"The true problems lies with the biochemical reactions of the mind and body during highly traumatic events. Memories are enhanced, new reactions/reflexes are developed,... In some ways it is comparable to experiencing close combat. You may be physically unharmed, but you are permanently changed, and it is something coming from the inside not the outside."
Which also applies to the examples I used of someone who was mugged in a parking lot who is then afraid to get out of their car, or someone who has had their home burglarized who is afraid to go to sleep at night. Traumatic events are traumatic events; I fail to see how having sex involved in a crime somehow elevates it to a level of super-crime more heinous than all others.
Where you fail is thinking that the level of stress experienced in a mugging approaches the level of trauma suffered in close combat or rape. I have friends who were robbed at gun point, I have family members who saw combat in the infantry, the latter includes highly motivated soldiers who fought in a popular war. Your analogy is quite poor. The biochemical responses are on very different levels.
Err... millions of dollars or something he paid 6,000 for? How can that be? IANAL, so please explain.
IIRC, in the US, something around 9x is the usual cap for punitive, well in judge's minds. Even then something particularly heinous usually needs to have been done. So he *asks* for millions, the court awards $15,000 (2.5x) in damages, he runs for the courthouse with the check giggling with joy. If he asked for $15,000 the judge might only award $12,000. So to keep the 9x ($54,000) in play you should probably ask for at least $100,000, you might get lucky and find a crazy judge. If you have a jury determining the damages, well they might be even crazier. Hell ask for a million, hope the jury is dumb enough to let this somehow influence their calculations. Do you think a particular jury would come up with the same number whether $100,000 or $1,000,000 was asked for?
It's also possible that the plaintiff's visor is a fan-made knockoff
I find it much easier to believe that the prop/costume people went to the local Wal-mart and bought a visor for a dollar than hand made something. I always thought the visor was supposed to be something replicated to resemble an item from a "classical" era of history. So buying something off-the-shelf at a convenient retailer makes sense, fans would only have to find something that came from the same assembly line. There could be millions.
So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?
Do you think the prop/costume department only acquired a single visor? Did the actor take that first visor worn home and bring it back for every future episode? Did the actor mark that visor so he knew it was the same one? Unless he was hoping to cash in at some future date why would he even pay such close attention to a particular prop like this to ensure it is the one and only visor ever used?
Who knows better than you what wallet/purse you've carried for the last X years?
It was on your person. You repeatedly saw it up close. You remember what it looks like.
That may be true for items that are used to a high degree and experience significant wear, thereby becoming personalized. This would seem unlikely for the visor in question, a prop. It would seem normal for prop/costume people to acquire several items for continuity purposes and replace any item if it acquired any damage or visible wear. Also, one new visor with wear looks like any other. If they had a few new ones in a box how would anyone know the same one was pulled every time? I don't think your "saw it close up" argument is very reliable.
Let's not be so certain. There are many acts of violence which would be extraordinarily traumatizing: having your eyes gouged out, your fingers systematically broken, or your only child beaten to death in front of your eyes, are a few examples.
The fact that you have to go to such extreme comparable examples, especially ones with permanent physical damage (gouged eyes, dead child), supports my argument that it is not simply about puritanical views on sex.
Part of the problem with psychological trauma from rape or sexual abuse is that everyone tells the victim they are irreparably broken, that they can never be truly healed, et cetera.
A minor part perhaps. The true problems lies with the biochemical reactions of the mind and body during highly traumatic events. Memories are enhanced, new reactions/reflexes are developed,... In some ways it is comparable to experiencing close combat. You may be physically unharmed, but you are permanently changed, and it is something coming from the inside not the outside.
Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.
You are wrong, incredibly wrong. Rape victims suffer severe psychological trauma, far beyond someone who gets beaten up for example, and it is naive to think it is because of some sort of puritanical sex thing. This severe trauma occurs in societies that are quite liberal about sex and with individuals who are quite free with their sexual drive. Sex offenders are treated harshly because of the severe lifelong psychological trauma inflicted upon the victim, not merely because of it involves sex.
