> What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Micro-auditing is possible if you check your account after voting to make sure the vote you placed was the vote you wanted. Each user can remember who they voted for, and they could easily call out if their account was violated in any way. Any database can tally up votes if they are micro-audited internally, and cross-referenced. Very standard secure database design will always be able to print a receipt. They could mail you a receipt too.
>Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand?
Mechanical voting systems are a thing of the past. I really believe that society is ready for online voting.
> Why the heck do we need touchscreen voting?
I'm with you on this one. To me, it's wasteful and really difficult for people to use. What if the person has Parkinson's and touches the wrong button? Better let people use their own systems, and provide systems for those who need them.
> Why are the companies so afraid of putting an auditable paper trail in it?
I agree. Paper is just as important as anything, and the Diebold systems should have printed receipts, and master files that could be audited. Any online system could be printed at a micro-level. Bottom line: you'll know if your vote was compromised. Plus, with online voting, you'll have more control over your vote after it's created, and that truly counts for something. Imagine a nice record of your voting history? That would seriously rock.
The fear is that some people think that allowing users access to their vote history would compromise the secrecy involved in voting, and cause problems, but I truly think that with all the right people involved in such a project, one system could be created that was truly for the people and by the people.
This is the problem: you've got a system that is rotting away, where people have to drive/walk/take the bus to a designated voting station, register, and use a computer to vote. If you're going to have electronic voting, just throw a secure link online and let people vote through a web interface. Banks are pretty damn secure; why aren't these systems set up the same way as online banking? Sure you'll have criminals trying to break into systems to steal money, and you'll have the same criminals trying to break into voting systems to rig elections, but the bottom line is that if you are going to develop a system that's electronic, follow a system that is alread working: the online banking model.
You can't put a price on evolution. It's priceless. The payoff for us humans, for developing minds, has put us on top of things, but we could just as easily go the way of the dinosaurs if we fail to take the next step. Windows was great for the Nineties. But this is the new millenium.
> Then your computers must be from some magical fairy land where patches never come out, new versions of XXX are never released and users never break anything.
Oh Jesus! That made me laugh really hard. I remember trying to show a new website to a manager once. The site was coded with XHTML and CSS. He was running IE 5.0 at the time; this was about a month ago. I guess up until that point, he thought his system was running perfectly, too. And he was wrong. When he pulled up the site to look at it, the CSS didn't show up so all he could see was the basic web page -- and he got hopping mad about it; asking why we spent so much money developing it. He basically shot first and forgot to ask questions later. He's the manager nobody likes very much, so I guess IT just kept skipping his office upgrades, as punishment. When I updated his system, he asked what I did with the old crappy site because he wanted to show someone how much money we wasted. He liked the *new* site though.
> In order for there to be cost here, you'd have to claim that Linux is MORE expensive to install and maintain
Good point. Linux saves you money, so there is no switching costs, only the high costs of maintaining Windows and all the software that goes with it. The apple don't fall far from the tree there... the Windows software companies follow Microsoft and release patches and updates the same way. Not to mention all the billions of dollars soaked up by companies selling virus solutions. That's the oldest mob trick in the book; protection money. They create the problem and charge you to have it fixed. Then they lather, rinse, repeat.
> Sure, there's no switching cost as long as you get your ass over here and show my company how to use this damn Linux thing
Do you know how to use Windows? Okay, do that, without all the goofy bloat. Hire some people who know what they're doing with Linux and fire your Windows staff, or retrain them (which likely would be a good investment, considering loyalty and other business factors).
> and you find, install, and train us on business apps that are as good as the ones we have now.
It's called Google. Have you heard of it? Oh and Source Forge is pretty damn sweet, too.
> And of course, you should be able to train all of us instantly after you do our conversion
Yes, but with your attitude, I'd have to recommend the company fire you and hire someone who isn't so antagonizing. That way some Open Source programmer could actually get money and you would learn a valuable lesson -- that Windows makes you cranky.
> since any time spent learnign a new system IS A SWITCHING COST.
