It's not absurd if you are willing to pay for it. this isn't heart surgery (which is pretty pricey anyhow), it's a concert.
What in the world do you think the feds will do? Make everything better? C'mon, this is slashdot! Do you want more federal regulation for music sales and distribution?
Capitalism is all about the man in the middle. How do you think the grocery gets to market? Plenty of middlemen who feel they can makes some money off of it.
Are you serious? How can scalpers generate a shortage? If ticket prices were sold by the venue at the price that people would be willing to pay, then scalpers would have no place. Let's imagine this: Ticketmaster somehow (by solutions I NEVER thought I would see suggested on/., ID for entry, stronger CAPTCHA's as if that will never be broken) manages to remove scalpers entirely. Then they sell tickets for some super popular band at 55 dollars a pop. Do you think that there are more people willing to go @55 dollars than there are seats to hold them? Bam, shortage at that price. No scalpers necessary.
So stockbrokers and bankers are bloodsuckers too because they trade on volume and limited access?
Wouldn't it be easier if TM would just charge the price you were willing to pay for the ticket? Then you wouldn't have to deal with shady intermediaries. all this is largely a result of TM's monopoly and price fixing, not of the scalpers. They have seen room for advantage (the big difference between the price and what a large # of ppl are willing to pay) and they are going to push to exploit it for the largest number of tickets possible.
Just like there is no better way to stop piracy than through convenient DRM free online purchases, there is no better way to stop scalping than charging the market price for ticket from the vendor.
What view should we take? Why is it that when prices for this kind of thing come up,/. turns into a HAVEN for Command and Control economists? EVERY other political story is guaranteed a pretty libertarian response, but bring up ticket sales and we seem to lose it.
Even with a lottery system, we only 'help' the people who both win the lottery and can afford the TM price. And since when did access to overpriced concerts become some charitable goal? Are we really so socially conscious that TOOL needs to lock ticket prices at 20 bucks and just lotto off tickets for a concert?
Yeah. Scalps that wouldn't make a DIME if the price were set artificially high. Think about that. I want to pay 50 bucks for a ticket. TM sets the price at 100. Scalper buys 100 dollar ticket and then tries to sell it to me for their cost +anything. Do I want to buy it? Hell no. If my price point was more like 200, then the scalper starts to make some money.
It still doesn't matter. If the band insists on doing this, then shortages will result, because you have more tickets demanded at that price than will be supplied. In this case you have a direct tradeoff ONLY if you assume that no one breaks the rules (hah). The tradeoff is this. If prices are allowed to rise to equilibrium, then some people will not be able to go because they can't afford it. If we hold prices low, then some people won't be able to go REGARDLESS of their ability to afford it.
The band can make a goal to sell concert tickets cheaply, but if demand is such at that price that it outstrips supply, then they will have trouble meeting that goal. Scalpers move in to resell tickets at what is more likely the market price. Does this mean scalpers are good? No, of course not. Scalpers introduce all sorts of negative externalities, but they are making mutually beneficial transactions occur, they are pretty irrepresable in that regard.
You don't know what you're talking about. Imagine rent control for me. That's a price ceiling meant to 'keep prices below the market rate'. What happens? The people who are first in line (poor, rich or indifferent) get a sweet deal (assuming no funny business), with a cheap apartment. The rest of us get boned because we can't find an apartment. What happens? Mutually beneficial transactions take place, but through means that we aren't comfortable with. For the issue of rent control, landowners take finders fees, cash on the side, etc. for tickets, we have scalpers. If ticketmaster is selling tickets at a fixed price regardless of demand, then there will be a shortage, and there will be pressure to resell tickets in order to make up that difference.
In general, messing with the market is bad, especially messing with it in such an ineffectual way.
Too bad, I liked Zangarmarsh. Much more fun to lvl there than Terrokar Forest or HFP. Even blade's edge and Nagrand seemed to be a little uninspired. The first zone i liked after Zangarmarsh was Netherstorm.
Price of a given software good too high for teachers to use it? Russian teachers have already tried pirating it, because the cost of an XP OS license is ridiculous in comparison to budgets for schools there, especially outside of moscow. Microsoft comes down like a ton of bricks on the teacher, so it becomes clear that this isn't a useful route for other teachers. The switch is made to an Os without license fees and distribution limitations.