The trauma goes beyond the psychological as well. There is the possibility of physical trauma or disease that could interfere with reproduction. Causing a woman to be unable to have a child is a pretty severe thing. While this is far less likely with modern medicine, there is still the possibility of incurable diseases such as herpes and HIV.
If you were the victim of a hate crime, beaten, and had a broomstick shoved up your a**, wouldn't you consider that far more serious and traumatic that getting beat up in a bar fight that included a broken arm? I expect that rape is far closer to the first type of physical assault than the second. Now imagine that it wasn't a broomstick and that you have to take HIV tests for a couple of years and can't have a normal sex life with your significant other.
None of the above should be taken as support for the law. There should be some sort of gradation among "sex offenders", statutory rape between consenting individuals close in age should not be treated as a rape with physical assault.
... they are generally not the most technically inclined.
When digital has no significant price advantage over physical the technically inclined may also prefer physical. Rip the DVD or CD at the fidelity you choose, re-rip in the future as technology improves, consider the disc a backup as well.
I'm also hesitant to consider someone who buys digital to be technically inclined. Most kiddies can manage that.
A June 2007 article calculated that the overall mercury emission by compact fluorescent lamps is less than the mercury released into the atmosphere by coal-fired power generation for series of equivalent incandescent lamps over the same period.
Overall emissions are unimportant in the GP's scenario of a bulb breaking at home. It is the local cloud that you and your family are exposed to that is more important.
Why is it more expensive to preserve a bunch of bits and bytes than, say, a reel with analog information, printed on some soon-to-be-brittle plastic? I'm very sure the latter will decay in a quicker fashion.
Analog film is extremely fault tolerant. No compression or encryption to go wrong due to a bad bit. No key frames and deltas that can cause errors to perpetuate from one frame to the next for a while. Digital is great in that you can have perfect reproduction, but it is also vulnerable in the sense that it requires perfect reproduction (yes error correction bits can mitigate this to a degree).
Given the shortage of units they may be trying to make sure what they do have is fairly distributed by region. If you divert local brick and mortar to the internet you are interfering with that. Therefore they do have at least one fair and valid rational for not wanting you to continue. Again, it all depends on what is in your contract.
Apologies for the second post, regional rationing came to mind immediately after posting the first response.
As a retailer in another arena, I can tell you that I have run up against threats from the manufacturers to cut me off simply because I was selling products on the internet, even if it is the same cost as selling in the stores... The thing that pissed me off the most was that they threatened to cut me off for selling on the internet while Amazon and several other big name online e-tailers were selling the exact same products with apparent impunity.
Historically it is not uncommon to select retailers on a regional basis and to restrict them to their region. If they fail to comply they get dropped. Read your contract with Nintendo to see if there is something along those lines.
Because we don't allow people, who don't follow certain rules and don't have a basic understanding of what a car can or can't do drive. Why don't we apply that rule to a piece of technology that surpasses the sophistication of a car by a hundred years of technological advancement ?
Because computers don't kill. Well consumer stuff, at least not yet.
In my case I had to take things as far as two members of the board to stop an accountant taking the laptop with the only functioning copy of the application that handles most of the financial information on holiday
I hope your board members recognized the four more important problems as well. Your top five problems:
(1) Management allowed (2), (3), (4), and (5).
(2) The accountant allowed (3) and (5).
(3) You have one and only one system capable of running a critical application.
(4) This critical application is not being run on enterprise grade hardware.
(5) The accountant wanted to take the system on holiday.
If your board only addressed the laptop/holiday add:
(0) Board allowed (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) as appropriate.
... with all the pointelss lawusits... The Internet should be a place where people can talk about themselves and how they feel about something without the fear of legal action.
The first amendment does not prevent lawsuits, it merely allows you to publish. You are still liable for what you publish, the laws regarding defamation, libel, slander, etc still apply. The responsibilities and liabilities that apply to paper and ink should apply to the internet as well. When there is sufficient evidence that such a crime/tort has been committed the court should require an ISP to provide information. The issue in this case is really whether such a crime/tort took place. Criticizing a government official for government actions is very different from those of a private person.
