It's not that I really disagree with you but I feel there is a key point you miss:
It's only a matter of time before someone forgets to turn off their cellphone. Even if an individual is 99% likely to remeber to turn off their cellphone, an aircraft with 200 people on it is only 13% likely to have ALL the cellphones on it turned off.
Looking at this from a practical point of view, there's virtually nothing you can do. Even if you push hard and get people to do it 99.9% of the time, the chances are still only 82% the everyone did it. Make four flights and more likely than not, there will be an active cellphone on one of them.
Even if only one in a million people leaves their cellphone on (which seems pretty impossible even if you straight up banned them from aircraft), it's a virtual certainty that within a year, there will be a flight with an active cellphone on it.
So sure, it's "safer" to ask everyone to turn their cellphone off, but if it was a serious issue, airplanes would be dropping like flies.
you can readily make the key device dockable (once inside the door of course) where it uploads some quantity of new codes, any of which will open the door, but once a code is used a single time it is discarded by both the key and the door
This would be trivial to defeat.
Record all the knocks, but add an extra one.
The door won't open and they'll try again, but you'll have an access code that is valid.
One reason that is often overlooked is that the metal body of the cabin makes a very nice resonance cavity, and thus amplifies the signal considerably.
You're using incorrect terminology here. There is no amplification here. The signal will be stronger than a generic point to point link with no reflectors, but that doesn't mean anything is being amplified. If the cellphone is transmitting one watt, the most power you'll ever receive is one watt. Anything else would make an airplane body an over-unity, free-energy generating, magical device.
Also, tolerances for failure are significantly lower for a GPS unit on an aircraft than for a hand-held GPS device on the ground. What might be considered insignificant interference for a consumer GPS unit would be completely unacceptable for aircraft equiptment, with reliability requirements on the order of 10**(-9) or better.
As a result, a small source inside the plane has a much better chance of interferring with the sensitive on-board electronics than a strong external source.
The trouble with this assumption is that the antennas are on the OUTSIDE of the metal box. In the case of something like GPS, they are also deliberately designed to point upwards AWAY from the airplane.
Also, tolerances for failure are significantly lower for a GPS unit on an aircraft than for a hand-held GPS device on the ground. What might be considered insignificant interference for a consumer GPS unit would be completely unacceptable for aircraft equiptment, with reliability requirements on the order of 10**(-9) or better.
Which is why the concept is silly. You cannot guarantee with significant reliability that someone isn't going to knowingly or unknowingly fire up just about any generic piece of consumer electronics. Even if you can reduce it to one out of a thousand flights, it's not enough.
IANAEE, but I work for a major manufacturer of aircraft electronics.
I am an EE. The right way and the *only* way to handle this issue IMO is to demand that all avionics be EMI hardened. If a cellphone, even a malfunctioning one can take down an aircraft, it shouldn't be in the sky PERIOD. It is unsafe for flight.
I'm not really against asking passengers to turn off these devices during takeoff and landing, but I would consider avionics that could be affected by this to be a ticking time bomb. It's basically a given that someone will eventually forget to turn something off.
Rather than wasting time on a vain effort to prevent the inevitable, they should be proactively testing aircraft for susceptibility issues. Any piece of equipment found to have issues should be grounded.
The severe negligence is on the part of the avionics manufacturer, not the poor sap who forgot to turn off his phone.
Still, with a little luck, the economies of centralised power generation {scale, and not having to lug fuel around with you from place to place} might offset some of the losses incurred in distribution and the charging/discharging cycle.
Don't forget the reduced energy desity of batteries. A vehicle with a 500 mile range on electric power is going to weigh a LOT more than a gas powered vehicle. It costs energy to move all that weight.
And then there's also the issue of disposing of hundreds of pounds of batteries every few years. Nobody really seems to think about that one much. 100 pounds of batteries per year, per vehicle (ballpark estimate) is a pretty significant amount of chemical waste. I don't see people factoring in the environmental cost of that.
