My family moved when I was at the end of second grade, from Iowa to Louisiana. Unfortunately Iowa taught cursive in third grade, while Louisiana did in second.
As a result, I moved in just in time to learn X, Y, and Z, and then the term was up. Next year and all the way through junior high (8th grade) I was expected to use cursive for all my written works.
In high school and college, of course, no one cared. I could write suitably fast, taking notes for myself that did, rather quickly, cramp my hand. (Timed essays such as AP tests in high school or some of my physics exams in college were very painful.)
Now that I've been full time in the workforce for almost a decade, it just doesn't matter. I use grid composition books to take meeting notes or to think on paper, but everything goes into the computer as soon as it's viable. Interestingly my typing skills have improved dramatically in the past decade; when I graduated from college I still had to look at the keyboard, but now I never do.
Thus, at this point, the only thing that I can write in cursive is my signature. =p
(Now, let me add that, had I ever learned shorthand, I would have been most grateful. My mother was a reporter for many many years and can take fully legible (to her) shorthand notes far faster than anyone else I know.)
Most of the comments on this story so far (about a dozen) are in support of customer privacy.
In contrast, last week, most of the comments on a similar story about Canadian privacy law were in favor of the business. In that case, though, the business itself was online (Facebook), whereas in this case, the business is brick & mortar & alcohol, and only the data is online.
Do you, the Slashdot reader, have a different opinion about these two cases because of the case differences? Or did the posters of all of last Friday's comments go on vacation this week?
Remember I'm assuming IT has complete control over these machines. Could you not manipulate the hosts file so that IE6 could only get to internal sites (and everything else went to an internal redirect), whereas Firefox could have less-filtered access? Could you do not it as well with an IE6 plugin?
If not, I'd use a proxy server with the user agent, yeah.
If you could get a "free" car in the U.S., yet all you had to do is (*thinks of something illegal*) loan your underage daughter to that burly man over there for a while, would it be OK if the terms of the contract were stated clearly up front? Would those terms be legally binding once signed? No!
It does not matter what a contract states; that contract must be legal where it was executed or it is null and void.
Because private data is private. It hurts legitimate businesses that want to respect privacy when they have to compete with less scrupulous business that trade cost for private data. As those "more expensive" companies go out of business, citizens who wish to retain their privacy lose their option to do so.
Fortunately most countries have laws that dictate that trade must be conducted under a legal framework. For example, in the U.S. you cannot agree to a contract that violates state or federal law; the contract is null and void. In Canada, one of those laws is privacy disclosure, so it apples just like U.S. laws do here.
Have you seen factory add-on prices for ANY car? BMW charged me $550 to add an iPod jack to my wife's car, and now wants to charge me $800 for mine. You can buy a third-party interface for $135.*
In this case, of course, not only is there the usual vendor markup, but there's also the licensing cost. Your third-party company putting an autobot logo on your car can be sued.
* Of course if you buy the third-party kit, you have to pay BMW for a software update anyway.
Although I appreciate the distaste of making money off sick people, I don't think that applies. Promethius should be tied to a rock for a giant eagle to eat their livers.
You'll hear from my lawyer. I hold a patent on the method and apparatus for preemptive avian extraction of precancerous or prediseased liver.
If a coworker ever walked by and saw you reading, or worse, writing, a racist rant, then yes, your employer would be open to a lawsuit. Likely it would be one they'd settle with a bit of cash and a clause that included your dismissal.
Your American libertarian view of the law sees this as a business transaction, where the user can either use the product (and accept the terms of total data disclosure) or not use it.
Other countries with more civilized privacy laws prevent companies from demanding unnecessary personal data (i.e. anything not needed for the specific product or application) when providing a product. Terms of business have to comply with the law, just as they must in the U.S.; Canada just has more terms.
The person who made the decision without seeking approval of his/her boss is responsible. If that person cannot be determined, the board of trustees are responsible and should be punished.
Yeah, the IT team can just rename the IE6 icon as "ERP Interface" or something, and install Firefox, naming its icon "Web Browser".
Voila, internal apps keep working but employees are no longer at risk due to IE6 use on the wild wild internet.
Even better if as a company they block IE6 access to external sites, so people who try to use their ERP software to browse the web would be cut off and told to launch Firefox.
Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right? If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid. Simply having the plate will not work.