Somehow I don't think that I will be given access to Windows source, even after the research is published.
Windows source code is not required. The algorithms that are the products of the research are OS independent and there is no restriction on their publication.
Hence, the "in for a penny in for a pound" argument. Your modern house is already full of plastics, insulation, and all sorts of other materials that would be noxious or even toxic if your house were to burn so NOT adding solar panels simply because they might be toxic when they burn too is sort of pointless. You aren't really increasing your overall risk much, beyond what it otherwise would be anyway, by adding solar panels to your home. Now maybe you live in a natural adobe home or a mud hut, but for the rest of us this line or reasoning is valid.
You are discovering my curiosity here. The problem with your line of thinking is that the materials in a house are designed to mitigate the harmful by products. Hence building codes preventing one from using PVC pipes designated for lawn sprinklers as conduits for running indoor cabling, there are pipes with alternate ingredients for that application. Building codes also cover exterior elements and consider chemicals released during burning. My curiosity is whether the current formulation of the solar panels present no special risk, and may therefore be used in the near future; or if a reformulation is necessary, which delays its use. There are also other issues such as whether the material is inherently flammable, another issue that would preclude roofing applications.
Both Mac OS and Mac OS X were the children of Steve Jobs, even if he never touched the code.
So even as a descendent of NeXTStep, Mac OS X is still descended in spirit from the original Mac OS.
Unlike with code, being a spiritual descendant and having a common salesman does not affect security.
$10 says the army unwittingly installs Windows on these new macs...
I bet it is entirely intentional, but most likely in a dual boot or parallels scenario.
Its happened before. Linux advocates have successfully gotten university departments to replace Sun and SGI boxes with PCs running Linux, for general purpose use, and of course these boxes ended up dual booting to Windows or Linux.
Mac OS based servers, like MS-DOS based servers, were pretty damn secure because they had little to no remote access. Mac OS X is a completely different story. Other than name it has nearly nothing in common with Mac OS, it is a descendent of NextStep, a known Unix-based platform.
but i thought they don't allow gays in the military?!?
They expect the computer to be running MS Office on an Intel CPU. They are not allowed to ask, and you are not supposed to volunteer, whether you are doing so under Windows or Mac OS X. It is a don't ask, don't tell policy, and it upsets a lot of people in the Bay area.
I met airforce officers at a computer show in maine years ago, who were active developers of OpenBSD for the AF. Also, from what i remember, the navy started using PowerMac's years ago for the same reasons.
Are you thinking of the onboard sonar processing software used in submarines? Mac hardware was chosen because it was PowerPC based and PowerPC had a big computation advantage over Intel for this particular application. The PowerMacs were running Yellow Dog Linux not Max OS X, they were replacing Suns. Mac OS X vs Windows security issues were not relevant.
Time for a little tariff increase on Chinese products!
How about we accept personal responsibility and take actions ourselves rather than rely on the government? Simply avoid Chinese products if at all possible. That has the added benefit that there is no opportunity for government level retaliation, WTO suits, etc.
It doesn't really matter if they produce toxic fumes when burning (most probably noxious but not necessarily toxic or even poisonous ) since (a) they are probably outside anyway (i.e. on your roof or out in the yard),
Since we are talking shingles we are talking about a lot of material. There could be a threat to those outside in the vicinity, you and your family, neighbors, etc. When plastics burn there is often a danger of long term permanent damage, including cancer risks from carcinogens. Hydrochloric acid vapors and dioxin for example, it's not simple smoke inhalation. I once worked in a warehouse and a fire in the toy department was considered extremely dangerous, even to those outside exposed to smoke. I'm wondering if there are similar problems here.
Slashdot Mirror
"The true problems lies with the biochemical reactions of the mind and body during highly traumatic events. Memories are enhanced, new reactions/reflexes are developed, ... In some ways it is comparable to experiencing close combat. You may be physically unharmed, but you are permanently changed, and it is something coming from the inside not the outside."