People like to prented electric cars are the solution to all our problems, but I really see them as just shifting the environmental costs elsewhere.
Still, they may be successful. It will be much easier for richer communities to shift their portion of the pollution to poorer ones. (Try building a coal power plant in Beverly Hills.)
Futhermore California mandates both what you can do under your own hood AND tailpipe testing.
If something you do to your car is making it pollute MORE than is allowed, it is going to show up during the tailpipe test. If you do something that makes it pollute LESS, then you'll pass the tailpipe test, but still be subject to all sorts of ridiculous penaties and you fail the visual inspection.
Part of the problem with rules like this is also that they don't take into accout the air pollution caused by MAKING cars. By making poeple abandon their old vehicle sooner than is actually necessary, they may actually be INCREASING air pollution.
You do realize that it's perfectly possible to get an engineering or science degree without borrowing money, don't you?
It's possible to win the lottery, but that doesn't mean that everyone:
A) Can do it
B) Should plan on it
Also, going into the military at this point in time is a completely retarded idea unless you want to end up in Iraq/Iran.
I went to a damn expensive school and have loans beacuse of it, but I don't mind. I got a great education and had a wondeful time. There are resources that a world-class university can offer that smaller schools just can't.
It's not to say that cheaper schools suck, but ITT is not equivalent to MIT. Their degrees are not interchangeable and for many it many to be possible to go to a top school without taking on debt.
Even if importation happens, it is still not excused by 602. 602(a)(2) does not save you from 602(b).
No argument there.
No, the copy is made when the work is fixed in a medium.
This doesn't really mean anything. Is a RAM chip a medium? How about a traveling EM wave? What about punchcards?
But regardless of that question, a copy is made when a copy is made. "This tape will self-destruct in 30seconds" does not mean that it is somehow magically not a copy.
If you and your disk are in the US, the copy is made in the US
This just doesn't work. Simple logic tells us that if the copy is being made here, then the posession of the original must be transferred here, leaving the sender without a copy.
This isn't happening.
When I send you a file, I'm sending you a COPY, not the original.
Consider an email. Say I send you a bunch of information that could not be copied legally, but by receiving that email YOU are the one doing the copying? I don't think so.
You could argue that "archival" is being done on the US side, but the copying is definately being done on the other side of the ocean.
Actually, it seems pretty obvious that both reproduction and importation have happened.
You have a copy in the US that came from Russia, and the original still exists.
The real question seems to be "Who is doing the reproduction where?"
If you decided that the server is doing the copying, which technically it is, then it's being reproduced in russia, then imported to the US.
Unfortunately AFAIK, some brain dead judges seems to think the RECEIVER is actually the one doing the reproduction. Which doesn't make sense at all, but is convenient for the copyright cartels.
The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment.
That is stupid.
Based on that logic there should have been zero books written before the creation of copyright and zero scientific discoveries made before the existence of patents.
It is possible that if copyright law was throw out production would reduce, but to claim that it would completely cease is dishonest and retarded.
It's quite possible that production would actually increase. Although the reward might go down, being able to use other content as part of your would reduce the effort necessary to create content in the first place.
You have no inherent entitlement to the content.
Sure we do. It's right there in the constitution. They get a limited-time monopoly. No matter what happens, it eventually reverts back to the people.
Fortunately, DC-DC converters are generally closer to 90-95% efficient.
At the EXACT current output they were designed for.
Sure, you can get tons of efficiency if you're designing with a known load that doesn't vary too much. This is not the siutation we're talking about here. One minute you might be drawing 10mA, the next minute you might want 10 A, the supply is not going to maintain 95% efficiency over that range and maintain a reasonable cost.
Yes, people specialize.
That's really peripheral. Point is, there's no way you're buying a bike whose production didn't involve the consumption of "non-renewable" resouces.
The only way that's going to be avoided is if you build it yourself using carefully selected materials.
And I can tell you that as a freedom-loving American who lives in China, the vast majority of normal Chinese I speak to are against the free press (unless they work in the press), because they believe that there are some things they're better off not knowing. It's infuriatingly frustrating.