When God created humanity, he killed the dinosaurs. Some species survived, but the really big badasses are no longer. The choice is yours; you can be a dinosaur, or you can evolve.
> Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is ridiculous.
I would have to agree with you, for Windows. But for Open Source systems, you don't have to pay to upgrade, so it's nice to have the latest stuff, and it's free so, why not?
But Microsoft's been playing this security card for some time now and they have the house almost beat! But the house always wins.
> 'It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy version at times...' Mmm...sexy indeed.
Let me just say, there is no switching cost: you have been fooled. It's not your fault; Microsoft has been fooling billions of people the same way you have been fooled. Offset training and allocation of new resources in your company for purging out Microsoft as being standard operating costs (upgrade costs), not "switching" costs; it's a farce to think otherwise.
Long term benefit in using a reliable system makes any switching price worth every penny. Short term benefits are that you can simply ignore the next bout of viruses, your staff will love you and you can also take credit for the increased profits from operating a tight ship.
The 747-400F could be Airforce One (if it's not already), so it would be understandable if these lasers were mounted to it for tracking incoming sidewinders or surface to air missiles. Not sure if it's fast enough for that, or could be. While the BC/FC may be designed to take out larger missiles, this weapon system might make a really smart pro-active chaff system, to secure the President from harm during flight. I think it's a little strange the BC/FC is being mounted on such a large aircraft, with slow scramble speed and low maneuverability, unless the US is planning to have many planes airborne, around the clock, which does seem somewhat wasteful. Nothing is said about the range of this laser, so I'm not sure if it would work from space or not.
> are you normally an asshole, or just play one on slashdot.
I was really only kidding. The idea of drinking beer at work made me laugh (which was what the parent suggested, accidentally).
I meant no offense by my remark and I appologize if anyone became pissed off because of it. I personally think AA is a great organization, with lots of love, and I have also suffered from the side effects of alcoholism in my life from someone dear to me. That said, drinking at work was something I faced regularly, from the other side of the table. I guess it just brought back memories when I read that.
So I hope you and others will understand that I was speaking from experience, and trying to make light of such situations, not trying to be an asshole.
... but there is plenty of data regarding how females actually destroy the geniuses they encounter by becoming demanding, selfish and annoying enough to trigger deep bouts of depression, and even suicide. When geeks find a really special woman, they still have to avoid *other* women, so there's no change there, really (meaning: it's good to avoid women, and practice that because it keeps you honest).
What we need is a robot that delivers women! (women who are genetically altered to be quiet, compassionate and understanding of what it is to be geeks; or at the very least, cool enough to chill when papa's coding)
> However it might work just fine within a "friendly" office environment...
I truly admire your sentiment. We should all drink as much beer as possible, at work. That way when the files pile up, the projects become doomed, and the customers become extinct, we can all happily attend AA meetings together, and reminisce about fucking the dog.
I tend to avoid eating where my lifelong nemeses serve food, but that's just me.:-) I do, however, enjoy the thought of them asking each person who drives up if they want fries with that.
> how can it tell that from me sending a copyrighted work
Basically, they do an md5 hash of the files most commonly traded that are copyright protected. If your file doesn't match (and it won't) then you should be in the clear, if these programmers aren't stoopid.
Yes, adding one byte to any file will change the md5 dramatically, so the watchdogs like RIAA have a random method for checking traffic.
These watchdogs are really just attacking randomly, and that aspect of their nature could actually prove a valuable defense for someone under fire (with a huge legal budget). Targeting twelve year olds pays off for the RIAA because they know damn well that a kid won't have a huge fortune backing them in court, and therefore such targets will settle out of court. I truly can not wait until the RIAA hooks someone with a serious hatred for them, with the cash to back it. Any lottery winners out there wanna have some fun with that money?