Here in Texas, the owner of a car that goes through a toll booth receives a bill in the mail, and is required to pay it, regardless of who was driving the car. I'm not sure if this has been tested with a stolen car, but I know it has been with a car that was sold but not yet transferred with the state.
Nuclear holocaust brings about post-apocalyptic wastelands. If sci fi genres aren't on-topic for Slashdot, it should just rename itself The Linux Channel (or LyCy) and kick the rest of us out.
Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?
Yes, great idea! I agree 100%. If McDonalds has to pay an up-front cost when the sell a styrofoam cup that won't degrate for 1000 years, or they could choose to pay a much smaller up-front cost for a soybean-derived cup that's just as durable for the five minutes it's needed, but will break down within 5 years in a land fill, they just might choose the more environmentally-responsible option.
Manufacturers have to pay the true cost to produce their products. That's the best way to retain the best possible free market in the face of diminishing shared resources.
Technology will eventually get to the point where theres no need to use toxic substances (not because of regulation but because if you want to have decent performance you just don't use them).
You're joking, right? Or you are you merely oblivious? Toxic substances will be used in any and every process and product imaginable if A) the manufacturer thinks they can get away with it due to lack of regulation or the complication of proving a claim in our legal system, and B) the manufacturer saves one-half penny or more per product sold.
Manufacturers should be responsible for the disposal of their products because, eventually, everything they make will be disposed. Free markets FAIL when the market can ignore the cost of shared resources. This includes air and water and things talked about by the EPA, but it also includes material resources and landfill space.
Requiring manufacturers to pay the true cost of production is the best way to enable a free market that is actually sustainable. The alternative is regulation that dictates the methods and materials used for production, which is significantly more government regulation.
The local Austin Goodwill, in a team effort with Dell, provides free electronics recycling at all Goodwill dropoff locations in the central Texas region.
At, say $25 a pop, I bet there's profit to be made loading a big truck or a few train cars with purchased "used" electronics, shipping it to Texas, then giving it to Goodwill for recycling. Residents of Grand Junction save $25 per item.
While it is sad that he'd have been forced to go through the humiliation and embarassment of being questioned/searched/etc.. but honestly.. who in their right mind would carry something like a terror script through airport screening? Comic book, hell.. it could've been a movie script and he would've received the same response.
In short: He was asking for it. No.. he was begging.
While it is sad that she'd have been forced to go through the humiliation and embarassment of being raped/beaten/etc.. but honestly.. who in their right mind would wear something like a mini skirt to a frat party? Skirt, hell.. it could've been a tight blouse and she would've received the same response.
In short: She was asking for it. No.. she was begging.
I acquired some photographs for a college project about a decade ago from a local historical society. They were photos of an old, now-removed residential neighborhood, taken in 1917. (All photographs taken and published in 1917 in the United States are and were in the public domain.)
Before I was allowed to have a copy of these photos, I had to had to sign a contract that limited my ability to reuse the works. This effectively replaced copyright as the entity restricting my right to use the works.
Alas, I really wanted to publish my final project online, but the rights I had to those photos precluded that. I ended up turning in the project in HTML form on a CD.
Funny, because as a "strict constructionist" he is usually credited as one that applies the Constitution exactly as written, i.e. more towards a limited, libertarian view. In this opinion, though, it was the liberal wing that most closely sided with the child being strip-searched in violation of her (or her parents') constitutional rights.
Yeah, but there are thousands and thousands of old machines 400MHz and up, and most of those are willingly discarded or recycled by those with no sensitive data on them at all, or by those who don't know to wipe their own data off the drive first.
All of those drives are more than enough to supply the single moms, homeless shelters, and churches of the world. Meanwhile, other drives - those that actually have critical information where the consequences of release are high - can be destroyed.
If it makes you feel better, when they're done destroying them, I fully support having the metal melted down for some environmentally-friendly reuse.
Slashdot Mirror
My family moved when I was at the end of second grade, from Iowa to Louisiana. Unfortunately Iowa taught cursive in third grade, while Louisiana did in second.
As a result, I moved in just in time to learn X, Y, and Z, and then the term was up. Next year and all the way through junior high (8th grade) I was expected to use cursive for all my written works.