Do they ACTUALLY believe that, or do they just tell you they believe that to avoid getting in trouble?
It' s not as if these people have the freedom of speech to tell you what they really think.
It looks like they corrected that enough for the RX-8 (the 7 had problems too)
The second generation (86-92) RX-7's are great cars and were very successful.
The problem came in 93 with the twin-turbo only, rats-nest of vacuum hoses model. It is an AWESOME car, but you better know how to work on it or have a lot of money. They had tons of issues.
Get the kinks worked out, and you'll be kickin some major ass though. My favorite RX-7 "kill" story is a guy who dusted an NSX in his virtually stock 3rd gen RX-7, while pulling a trailer:)
Re:Rabbit hole goes deeper -- existing HDTVs w/ co
on
The Great HDCP Fiasco
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
HDCP is to protect the world from the pirates... who will work around this limitation somehow anyway.
Pirates don't need to break things like HDCP or DECSS.
If you want to large scale pritate a disc, you just get the equipment to make a bit for bit copy.
HDCP, just like DECSS is all about controlling consumers.
I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.
Why?
You go on to talk about pooling knowedge, but skepticism doesn't prevent me from learning or sharing ideas.
I think it's a much better viewpoint to consider nothing sacred. Maybe Newton was right, maybe he wasn't. Einstein, learned Newtons ideas, but he maintained his own skepticism about them.
Believing in anything 100% is a bad idea. It means no matter the evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe your original stupid idea.
IMO, it's the fundamental difference between religion and science.
What I mean to say is that suicide is an act undertaken by those who are physically in good shape but psychologically and philosophically shattered
That makes the assumption that a sane, healthy person could never choose to commit suicide.
I submit that this is not true.
Here's an example:
Say it's WWII and I'm a spy. I have information that could cost thousands of lives if forced out of me. I'm caught behind enemy lines, and I fear I'm about to be captured. I choose to kill myself.
Here's another one:
I'm 70 years old. I'm in terrible pain. The doctors say I will only get worse. I'm stuck in a hospital bed for the rest of my life. I choose to end my own sufferning.
Suicide is an interesting philisophical situation. One one hand, if you're a free man then your life should be yours to end. On the other hand, it's a safe bet that the majority of people who kill themselves were not psychologically sound and it's better for us all they they get treated.
Er, no. I did *not* say that anyone who violates AUPs is "childish and lacking integrity". I *did* say that you should not violate an agreement *you* made and then whine when there are negative consequences.
People DO have a right to whine when what they are being subjected to is not just. Shit, should no one have "whined" about Nelson Mandela being in jail?
(Note for the obtuse: I'm using hyperbole to show the fault in your viewpoint. The things you're saying don't make sense and taking your logic to the extreme shows how really frickin obvious it is.)
It's a bigger questions than was she willing to be punished, it's *should* she have been punished.
Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your choices. It's called maturity.
You just don't get it. You are placing all the responsibility on the consumer and *NONE* on the semi-monopoly that is creating a situation where it's their way or the highway. There are TWO parties here, and you attitude is "Do what they like or live with their consequences."
That's just retarded.
I live in a counrty when the founders said: Not only do we not like your laws and plan to break them, we also do not accept punishment for breaking them. Your government is illegitimate.
Your line of thinking does not allow someone to come to this decision. It says, "If I don't like these laws, I have to move somewhere else."
Because I agreed to the AUP terms as part of my service agreement, and I have enough maturity and integrity to either abide by agreements I make or accept the consequences for breaking them.
If you admit that telecom access is nothing close to a free market, how can you possibly consider those who violate these agreements as childish and lacking integrity?
It does not work that way. These people have zero bargaining power.
Bullshit logic like this could have just as well been applied to Rosa Parks. She bought her ticket knowing full well what rules she'd be expected to follow.
Part of being an adult is realizing that some rules are stupid. It's called thinking for yourself.
What a hyberbolic way to frame this question. Do I believe monopolies are good for consumers? Not really, no.