That's the problem with the whole thrust of the RIAA argument against P2P (that the illegal trading of this copyrighted material hurts business). What about Internet articles? These articles are copyrighted works, published to the Internet by their respective owners, but quite often articles are mirrored by websites like Slashdot. Sometimes the copyright owners like this mirroring, and other times they do not (they seem to flip flop on it, depending on the source). Therefore, the lack of consistancy *should* make it extremely difficult to win a copyright case, although somehow the owners always win.
IANAL, yet my argument is that two distinct laws ought govern copy protection, because this fork-in-the-road is quite ambiguous. Firstly, how are any of us to know the status of copyrighted materials downloaded? What if we download a song over P2P, expecting the song to be one of the songs that are fair-use, and we pass the song along to a ton of other people? Secondly, how do we distinguish between the legality copyrighted articles that are online and music, and the fair-use music?
Because there exists no truly accurate copyright-status repository, I think all the people under suit from a watchdog might have some ammunition.Without a bona fide/impartial database of illegal filenames and md5 checksums to verify your current P2P files, how can you be responsible for these files?
Furthermore, if you downloaded a song from P2P, you should legally be able to upload it back to that P2P, if you truly believed the files to be fair-use, which could truly be any file.
> The simple fact is that, while Diebold does indeed care about producing accurate voting results, they are more concerned with making money.
I fully agree with your statement, and I'll go one further by saying that it's the financial weasels who wield the power in the company, and they are directly to blame. The financial weasels control the HR weasels, and the HR weasels control everyone else; in order for HR weasels to get bigger 401k plans (or whatever gold they seeketh), they must do what the financial weasels say. There exists no HR power over financial departments unless Catbert is involved and Dogbert isn't, and those of you who can observe financial/managerial departments will notice that the financial weasels control themselves in a deliberate pecking order, and it's the same order you see financial weasels strolling about the office building doing whatever managers do (strolling, terrifying others, making threats, drinking, smoking, eating).
The office geeks only control the development cycle, and because these poor creatures are always getting fucked over by all the company weasels, the products are often plagued with unforeseen circumstances that makes the financial weasels look bad, and the HR weasels look bad, appropriately (and everybody loses when that happens).
The way to avoid this, is to fire all of the financial weasels, the HR weasels, and hire some Donald Trumps who truly give a damn about the product, because they have the knowledge to understand the necessity of quality and how that churns in much more profit than quantity. Hire HR managers who don't play with their food. Hire office geeks who don't mind being fucked over a bit, but treat them *very* well (read: very well). Then you get a voting machine that not only works, but it audits itself, repairs itself and phones tech support to commend them on doing a good job.
While we would like to thank you for participating in our security test, we can not further report on this event due to National Security, and we humbly request that all key loggers, camera phones and recording devices remain in the safe hands of our NSA coat-check-girls (for fine tuning).
Sarcasm never seems to lose it's edge. However, there are some interesting revelations to this statement: > All the way back to 1998, a whole six years ago.
BayStar formed as fate itself would begin to turn on the dot-bombs. BayStar, and the rest of the world, witnessed the plethora of cunning weasels around the world die of financial mass-suicide; but why invest in SCO to begin with? I find it hard to believe that BayStar would forget about the dot-bombs long enough to jump into SCO stock, with both feet -- unless for Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics, by means of an investment recommendation. Such a recommendation seems terribly crooked, as Microsoft is not a trader and has no business telling anyone which stock to buy. Any freshman would know that the SCO follows the dot-bomb philosophy (to a T), grabbing all the loans and investments they can, as if the very bundles of neatly wrapped Benjamins somehow could form a flotilla of Titanic-sized life-jackets.
So someone at BayStar realized that the SCO was bad for business and they pulled out. Good. But you have to ask why they jumped into that deal, and examine Microsoft, again.
Since you put it that way, I guess it really is much easier being a high school kid today. But in all seriousness, these options don't seem very obvious for people being abused by the system and their peers. I just don't think it's fair to arrest/fine high school kids for P2P. They have way too many problems today. And if a nerdy kid rats out his bully, he or she knows they are going to be abused far worse for doing so. The consequences from peers often outweigh any other consequence, because peer-pressure is rash, irrational and swift (unlike many typical adult punishments on all counts).