In high school and college, of course, no one cared. I could write suitably fast, taking notes for myself that did, rather quickly, cramp my hand. (Timed essays such as AP tests in high school or some of my physics exams in college were very painful.)
Now that I've been full time in the workforce for almost a decade, it just doesn't matter. I use grid composition books to take meeting notes or to think on paper, but everything goes into the computer as soon as it's viable. Interestingly my typing skills have improved dramatically in the past decade; when I graduated from college I still had to look at the keyboard, but now I never do.
Thus, at this point, the only thing that I can write in cursive is my signature. =p
(Now, let me add that, had I ever learned shorthand, I would have been most grateful. My mother was a reporter for many many years and can take fully legible (to her) shorthand notes far faster than anyone else I know.)
Aren't the bar patrons voluntarily supplying their personal information when they hand their ID over to the bouncer with a scanner?
Most of the comments on this story so far (about a dozen) are in support of customer privacy.
In contrast, last week, most of the comments on a similar story about Canadian privacy law were in favor of the business. In that case, though, the business itself was online (Facebook), whereas in this case, the business is brick & mortar & alcohol, and only the data is online.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/1346209/Facebook-Violates-Canadian-Privacy-Law
Do you, the Slashdot reader, have a different opinion about these two cases because of the case differences? Or did the posters of all of last Friday's comments go on vacation this week?
Remember I'm assuming IT has complete control over these machines. Could you not manipulate the hosts file so that IE6 could only get to internal sites (and everything else went to an internal redirect), whereas Firefox could have less-filtered access? Could you do not it as well with an IE6 plugin?
If not, I'd use a proxy server with the user agent, yeah.
If you could get a "free" car in the U.S., yet all you had to do is (*thinks of something illegal*) loan your underage daughter to that burly man over there for a while, would it be OK if the terms of the contract were stated clearly up front? Would those terms be legally binding once signed? No!
It does not matter what a contract states; that contract must be legal where it was executed or it is null and void.
Because private data is private. It hurts legitimate businesses that want to respect privacy when they have to compete with less scrupulous business that trade cost for private data. As those "more expensive" companies go out of business, citizens who wish to retain their privacy lose their option to do so.
Fortunately most countries have laws that dictate that trade must be conducted under a legal framework. For example, in the U.S. you cannot agree to a contract that violates state or federal law; the contract is null and void. In Canada, one of those laws is privacy disclosure, so it apples just like U.S. laws do here.
Have you seen factory add-on prices for ANY car? BMW charged me $550 to add an iPod jack to my wife's car, and now wants to charge me $800 for mine. You can buy a third-party interface for $135.*
In this case, of course, not only is there the usual vendor markup, but there's also the licensing cost. Your third-party company putting an autobot logo on your car can be sued.
* Of course if you buy the third-party kit, you have to pay BMW for a software update anyway.
Although I appreciate the distaste of making money off sick people, I don't think that applies. Promethius should be tied to a rock for a giant eagle to eat their livers.
You'll hear from my lawyer. I hold a patent on the method and apparatus for preemptive avian extraction of precancerous or prediseased liver.
If a coworker ever walked by and saw you reading, or worse, writing, a racist rant, then yes, your employer would be open to a lawsuit. Likely it would be one they'd settle with a bit of cash and a clause that included your dismissal.
Your American libertarian view of the law sees this as a business transaction, where the user can either use the product (and accept the terms of total data disclosure) or not use it.
Other countries with more civilized privacy laws prevent companies from demanding unnecessary personal data (i.e. anything not needed for the specific product or application) when providing a product. Terms of business have to comply with the law, just as they must in the U.S.; Canada just has more terms.
Yes I'm American.
The person who made the decision without seeking approval of his/her boss is responsible. If that person cannot be determined, the board of trustees are responsible and should be punished.
Yeah, the IT team can just rename the IE6 icon as "ERP Interface" or something, and install Firefox, naming its icon "Web Browser".
Voila, internal apps keep working but employees are no longer at risk due to IE6 use on the wild wild internet.
Even better if as a company they block IE6 access to external sites, so people who try to use their ERP software to browse the web would be cut off and told to launch Firefox.
The profit was for the contractors, and occurred at step 1...
Beyond that, you are aware that cars and the like can't be ticketed, right? If you run a red light and are caught on camera they have to be able to determine who is driving the car for it to be valid. Simply having the plate will not work.