You rhetoric doesn't reflect this. Your attitude is that people should either deal with the ridiculous agreements or deal without. It's nonsense and doesn't allow for any sort of in between. It's the most pro-corporate-rape-of-the-consumer stance one could take. Their way or the highway.
I could violate the AUP, like I'm sure many do. But if I did, I would not whine and complain when my ISP addresses the issue.
Why not? They (probably) have a monopoly. Do you really think it's right for regional monopolies to rape their customers? Do you actually think that's what a "free market" is?
So you're suggesting that everyone stops using windows/linux everytime a vulnerability is found?
I would suggest that everyone uses a multi-tiered approach to security, and if this fails, shut down that part of the system until a fix is availible. In the case where you're using a poorly designed system that would not allow you shut that portion down, you'll have to weigh the risk of being owned vs the convenience of staying operational.
People who really care about staying up already have redundant hardware. Provided you stick to standard technologies, it's not impossible to have two different codesbases for most of the network functions you will be performing. (Use Opera until Mozilla is patched, etc.)
In the vast majority of cases, you're not talking about shutting down the whole system, but instead shutting down a specfic windows service, apache module, etc. Often there's even a workaround available, such that a reasonably competent system adminsitrator can keep using the same software, but protect themselves (or their clients) from being exploited.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that I really disagree with you but I feel there is a key point you miss:
It's only a matter of time before someone forgets to turn off their cellphone. Even if an individual is 99% likely to remeber to turn off their cellphone, an aircraft with 200 people on it is only 13% likely to have ALL the cellphones on it turned off.
Looking at this from a practical point of view, there's virtually nothing you can do. Even if you push hard and get people to do it 99.9% of the time, the chances are still only 82% the everyone did it. Make four flights and more likely than not, there will be an active cellphone on one of them.
Even if only one in a million people leaves their cellphone on (which seems pretty impossible even if you straight up banned them from aircraft), it's a virtual certainty that within a year, there will be a flight with an active cellphone on it.
So sure, it's "safer" to ask everyone to turn their cellphone off, but if it was a serious issue, airplanes would be dropping like flies.
A smartcard is challenge-response, this is not.
you can readily make the key device dockable (once inside the door of course) where it uploads some quantity of new codes, any of which will open the door, but once a code is used a single time it is discarded by both the key and the door
This would be trivial to defeat.
Record all the knocks, but add an extra one.
The door won't open and they'll try again, but you'll have an access code that is valid.
Problems like this aren't simple.
One reason that is often overlooked is that the metal body of the cabin makes a very nice resonance cavity, and thus amplifies the signal considerably.
You're using incorrect terminology here. There is no amplification here. The signal will be stronger than a generic point to point link with no reflectors, but that doesn't mean anything is being amplified. If the cellphone is transmitting one watt, the most power you'll ever receive is one watt. Anything else would make an airplane body an over-unity, free-energy generating, magical device.
Also, tolerances for failure are significantly lower for a GPS unit on an aircraft than for a hand-held GPS device on the ground. What might be considered insignificant interference for a consumer GPS unit would be completely unacceptable for aircraft equiptment, with reliability requirements on the order of 10**(-9) or better. As a result, a small source inside the plane has a much better chance of interferring with the sensitive on-board electronics than a strong external source.
The trouble with this assumption is that the antennas are on the OUTSIDE of the metal box. In the case of something like GPS, they are also deliberately designed to point upwards AWAY from the airplane.
Also, tolerances for failure are significantly lower for a GPS unit on an aircraft than for a hand-held GPS device on the ground. What might be considered insignificant interference for a consumer GPS unit would be completely unacceptable for aircraft equiptment, with reliability requirements on the order of 10**(-9) or better.
Which is why the concept is silly. You cannot guarantee with significant reliability that someone isn't going to knowingly or unknowingly fire up just about any generic piece of consumer electronics. Even if you can reduce it to one out of a thousand flights, it's not enough.
IANAEE, but I work for a major manufacturer of aircraft electronics.