Hey, I agree with you buddy, but I just don't think you're very tuned-in with the whole high school experience.
There are many ways around even the tightest security, and we all know how laughable school security is, even today. Students could easily hide a trojan that creates a file dump complete with scrambled FTP, and they wouldn't really need to even spoof someone's UID to do that (just email it to an idiot)... and don't even get me started with key-loggers. The schools don't have the training to combat P2P, and they also lack the funding (for even decent art supplies) so forget about it.
If you were devious, like I happen to be at times, you would know that about five minutes of hanging a nerd by his underpants would have you his password and his mother's bank card PIN number. Unless proper stakeouts are in place, and correct forensic research is performed, these FBI agents are just acting out a fantasy. It's likely just a pacifier-raid, really.
These feds are barking up the wrong tree for a number of reasons. By raiding school systems, they have no proof of who downloaded the copyright infringed files, and therefore no recourse but to infringe upon the rights of students and employees, in an attempt to push the agendas of special interest groups like the RIAA and MPAA. This Gestapo crap should not be tolerated. Schools are for learning, not launching political campaigns, selling ideals, or pushing agendas. IANAL, but why not simply exclude school systems from the P2P copy protection laws? If you want people to pay, charge reasonable prices, create excellent content, and protect your public image. Nobody likes a bully, and the FBI is acting like one, IMHO, and they are taking a page from the RIAA.
Slashdot Mirror
> What the heck is wrong with paper ballots that are actually auditable?
Micro-auditing is possible if you check your account after voting to make sure the vote you placed was the vote you wanted. Each user can remember who they voted for, and they could easily call out if their account was violated in any way. Any database can tally up votes if they are micro-audited internally, and cross-referenced. Very standard secure database design will always be able to print a receipt. They could mail you a receipt too.
>Or mechanical voting systems that don't rely on software that we can't see or understand?
Mechanical voting systems are a thing of the past. I really believe that society is ready for online voting.
> Why the heck do we need touchscreen voting?
I'm with you on this one. To me, it's wasteful and really difficult for people to use. What if the person has Parkinson's and touches the wrong button? Better let people use their own systems, and provide systems for those who need them.
> Why are the companies so afraid of putting an auditable paper trail in it?
I agree. Paper is just as important as anything, and the Diebold systems should have printed receipts, and master files that could be audited. Any online system could be printed at a micro-level. Bottom line: you'll know if your vote was compromised. Plus, with online voting, you'll have more control over your vote after it's created, and that truly counts for something. Imagine a nice record of your voting history? That would seriously rock.
The fear is that some people think that allowing users access to their vote history would compromise the secrecy involved in voting, and cause problems, but I truly think that with all the right people involved in such a project, one system could be created that was truly for the people and by the people.
This is the problem: you've got a system that is rotting away, where people have to drive/walk/take the bus to a designated voting station, register, and use a computer to vote. If you're going to have electronic voting, just throw a secure link online and let people vote through a web interface. Banks are pretty damn secure; why aren't these systems set up the same way as online banking? Sure you'll have criminals trying to break into systems to steal money, and you'll have the same criminals trying to break into voting systems to rig elections, but the bottom line is that if you are going to develop a system that's electronic, follow a system that is alread working: the online banking model.
You can't put a price on evolution. It's priceless. The payoff for us humans, for developing minds, has put us on top of things, but we could just as easily go the way of the dinosaurs if we fail to take the next step. Windows was great for the Nineties. But this is the new millenium.
> Then your computers must be from some magical fairy land where patches never come out, new versions of XXX are never released and users never break anything.
