information? Throw out that whole precinct? Throw out that machine's results? WHAT?????
If you can, then what you are doing is illegal. While cool, it's not really relevant to the discussion. I mean, it's illegal dude.
And I am assuming you are speaking of individually identifying who someone voted for and not just extrapolating demographical informmation (ie: Bush was REALLY popular in Texas so I'll guess that you voted for Bush).
You are only required to register for primary elections. By registering, you tell the gov't "I am going to vote in the primaries". You DO NOT tell them who you voted for.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is large enough that it's a no-brainer. I agree that taking a principled stance is nice -- in theory. But you have to choose your battles and battling the insurance industry over this issue is not one I am going to undertake.
Does it suck? Yes. Do I hate it? Yes. Do I comply with it? Absolutely.
No. Now please shut up so you don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Nothing to see here. Please move along. Thank you.
I second this recommendation.
Saw it this past weekend and it's very very interesting. Not to say it's fullproof. There are plenty of remaining questions but it is good insight on this whole "war on terror" and the history (or lack thereof) of Al Quaeda
I am a small employer. The reason we have pre-employment drug screens has absolutely nothing to do with me or my company's opinion of them.
Our insurance rates are cheaper if we do them.
It is a VERY simple cost/benefit anaylysis. We save money by requiring drug tests. Not in productivity or anything like that. Just our insurance rates.
I suspect we are not the only ones who are faced with this choice.
I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "you don't need to backup that much data" (pr0n, etc).
I agree. But if your data backup needs are so light, why would you even bother with online backup? Seems like a nice little tape drive would be much easier, cheaper, and more reliable.
And if you DO need to back up a large volume of data, then again, online backup is not for you because of the bandwidth requirements.
So I still don't get it. What niche is online backup filling? For every condition, I can think of a MUCH better solution than sending it over the internet.
Man, you have it all wrong.
:-)
My pr0n and music collection is MUCH bigger than 560GB.
So, umm, how long - exactly - does it take to upload 560 GB over a broadband connection?
Actually, you'd better make that 560 + 560 GB because I may want to back up my OTHER PC as well.
I realize I am being sarchastic but I am always confused by "online" backup simply because it doesn't make much sense from a practicality standpoint. A semi-modern PC has a minimum 40GB sized hard drive. And it only goes up from there. I've been online for quite sometime and while things have gotten MUCH better, with respect to bandwidth, it still takes a LONG, LONG, LONG time to transfer huge amounts of data. Note, I am not talking about your 4.5gig ISO image. I'm talking 20 of them. In a row.
From my point of view: it's dead. Please enlighten me, if you experience is different.
"It's about meeting and exceeding expectations, not just posting a profit."
Close, but not quite. It's about the investors next best alternative. If MSFT makes less money than Company B, then I buy Company B, all other things being the same.
Your statement seems to imply that expectations drive everything. And they do -- but that's only because investors are constantly comparing their current investments with the next best alternative.
You are dead on about one thing: Wall Street IS a cruel mistress.
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?!?
/.]
[seriously, this is the most asinine story I have EVER read on
Yep, just another example of a "technical" person being stumbled by DRM.
...and these crazy companies actually think my mom is going to be able to figure this out? Sheesh, right. Remember, 95% of the people out there have no clue what DRM is or even what it means. They just want to take that cool video over to their friends house and watch it. DRM prevents that. And that's why DRM will ultimately fail in the long run.
And don't give me the "implemented wrongly" line. DRM's purpose is to prevent playback on unauthorized devices. In other words, restricting playback to a small set of devices that the purchaser owns. That is, absolutely, opposite of what people generally do with their media. People share. They take it to friends houses. They play it in churches. They show it at Elks club meetings. *ALL* of those things are eliminated with DRM.
Yout just wait...once the general public can not do what I describe above, there will be a minor revolt.
What about multiple streams? Will they allow that?
I am dreaming of a Tivo-like device that can archive LOTS of different "channels" (ie: streams) at the same time. Given enough storage, I could Tivo EVERY channel and every show for a period of about 2 weeks. And storage is only getting cheaper so this is technically possible.