I am an EE. The right way and the *only* way to handle this issue IMO is to demand that all avionics be EMI hardened. If a cellphone, even a malfunctioning one can take down an aircraft, it shouldn't be in the sky PERIOD. It is unsafe for flight.
I'm not really against asking passengers to turn off these devices during takeoff and landing, but I would consider avionics that could be affected by this to be a ticking time bomb. It's basically a given that someone will eventually forget to turn something off.
Rather than wasting time on a vain effort to prevent the inevitable, they should be proactively testing aircraft for susceptibility issues. Any piece of equipment found to have issues should be grounded.
The severe negligence is on the part of the avionics manufacturer, not the poor sap who forgot to turn off his phone.
Age of consent laws are intended to protect the young, not discriminate against them!
But they DO discriminate against them. Some kid has sex with his highschool girlfriend. Her parents find out, now he's a "registered sex offender" for the rest of his life. He might even get to tracked by GPS for the rest of his life.
That doesn't happen to older people. There has to be actualy wrongdoing there. As in, someone was taken advantage of or forced.
No matter what age you choose it will never be right for everyone.
So why not drop the age altogether?
Force the prosecution to prove the someone was actually taken advantage of and harmed.
Still, with a little luck, the economies of centralised power generation {scale, and not having to lug fuel around with you from place to place} might offset some of the losses incurred in distribution and the charging/discharging cycle.
Don't forget the reduced energy desity of batteries. A vehicle with a 500 mile range on electric power is going to weigh a LOT more than a gas powered vehicle. It costs energy to move all that weight.
And then there's also the issue of disposing of hundreds of pounds of batteries every few years. Nobody really seems to think about that one much. 100 pounds of batteries per year, per vehicle (ballpark estimate) is a pretty significant amount of chemical waste. I don't see people factoring in the environmental cost of that.
People like to prented electric cars are the solution to all our problems, but I really see them as just shifting the environmental costs elsewhere.
Still, they may be successful. It will be much easier for richer communities to shift their portion of the pollution to poorer ones. (Try building a coal power plant in Beverly Hills.)
Futhermore California mandates both what you can do under your own hood AND tailpipe testing.
If something you do to your car is making it pollute MORE than is allowed, it is going to show up during the tailpipe test. If you do something that makes it pollute LESS, then you'll pass the tailpipe test, but still be subject to all sorts of ridiculous penaties and you fail the visual inspection.
Part of the problem with rules like this is also that they don't take into accout the air pollution caused by MAKING cars. By making poeple abandon their old vehicle sooner than is actually necessary, they may actually be INCREASING air pollution.
You do realize that it's perfectly possible to get an engineering or science degree without borrowing money, don't you?
It's possible to win the lottery, but that doesn't mean that everyone:
A) Can do it
B) Should plan on it
Also, going into the military at this point in time is a completely retarded idea unless you want to end up in Iraq/Iran.
I went to a damn expensive school and have loans beacuse of it, but I don't mind. I got a great education and had a wondeful time. There are resources that a world-class university can offer that smaller schools just can't.
It's not to say that cheaper schools suck, but ITT is not equivalent to MIT. Their degrees are not interchangeable and for many it many to be possible to go to a top school without taking on debt.
Even if importation happens, it is still not excused by 602. 602(a)(2) does not save you from 602(b).
No argument there.
No, the copy is made when the work is fixed in a medium.
This doesn't really mean anything. Is a RAM chip a medium? How about a traveling EM wave? What about punchcards?
But regardless of that question, a copy is made when a copy is made. "This tape will self-destruct in 30seconds" does not mean that it is somehow magically not a copy.
If you and your disk are in the US, the copy is made in the US
This just doesn't work. Simple logic tells us that if the copy is being made here, then the posession of the original must be transferred here, leaving the sender without a copy.
This isn't happening.
When I send you a file, I'm sending you a COPY, not the original.
Consider an email. Say I send you a bunch of information that could not be copied legally, but by receiving that email YOU are the one doing the copying? I don't think so.