Oh Jesus! That made me laugh really hard. I remember trying to show a new website to a manager once. The site was coded with XHTML and CSS. He was running IE 5.0 at the time; this was about a month ago. I guess up until that point, he thought his system was running perfectly, too. And he was wrong. When he pulled up the site to look at it, the CSS didn't show up so all he could see was the basic web page -- and he got hopping mad about it; asking why we spent so much money developing it. He basically shot first and forgot to ask questions later. He's the manager nobody likes very much, so I guess IT just kept skipping his office upgrades, as punishment. When I updated his system, he asked what I did with the old crappy site because he wanted to show someone how much money we wasted. He liked the *new* site though.
> You're talking about operating costs. Completely different.
Microsoft has been selling this line since they first recognized Linux as a major competitor. There is no cost to switch. It's a lie.
> In order for there to be cost here, you'd have to claim that Linux is MORE expensive to install and maintain
Good point. Linux saves you money, so there is no switching costs, only the high costs of maintaining Windows and all the software that goes with it. The apple don't fall far from the tree there... the Windows software companies follow Microsoft and release patches and updates the same way. Not to mention all the billions of dollars soaked up by companies selling virus solutions. That's the oldest mob trick in the book; protection money. They create the problem and charge you to have it fixed. Then they lather, rinse, repeat.
> Sure, there's no switching cost as long as you get your ass over here and show my company how to use this damn Linux thing
Do you know how to use Windows? Okay, do that, without all the goofy bloat. Hire some people who know what they're doing with Linux and fire your Windows staff, or retrain them (which likely would be a good investment, considering loyalty and other business factors).
> and you find, install, and train us on business apps that are as good as the ones we have now.
It's called Google. Have you heard of it? Oh and Source Forge is pretty damn sweet, too.
> And of course, you should be able to train all of us instantly after you do our conversion
Yes, but with your attitude, I'd have to recommend the company fire you and hire someone who isn't so antagonizing. That way some Open Source programmer could actually get money and you would learn a valuable lesson -- that Windows makes you cranky.
> since any time spent learnign a new system IS A SWITCHING COST.
When God created humanity, he killed the dinosaurs. Some species survived, but the really big badasses are no longer. The choice is yours; you can be a dinosaur, or you can evolve.
> Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is ridiculous.
I would have to agree with you, for Windows. But for Open Source systems, you don't have to pay to upgrade, so it's nice to have the latest stuff, and it's free so, why not?
But Microsoft's been playing this security card for some time now and they have the house almost beat! But the house always wins.
> 'It is this switching cost that has given customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO, our lack of a sexy version at times...' Mmm...sexy indeed.
Let me just say, there is no switching cost: you have been fooled. It's not your fault; Microsoft has been fooling billions of people the same way you have been fooled. Offset training and allocation of new resources in your company for purging out Microsoft as being standard operating costs (upgrade costs), not "switching" costs; it's a farce to think otherwise.
Long term benefit in using a reliable system makes any switching price worth every penny. Short term benefits are that you can simply ignore the next bout of viruses, your staff will love you and you can also take credit for the increased profits from operating a tight ship.
The 747-400F could be Airforce One (if it's not already), so it would be understandable if these lasers were mounted to it for tracking incoming sidewinders or surface to air missiles. Not sure if it's fast enough for that, or could be. While the BC/FC may be designed to take out larger missiles, this weapon system might make a really smart pro-active chaff system, to secure the President from harm during flight. I think it's a little strange the BC/FC is being mounted on such a large aircraft, with slow scramble speed and low maneuverability, unless the US is planning to have many planes airborne, around the clock, which does seem somewhat wasteful. Nothing is said about the range of this laser, so I'm not sure if it would work from space or not.
> are you normally an asshole, or just play one on slashdot.
I was really only kidding. The idea of drinking beer at work made me laugh (which was what the parent suggested, accidentally).
I meant no offense by my remark and I appologize if anyone became pissed off because of it. I personally think AA is a great organization, with lots of love, and I have also suffered from the side effects of alcoholism in my life from someone dear to me. That said, drinking at work was something I faced regularly, from the other side of the table. I guess it just brought back memories when I read that.
So I hope you and others will understand that I was speaking from experience, and trying to make light of such situations, not trying to be an asshole.