Which also applies to the examples I used of someone who was mugged in a parking lot who is then afraid to get out of their car, or someone who has had their home burglarized who is afraid to go to sleep at night. Traumatic events are traumatic events; I fail to see how having sex involved in a crime somehow elevates it to a level of super-crime more heinous than all others.
Where you fail is thinking that the level of stress experienced in a mugging approaches the level of trauma suffered in close combat or rape. I have friends who were robbed at gun point, I have family members who saw combat in the infantry, the latter includes highly motivated soldiers who fought in a popular war. Your analogy is quite poor. The biochemical responses are on very different levels.
Err... millions of dollars or something he paid 6,000 for? How can that be? IANAL, so please explain.
IIRC, in the US, something around 9x is the usual cap for punitive, well in judge's minds. Even then something particularly heinous usually needs to have been done. So he *asks* for millions, the court awards $15,000 (2.5x) in damages, he runs for the courthouse with the check giggling with joy. If he asked for $15,000 the judge might only award $12,000. So to keep the 9x ($54,000) in play you should probably ask for at least $100,000, you might get lucky and find a crazy judge. If you have a jury determining the damages, well they might be even crazier. Hell ask for a million, hope the jury is dumb enough to let this somehow influence their calculations. Do you think a particular jury would come up with the same number whether $100,000 or $1,000,000 was asked for?
It's also possible that the plaintiff's visor is a fan-made knockoff
I find it much easier to believe that the prop/costume people went to the local Wal-mart and bought a visor for a dollar than hand made something. I always thought the visor was supposed to be something replicated to resemble an item from a "classical" era of history. So buying something off-the-shelf at a convenient retailer makes sense, fans would only have to find something that came from the same assembly line. There could be millions.
So who is going to know what they wore while doing a particular job than the person who wore that item of clothing/accessory as part of their job?
Do you think the prop/costume department only acquired a single visor? Did the actor take that first visor worn home and bring it back for every future episode? Did the actor mark that visor so he knew it was the same one? Unless he was hoping to cash in at some future date why would he even pay such close attention to a particular prop like this to ensure it is the one and only visor ever used?
Who knows better than you what wallet/purse you've carried for the last X years? It was on your person. You repeatedly saw it up close. You remember what it looks like.
That may be true for items that are used to a high degree and experience significant wear, thereby becoming personalized. This would seem unlikely for the visor in question, a prop. It would seem normal for prop/costume people to acquire several items for continuity purposes and replace any item if it acquired any damage or visible wear. Also, one new visor with wear looks like any other. If they had a few new ones in a box how would anyone know the same one was pulled every time? I don't think your "saw it close up" argument is very reliable.
Let's not be so certain. There are many acts of violence which would be extraordinarily traumatizing: having your eyes gouged out, your fingers systematically broken, or your only child beaten to death in front of your eyes, are a few examples.
... In some ways it is comparable to experiencing close combat. You may be physically unharmed, but you are permanently changed, and it is something coming from the inside not the outside.
The fact that you have to go to such extreme comparable examples, especially ones with permanent physical damage (gouged eyes, dead child), supports my argument that it is not simply about puritanical views on sex.
Part of the problem with psychological trauma from rape or sexual abuse is that everyone tells the victim they are irreparably broken, that they can never be truly healed, et cetera.
A minor part perhaps. The true problems lies with the biochemical reactions of the mind and body during highly traumatic events. Memories are enhanced, new reactions/reflexes are developed,
Yes, rape is a terrible and inexcusable crime, but why is it so much worse than any other physical assault on someone's person? Because it involves SEX -- that horrible little word.
You are wrong, incredibly wrong. Rape victims suffer severe psychological trauma, far beyond someone who gets beaten up for example, and it is naive to think it is because of some sort of puritanical sex thing. This severe trauma occurs in societies that are quite liberal about sex and with individuals who are quite free with their sexual drive. Sex offenders are treated harshly because of the severe lifelong psychological trauma inflicted upon the victim, not merely because of it involves sex.