You could argue that "archival" is being done on the US side, but the copying is definately being done on the other side of the ocean.
US courts may adopt their own legal fictions as they see fit, but law and reality aren't always the same thing. Here's a good example: In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill 246)
So you didn't import the song. You reproduced it.
Actually, it seems pretty obvious that both reproduction and importation have happened.
You have a copy in the US that came from Russia, and the original still exists.
The real question seems to be "Who is doing the reproduction where?"
If you decided that the server is doing the copying, which technically it is, then it's being reproduced in russia, then imported to the US.
Unfortunately AFAIK, some brain dead judges seems to think the RECEIVER is actually the one doing the reproduction. Which doesn't make sense at all, but is convenient for the copyright cartels.
The real threat is that the content may stopped being produced because the people paying for the production arent seeing a return on investment.
That is stupid.
Based on that logic there should have been zero books written before the creation of copyright and zero scientific discoveries made before the existence of patents.
It is possible that if copyright law was throw out production would reduce, but to claim that it would completely cease is dishonest and retarded.
It's quite possible that production would actually increase. Although the reward might go down, being able to use other content as part of your would reduce the effort necessary to create content in the first place.
You have no inherent entitlement to the content.
Sure we do. It's right there in the constitution. They get a limited-time monopoly. No matter what happens, it eventually reverts back to the people.
Fortunately, DC-DC converters are generally closer to 90-95% efficient.
At the EXACT current output they were designed for.
Sure, you can get tons of efficiency if you're designing with a known load that doesn't vary too much. This is not the siutation we're talking about here. One minute you might be drawing 10mA, the next minute you might want 10 A, the supply is not going to maintain 95% efficiency over that range and maintain a reasonable cost.
IBM must be having fab problems with Cell at 90nm. Perhaps they want to wait for the transition to 65nm for better quality control.
How does the transition to a new process yield better quality? The kinks are going to be more worked out of the old process than the new.
That's not an argument.
Yes, people specialize.
That's really peripheral. Point is, there's no way you're buying a bike whose production didn't involve the consumption of "non-renewable" resouces.
The only way that's going to be avoided is if you build it yourself using carefully selected materials.
The more there are, the better. No single point of failure, no single point for governments to attack. Fragment away.
Actually, not in the case of trying to hide yourself.
Examine the trivial case where everyone has their own program. Think about what would be wrong with that situation.
Hint: How are you going to hide your mail if you're the only guy who uses blue envelopes?
And I can tell you that as a freedom-loving American who lives in China, the vast majority of normal Chinese I speak to are against the free press (unless they work in the press), because they believe that there are some things they're better off not knowing. It's infuriatingly frustrating.
Do they ACTUALLY believe that, or do they just tell you they believe that to avoid getting in trouble?
It' s not as if these people have the freedom of speech to tell you what they really think.
Is cycling ok?
Did you make that bike yourself?
Then probably not.
It looks like they corrected that enough for the RX-8 (the 7 had problems too)
:)
The second generation (86-92) RX-7's are great cars and were very successful.
The problem came in 93 with the twin-turbo only, rats-nest of vacuum hoses model. It is an AWESOME car, but you better know how to work on it or have a lot of money. They had tons of issues.
Get the kinks worked out, and you'll be kickin some major ass though. My favorite RX-7 "kill" story is a guy who dusted an NSX in his virtually stock 3rd gen RX-7, while pulling a trailer
HDCP is to protect the world from the pirates... who will work around this limitation somehow anyway.
Pirates don't need to break things like HDCP or DECSS.
If you want to large scale pritate a disc, you just get the equipment to make a bit for bit copy.
HDCP, just like DECSS is all about controlling consumers.
I think such absolute skepticism is impossible to maintain in the face of how much there is in the world to understand.
Why?
You go on to talk about pooling knowedge, but skepticism doesn't prevent me from learning or sharing ideas.
I think it's a much better viewpoint to consider nothing sacred. Maybe Newton was right, maybe he wasn't. Einstein, learned Newtons ideas, but he maintained his own skepticism about them.