... but there is plenty of data regarding how females actually destroy the geniuses they encounter by becoming demanding, selfish and annoying enough to trigger deep bouts of depression, and even suicide. When geeks find a really special woman, they still have to avoid *other* women, so there's no change there, really (meaning: it's good to avoid women, and practice that because it keeps you honest).
What we need is a robot that delivers women! (women who are genetically altered to be quiet, compassionate and understanding of what it is to be geeks; or at the very least, cool enough to chill when papa's coding)
> However it might work just fine within a "friendly" office environment...
I truly admire your sentiment. We should all drink as much beer as possible, at work. That way when the files pile up, the projects become doomed, and the customers become extinct, we can all happily attend AA meetings together, and reminisce about fucking the dog.
> Nope, I don't feel sorry for them.
:-) I do, however, enjoy the thought of them asking each person who drives up if they want fries with that.
I tend to avoid eating where my lifelong nemeses serve food, but that's just me.
> how can it tell that from me sending a copyrighted work
Basically, they do an md5 hash of the files most commonly traded that are copyright protected. If your file doesn't match (and it won't) then you should be in the clear, if these programmers aren't stoopid.
Yes, adding one byte to any file will change the md5 dramatically, so the watchdogs like RIAA have a random method for checking traffic.
These watchdogs are really just attacking randomly, and that aspect of their nature could actually prove a valuable defense for someone under fire (with a huge legal budget). Targeting twelve year olds pays off for the RIAA because they know damn well that a kid won't have a huge fortune backing them in court, and therefore such targets will settle out of court. I truly can not wait until the RIAA hooks someone with a serious hatred for them, with the cash to back it. Any lottery winners out there wanna have some fun with that money?
> They want to take the position of not filtering out all peer-to-peer [traffic], stopping copyrighted works but not the other content."
Here's the problem: how do RIAA and MPAA distinguish, legally, between copyrighted material that is permitted (fair-use), and that which is not? I'm talking about articles, fair-use media vs. illegal-to-distribute-or-possess copyright media. How do these watchdogs inform the public of such differences? The onus is truly on the RIAA/MPAA if you ask me. The story, strangely, is "Copyright © 2004 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved," which begs to question... how can a twelve-year-old truly understand this discombobulated law?
That's the problem with the whole thrust of the RIAA argument against P2P (that the illegal trading of this copyrighted material hurts business). What about Internet articles? These articles are copyrighted works, published to the Internet by their respective owners, but quite often articles are mirrored by websites like Slashdot. Sometimes the copyright owners like this mirroring, and other times they do not (they seem to flip flop on it, depending on the source). Therefore, the lack of consistancy *should* make it extremely difficult to win a copyright case, although somehow the owners always win.
IANAL, yet my argument is that two distinct laws ought govern copy protection, because this fork-in-the-road is quite ambiguous. Firstly, how are any of us to know the status of copyrighted materials downloaded? What if we download a song over P2P, expecting the song to be one of the songs that are fair-use, and we pass the song along to a ton of other people? Secondly, how do we distinguish between the legality copyrighted articles that are online and music, and the fair-use music?
Because there exists no truly accurate copyright-status repository, I think all the people under suit from a watchdog might have some ammunition.Without a bona fide/impartial database of illegal filenames and md5 checksums to verify your current P2P files, how can you be responsible for these files?
Furthermore, if you downloaded a song from P2P, you should legally be able to upload it back to that P2P, if you truly believed the files to be fair-use, which could truly be any file.
Drat, I hate it when they do that. Neuter em', I say!
> The simple fact is that, while Diebold does indeed care about producing accurate voting results, they are more concerned with making money.
I fully agree with your statement, and I'll go one further by saying that it's the financial weasels who wield the power in the company, and they are directly to blame. The financial weasels control the HR weasels, and the HR weasels control everyone else; in order for HR weasels to get bigger 401k plans (or whatever gold they seeketh), they must do what the financial weasels say. There exists no HR power over financial departments unless Catbert is involved and Dogbert isn't, and those of you who can observe financial/managerial departments will notice that the financial weasels control themselves in a deliberate pecking order, and it's the same order you see financial weasels strolling about the office building doing whatever managers do (strolling, terrifying others, making threats, drinking, smoking, eating).