In the non-IP world, I'd have to have a tuner for each channel. In the IP-world, the channel becomes a stream. And we all know that PC's can handle many many streams at once.
That process took my breath away.
:-)
Not the part where you actually explained it, rather, the part where I realized I understood everything you were speaking about. If you do too, then congrats. You're a nerd.
Always remember that for 95% of the population, your reply might as well have been in Alien pig latin. Yes. Computers are THAT foreign and scary to people.
or, read /. at a -1.
And watch the hilarity ensue.
You assume that the shareholders are different from the people running the company. In the vast majority of businesses, they are one and the same.
While the "stock market" companies get all the press, most of the companies in the US are NOT public and don't answer to the public or the regulatory bodies (ie: SEC). It is very common, once again, for the shareholders = board = operators. They are all the same people.
And yes, my company does this.
It doesn't take creative accounting to make zero profit. MANY MANY small businesses are run like this so as to minimize the tax impact.
My point is that it's not just Hollywood. It is a preferred method for many people all across America.
Now, having said that, negotiating for a cut of the net profit is just a bad idea. For anything. By doing so, you give the payor the opportunity to let his costs get out of control without any negative consequences.
Steve- I am very familiar with Phosgene and it's effects. You are dead (excuse the pun) right -- it would make for a bad bad day. I haven't ever heard of burned PTFE creating Phosgene so I am interested in hearing more about this.
As you may have noticed, I work with and sell PTFE soft goods on the stuff I sell. I go into almost every kind of plant known (chemical, power, food, etc) and I have never heard of any smoker having this concern. I am not saying your claim is BS, but I am curious where you got this info. Can you provide me a link?
My company has been selling PTFE since it came on the market and none of our mechanical, electrical, or chemical engineers have ever heard of this either.
Huh? Are you suggesting that there were int'l observers 2000 years ago with partisan and non-partisan oversight?
I think, perhaps you misread my reply when you posted.
You are correct...it was solved. And the solution was to NOT have a paper trail and just trust the secret vote. There were NO mechanisms in place to determine whether there was ballot stuffing, fraud, or anything else we are talking about here.
It's hard to make things secret if you have to count them and audit them. Anonymity and audit trail just don't go very well together.
perfect example.
Anything with a timestamp can be reverse engineered to see who was at that terminal at that time. That's exactly how they catch ATM crooks.
If it can be done on ATM's, then it can be done on voting machines. And my contention is that the general public will not accept that. They don't even want the POSSIBILITY of someone reverse engineering their vote.
first, it wasn't a troll
Second....and what happens if you have a discrepancy? Then what?
The fear I was explaining is that people don't want a system that can re-engineer their vote. In other words, if there is ANY way a vote can be tied to a voter, then ppl will not accept that. So, with your system, you have a count - that doesn't match. Now what the f*ck do you do? You can't match it back to each voter so what the hell do you do with that information? Throw out that whole precinct? Throw out that machine's results? WHAT?????
If you can, then what you are doing is illegal. While cool, it's not really relevant to the discussion. I mean, it's illegal dude.
And I am assuming you are speaking of individually identifying who someone voted for and not just extrapolating demographical informmation (ie: Bush was REALLY popular in Texas so I'll guess that you voted for Bush).
Registering with a party != my individual vote
You are only required to register for primary elections. By registering, you tell the gov't "I am going to vote in the primaries". You DO NOT tell them who you voted for.
It's apples and orange.
I am sure they can do this. The point you are missing is that there are MANY people who want the chances of that happening to be ZERO.
In other words, they don't even want to take the chance that someone can reverse engineer the voting system and figure out who voted for who.
For ATM's that's fine. For the general public's voting record, it's not.
No, you are wrong. Your vote is not in the public record. Nobody (not even the gov't) can force you to tell them who you voted for.
All voting disclosure is voluntary here in the USA.
Perhaps you are thinking of the "voting record" for congress critters? That is public.
Look, I've got about 20 replies to my post all saying the same thing. The paper doesn't have to point to the voter. It just has to point to the vote.
I agree and am aware of that fact.
Now, your job is to go sell that subtlety to the American public. Good luck! Perception IS reality here in the states.