Believing in anything 100% is a bad idea. It means no matter the evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe your original stupid idea.
IMO, it's the fundamental difference between religion and science.
What I mean to say is that suicide is an act undertaken by those who are physically in good shape but psychologically and philosophically shattered
That makes the assumption that a sane, healthy person could never choose to commit suicide.
I submit that this is not true.
Here's an example:
Say it's WWII and I'm a spy. I have information that could cost thousands of lives if forced out of me. I'm caught behind enemy lines, and I fear I'm about to be captured. I choose to kill myself.
Here's another one:
I'm 70 years old. I'm in terrible pain. The doctors say I will only get worse. I'm stuck in a hospital bed for the rest of my life. I choose to end my own sufferning.
Suicide is an interesting philisophical situation. One one hand, if you're a free man then your life should be yours to end. On the other hand, it's a safe bet that the majority of people who kill themselves were not psychologically sound and it's better for us all they they get treated.
Er, no. I did *not* say that anyone who violates AUPs is "childish and lacking integrity". I *did* say that you should not violate an agreement *you* made and then whine when there are negative consequences.
People DO have a right to whine when what they are being subjected to is not just. Shit, should no one have "whined" about Nelson Mandela being in jail?
(Note for the obtuse: I'm using hyperbole to show the fault in your viewpoint. The things you're saying don't make sense and taking your logic to the extreme shows how really frickin obvious it is.)
It's a bigger questions than was she willing to be punished, it's *should* she have been punished.
Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your choices. It's called maturity.
You just don't get it. You are placing all the responsibility on the consumer and *NONE* on the semi-monopoly that is creating a situation where it's their way or the highway. There are TWO parties here, and you attitude is "Do what they like or live with their consequences."
That's just retarded.
I live in a counrty when the founders said: Not only do we not like your laws and plan to break them, we also do not accept punishment for breaking them. Your government is illegitimate.
Your line of thinking does not allow someone to come to this decision. It says, "If I don't like these laws, I have to move somewhere else."
That's just stupid.
Because I agreed to the AUP terms as part of my service agreement, and I have enough maturity and integrity to either abide by agreements I make or accept the consequences for breaking them.
If you admit that telecom access is nothing close to a free market, how can you possibly consider those who violate these agreements as childish and lacking integrity?
It does not work that way. These people have zero bargaining power.
Bullshit logic like this could have just as well been applied to Rosa Parks. She bought her ticket knowing full well what rules she'd be expected to follow.
Part of being an adult is realizing that some rules are stupid. It's called thinking for yourself.
What a hyberbolic way to frame this question. Do I believe monopolies are good for consumers? Not really, no.
You rhetoric doesn't reflect this. Your attitude is that people should either deal with the ridiculous agreements or deal without. It's nonsense and doesn't allow for any sort of in between. It's the most pro-corporate-rape-of-the-consumer stance one could take. Their way or the highway.
I could violate the AUP, like I'm sure many do. But if I did, I would not whine and complain when my ISP addresses the issue.
Why not? They (probably) have a monopoly. Do you really think it's right for regional monopolies to rape their customers? Do you actually think that's what a "free market" is?
So you're suggesting that everyone stops using windows/linux everytime a vulnerability is found?
I would suggest that everyone uses a multi-tiered approach to security, and if this fails, shut down that part of the system until a fix is availible. In the case where you're using a poorly designed system that would not allow you shut that portion down, you'll have to weigh the risk of being owned vs the convenience of staying operational.
People who really care about staying up already have redundant hardware. Provided you stick to standard technologies, it's not impossible to have two different codesbases for most of the network functions you will be performing. (Use Opera until Mozilla is patched, etc.)
In the vast majority of cases, you're not talking about shutting down the whole system, but instead shutting down a specfic windows service, apache module, etc. Often there's even a workaround available, such that a reasonably competent system adminsitrator can keep using the same software, but protect themselves (or their clients) from being exploited.