The trauma goes beyond the psychological as well. There is the possibility of physical trauma or disease that could interfere with reproduction. Causing a woman to be unable to have a child is a pretty severe thing. While this is far less likely with modern medicine, there is still the possibility of incurable diseases such as herpes and HIV.
If you were the victim of a hate crime, beaten, and had a broomstick shoved up your a**, wouldn't you consider that far more serious and traumatic that getting beat up in a bar fight that included a broken arm? I expect that rape is far closer to the first type of physical assault than the second. Now imagine that it wasn't a broomstick and that you have to take HIV tests for a couple of years and can't have a normal sex life with your significant other.
None of the above should be taken as support for the law. There should be some sort of gradation among "sex offenders", statutory rape between consenting individuals close in age should not be treated as a rape with physical assault.
... they are generally not the most technically inclined.
When digital has no significant price advantage over physical the technically inclined may also prefer physical. Rip the DVD or CD at the fidelity you choose, re-rip in the future as technology improves, consider the disc a backup as well.
I'm also hesitant to consider someone who buys digital to be technically inclined. Most kiddies can manage that.
Wal-mart is successful because it has a very efficient method of physical distribution.
That is only half of what Wal-mart does, they are also very good at negotiating low prices from suppliers.
A June 2007 article calculated that the overall mercury emission by compact fluorescent lamps is less than the mercury released into the atmosphere by coal-fired power generation for series of equivalent incandescent lamps over the same period.
Overall emissions are unimportant in the GP's scenario of a bulb breaking at home. It is the local cloud that you and your family are exposed to that is more important.
Why is it more expensive to preserve a bunch of bits and bytes than, say, a reel with analog information, printed on some soon-to-be-brittle plastic? I'm very sure the latter will decay in a quicker fashion.
Analog film is extremely fault tolerant. No compression or encryption to go wrong due to a bad bit. No key frames and deltas that can cause errors to perpetuate from one frame to the next for a while. Digital is great in that you can have perfect reproduction, but it is also vulnerable in the sense that it requires perfect reproduction (yes error correction bits can mitigate this to a degree).
Given the shortage of units they may be trying to make sure what they do have is fairly distributed by region. If you divert local brick and mortar to the internet you are interfering with that. Therefore they do have at least one fair and valid rational for not wanting you to continue. Again, it all depends on what is in your contract.
Apologies for the second post, regional rationing came to mind immediately after posting the first response.
As a retailer in another arena, I can tell you that I have run up against threats from the manufacturers to cut me off simply because I was selling products on the internet, even if it is the same cost as selling in the stores ... The thing that pissed me off the most was that they threatened to cut me off for selling on the internet while Amazon and several other big name online e-tailers were selling the exact same products with apparent impunity.
Historically it is not uncommon to select retailers on a regional basis and to restrict them to their region. If they fail to comply they get dropped. Read your contract with Nintendo to see if there is something along those lines.
Because we don't allow people, who don't follow certain rules and don't have a basic understanding of what a car can or can't do drive. Why don't we apply that rule to a piece of technology that surpasses the sophistication of a car by a hundred years of technological advancement ?
Because computers don't kill. Well consumer stuff, at least not yet.
In my case I had to take things as far as two members of the board to stop an accountant taking the laptop with the only functioning copy of the application that handles most of the financial information on holiday
I hope your board members recognized the four more important problems as well. Your top five problems:
(1) Management allowed (2), (3), (4), and (5).
(2) The accountant allowed (3) and (5).
(3) You have one and only one system capable of running a critical application.
(4) This critical application is not being run on enterprise grade hardware.
(5) The accountant wanted to take the system on holiday.
If your board only addressed the laptop/holiday add:
(0) Board allowed (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) as appropriate.
... with all the pointelss lawusits ... The Internet should be a place where people can talk about themselves and how they feel about something without the fear of legal action.