Here in Texas, the owner of a car that goes through a toll booth receives a bill in the mail, and is required to pay it, regardless of who was driving the car. I'm not sure if this has been tested with a stolen car, but I know it has been with a car that was sold but not yet transferred with the state.
o.. and why does my car from 1997 get the same MPG as all the new ones that don't have massive arrays of lead acid battery's?
Because in the absence of government regulation, the market did what it does best - nothing that won't return a solid ROI within six months!
Nuclear holocaust brings about post-apocalyptic wastelands. If sci fi genres aren't on-topic for Slashdot, it should just rename itself The Linux Channel (or LyCy) and kick the rest of us out.
Where does this BS end? McDonalds to be held responsible for the recycling of cups and bags?
Yes, great idea! I agree 100%. If McDonalds has to pay an up-front cost when the sell a styrofoam cup that won't degrate for 1000 years, or they could choose to pay a much smaller up-front cost for a soybean-derived cup that's just as durable for the five minutes it's needed, but will break down within 5 years in a land fill, they just might choose the more environmentally-responsible option.
Manufacturers have to pay the true cost to produce their products. That's the best way to retain the best possible free market in the face of diminishing shared resources.
Technology will eventually get to the point where theres no need to use toxic substances (not because of regulation but because if you want to have decent performance you just don't use them).
You're joking, right? Or you are you merely oblivious? Toxic substances will be used in any and every process and product imaginable if
A) the manufacturer thinks they can get away with it due to lack of regulation or the complication of proving a claim in our legal system, and
B) the manufacturer saves one-half penny or more per product sold.
Manufacturers should be responsible for the disposal of their products because, eventually, everything they make will be disposed. Free markets FAIL when the market can ignore the cost of shared resources. This includes air and water and things talked about by the EPA, but it also includes material resources and landfill space.
Requiring manufacturers to pay the true cost of production is the best way to enable a free market that is actually sustainable. The alternative is regulation that dictates the methods and materials used for production, which is significantly more government regulation.
The local Austin Goodwill, in a team effort with Dell, provides free electronics recycling at all Goodwill dropoff locations in the central Texas region.
At, say $25 a pop, I bet there's profit to be made loading a big truck or a few train cars with purchased "used" electronics, shipping it to Texas, then giving it to Goodwill for recycling. Residents of Grand Junction save $25 per item.
While it is sad that he'd have been forced to go through the humiliation and embarassment of being questioned/searched/etc.. but honestly.. who in their right mind would carry something like a terror script through airport screening? Comic book, hell.. it could've been a movie script and he would've received the same response.
In short: He was asking for it. No.. he was begging.
While it is sad that she'd have been forced to go through the humiliation and embarassment of being raped/beaten/etc.. but honestly.. who in their right mind would wear something like a mini skirt to a frat party? Skirt, hell.. it could've been a tight blouse and she would've received the same response.
In short: She was asking for it. No.. she was begging.
I acquired some photographs for a college project about a decade ago from a local historical society. They were photos of an old, now-removed residential neighborhood, taken in 1917. (All photographs taken and published in 1917 in the United States are and were in the public domain.)
Before I was allowed to have a copy of these photos, I had to had to sign a contract that limited my ability to reuse the works. This effectively replaced copyright as the entity restricting my right to use the works.
Alas, I really wanted to publish my final project online, but the rights I had to those photos precluded that. I ended up turning in the project in HTML form on a CD.
I use the cursor in the plain text copy to mark my position, and am careful to only move a few characters at a time. I've never had a problem.
Funny, because as a "strict constructionist" he is usually credited as one that applies the Constitution exactly as written, i.e. more towards a limited, libertarian view. In this opinion, though, it was the liberal wing that most closely sided with the child being strip-searched in violation of her (or her parents') constitutional rights.
Yeah, but there are thousands and thousands of old machines 400MHz and up, and most of those are willingly discarded or recycled by those with no sensitive data on them at all, or by those who don't know to wipe their own data off the drive first.
All of those drives are more than enough to supply the single moms, homeless shelters, and churches of the world. Meanwhile, other drives - those that actually have critical information where the consequences of release are high - can be destroyed.
If it makes you feel better, when they're done destroying them, I fully support having the metal melted down for some environmentally-friendly reuse.