The office geeks only control the development cycle, and because these poor creatures are always getting fucked over by all the company weasels, the products are often plagued with unforeseen circumstances that makes the financial weasels look bad, and the HR weasels look bad, appropriately (and everybody loses when that happens).
The way to avoid this, is to fire all of the financial weasels, the HR weasels, and hire some Donald Trumps who truly give a damn about the product, because they have the knowledge to understand the necessity of quality and how that churns in much more profit than quantity. Hire HR managers who don't play with their food. Hire office geeks who don't mind being fucked over a bit, but treat them *very* well (read: very well). Then you get a voting machine that not only works, but it audits itself, repairs itself and phones tech support to commend them on doing a good job.
While we would like to thank you for participating in our security test, we can not further report on this event due to National Security, and we humbly request that all key loggers, camera phones and recording devices remain in the safe hands of our NSA coat-check-girls (for fine tuning).
Sarcasm never seems to lose it's edge. However, there are some interesting revelations to this statement:
> All the way back to 1998, a whole six years ago.
BayStar formed as fate itself would begin to turn on the dot-bombs. BayStar, and the rest of the world, witnessed the plethora of cunning weasels around the world die of financial mass-suicide; but why invest in SCO to begin with? I find it hard to believe that BayStar would forget about the dot-bombs long enough to jump into SCO stock, with both feet -- unless for Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics, by means of an investment recommendation. Such a recommendation seems terribly crooked, as Microsoft is not a trader and has no business telling anyone which stock to buy. Any freshman would know that the SCO follows the dot-bomb philosophy (to a T), grabbing all the loans and investments they can, as if the very bundles of neatly wrapped Benjamins somehow could form a flotilla of Titanic-sized life-jackets.
So someone at BayStar realized that the SCO was bad for business and they pulled out. Good. But you have to ask why they jumped into that deal, and examine Microsoft, again.
Since you put it that way, I guess it really is much easier being a high school kid today. But in all seriousness, these options don't seem very obvious for people being abused by the system and their peers. I just don't think it's fair to arrest/fine high school kids for P2P. They have way too many problems today. And if a nerdy kid rats out his bully, he or she knows they are going to be abused far worse for doing so. The consequences from peers often outweigh any other consequence, because peer-pressure is rash, irrational and swift (unlike many typical adult punishments on all counts).
Hey, I agree with you buddy, but I just don't think you're very tuned-in with the whole high school experience.
There are many ways around even the tightest security, and we all know how laughable school security is, even today. Students could easily hide a trojan that creates a file dump complete with scrambled FTP, and they wouldn't really need to even spoof someone's UID to do that (just email it to an idiot)... and don't even get me started with key-loggers. The schools don't have the training to combat P2P, and they also lack the funding (for even decent art supplies) so forget about it.
If you were devious, like I happen to be at times, you would know that about five minutes of hanging a nerd by his underpants would have you his password and his mother's bank card PIN number. Unless proper stakeouts are in place, and correct forensic research is performed, these FBI agents are just acting out a fantasy. It's likely just a pacifier-raid, really.
Yeah, students would never beat up a nerd and take their password.
These feds are barking up the wrong tree for a number of reasons. By raiding school systems, they have no proof of who downloaded the copyright infringed files, and therefore no recourse but to infringe upon the rights of students and employees, in an attempt to push the agendas of special interest groups like the RIAA and MPAA. This Gestapo crap should not be tolerated. Schools are for learning, not launching political campaigns, selling ideals, or pushing agendas. IANAL, but why not simply exclude school systems from the P2P copy protection laws? If you want people to pay, charge reasonable prices, create excellent content, and protect your public image. Nobody likes a bully, and the FBI is acting like one, IMHO, and they are taking a page from the RIAA.