The first amendment does not prevent lawsuits, it merely allows you to publish. You are still liable for what you publish, the laws regarding defamation, libel, slander, etc still apply. The responsibilities and liabilities that apply to paper and ink should apply to the internet as well. When there is sufficient evidence that such a crime/tort has been committed the court should require an ISP to provide information. The issue in this case is really whether such a crime/tort took place. Criticizing a government official for government actions is very different from those of a private person.
Maybe a white hat will break into the IRS and encrypt all the files for them. Hope he doesn't lose the key before he anonymously mails it to them. :-)
Somehow I don't think that I will be given access to Windows source, even after the research is published.
Windows source code is not required. The algorithms that are the products of the research are OS independent and there is no restriction on their publication.
Hence, the "in for a penny in for a pound" argument. Your modern house is already full of plastics, insulation, and all sorts of other materials that would be noxious or even toxic if your house were to burn so NOT adding solar panels simply because they might be toxic when they burn too is sort of pointless. You aren't really increasing your overall risk much, beyond what it otherwise would be anyway, by adding solar panels to your home. Now maybe you live in a natural adobe home or a mud hut, but for the rest of us this line or reasoning is valid.
You are discovering my curiosity here. The problem with your line of thinking is that the materials in a house are designed to mitigate the harmful by products. Hence building codes preventing one from using PVC pipes designated for lawn sprinklers as conduits for running indoor cabling, there are pipes with alternate ingredients for that application. Building codes also cover exterior elements and consider chemicals released during burning. My curiosity is whether the current formulation of the solar panels present no special risk, and may therefore be used in the near future; or if a reformulation is necessary, which delays its use. There are also other issues such as whether the material is inherently flammable, another issue that would preclude roofing applications.
Both Mac OS and Mac OS X were the children of Steve Jobs, even if he never touched the code. So even as a descendent of NeXTStep, Mac OS X is still descended in spirit from the original Mac OS.
Unlike with code, being a spiritual descendant and having a common salesman does not affect security.
$10 says the army unwittingly installs Windows on these new macs...
I bet it is entirely intentional, but most likely in a dual boot or parallels scenario.
Its happened before. Linux advocates have successfully gotten university departments to replace Sun and SGI boxes with PCs running Linux, for general purpose use, and of course these boxes ended up dual booting to Windows or Linux.
Mac OS based servers, like MS-DOS based servers, were pretty damn secure because they had little to no remote access. Mac OS X is a completely different story. Other than name it has nearly nothing in common with Mac OS, it is a descendent of NextStep, a known Unix-based platform.
but i thought they don't allow gays in the military?!?
They expect the computer to be running MS Office on an Intel CPU. They are not allowed to ask, and you are not supposed to volunteer, whether you are doing so under Windows or Mac OS X. It is a don't ask, don't tell policy, and it upsets a lot of people in the Bay area.
I met airforce officers at a computer show in maine years ago, who were active developers of OpenBSD for the AF. Also, from what i remember, the navy started using PowerMac's years ago for the same reasons.
Are you thinking of the onboard sonar processing software used in submarines? Mac hardware was chosen because it was PowerPC based and PowerPC had a big computation advantage over Intel for this particular application. The PowerMacs were running Yellow Dog Linux not Max OS X, they were replacing Suns. Mac OS X vs Windows security issues were not relevant.
Time for a little tariff increase on Chinese products!
How about we accept personal responsibility and take actions ourselves rather than rely on the government? Simply avoid Chinese products if at all possible. That has the added benefit that there is no opportunity for government level retaliation, WTO suits, etc.
It doesn't really matter if they produce toxic fumes when burning (most probably noxious but not necessarily toxic or even poisonous ) since (a) they are probably outside anyway (i.e. on your roof or out in the yard),
Since we are talking shingles we are talking about a lot of material. There could be a threat to those outside in the vicinity, you and your family, neighbors, etc. When plastics burn there is often a danger of long term permanent damage, including cancer risks from carcinogens. Hydrochloric acid vapors and dioxin for example, it's not simple smoke inhalation. I once worked in a warehouse and a fire in the toy department was considered extremely dangerous, even to those outside exposed to smoke. I'm wondering if there are similar problems here.