Microsoft could have solved this by lowering the price of XP for educators in russia enough so that it could have been meaningfully distributed around the country. But they didn't. Oh well.
No it doesn't. You've missed my point in the 2nd comment entirely. There are HUGE structural and informational limitations preventing someone from another country from writing and negotiating a contract properly. While there are demonstrably fewer limitations for the australians than the indonesians (also airframe customers of US companies), those limitations still exist and still serve to prevent perfect contracts from being executed.
in your summation you still return to the notion that all parties have equal information regarding equipment capabilities--they don't. Information between the two sides is asymmetrical. That asymmetry can be reduced with proper contract negotiations--assuming there isn't some constraint on either party for the release of information. Those constraints are ALL over technology export laws in the US. Given those informational constraints, the Australian negotiators could have done a perfect job but still recieved a bum deal.
The UK manages because the US has had a lot more incentive to allow them leeway on security rules--england was viewed as one of the last places in Europe that wouldn't have russian tanks in it 3 days after WWIII broke out. We have similarly cozy secrecy rules with Iceland, but since they don't really have a large defense manufacturing base, we haven't shared the same sort of technical secrets with them
But it IS done by company execs along with those diplomants. The sale is negotiated by US Defense Corps to Austrialian diplomats. It is in the interest of the seller (Boeing/MCD) to limit their disclosure of problems in the products--if they had been clear that there existed a mechanism to prevent the planes from being functional that WOULDN'T be disabled by the US, they would not have made the sale. The end product meets the needs of the buyer only insofar as the buyer does due diligence--that's where the austrailians would try to hire someone (say an ex-designer or fighter pilot) who knew a shitload about these things in order to help them through the negotiations. Because the technology is 'secret', those kinds of people are in short supply.
In this case, I think we are conflating the US Gvt with US business involved in the sale of aircraft. The Gov't will sell aircraft that have been in service, but companies will sell new aircraft, license the manufacture of same aircraft, and sell aircraft that the US has 'junked' to other countries (All with the permission and under the export schemes of the government). When we say that the "US" has reached a deal with another country to provide aircraft, it is almost NEVER a purely diplomatic deal. Even the lend-lease program (which both predated the modern military-industrial complex and involved assets that today would have been directly sold by services or sold after decommissioning by the decomissioning contractor) was an emergency long term loan to England of ships and supplies.
The austrailians COULD have used the possiblity of switching to french hardware (Less so british, because US/British hardware share a LOT of the same suppliers (and protocols, and sometimes end contractors, etc) and basically have the same capabilities/limitations), but that brings in two problems:
1. Aircraft already purchased come at a pretty high cost. Once you buy a 20 million dollar airframe, the near term cost of maintaining it is relatively low in comparison to a switch to a different structure.
2. Arms 'deals' are reciprocal and intertwined. If the Australians told the US to fuck off with their f-18's, the possiblity exists that they may have to buy their cruisers and destroyers from France, too. While the French make pretty damn good airplanes (and have a bunch), the same isn't necessarily true for other military assets.
The reason I mentioned dual-use (going backwards here) was that it is a less restricted export commodity that purely military technology. So export control schemes for dual-use tech have less of an incentive to be restrictive and obscure. It may have been illegal (probably was, even though we have plenty of secret sharing agreements w/ NZ,AU, CA, UK, including special classifications that they may see but others may not) to let them know before the deal that this possible limitation exists, even though it was legal to sell them the multi-million dollar weapon in the first place.
EX:
When I was in the navy, we occasionally had Australian riders onboard the submarine. they had Top-Secret clearances and could see plenty of things the russians generally weren't allowed to see.:)
But, despite this clearance, they were NOT allowed in the engine room, even though the highest lvl of classification there was Confidential (not as nasty as TS). A law passed in 1956 forbid them (but not the british) from even seeing the insides of the engine room, or asking about our capabilities. They could however, read message traffic, look at our sonar capabilities, etc, etc, etc.
The export restrictions on military hardware doesn't just stop Joe Shmoe from buying an F-18. It helps to create an entire bureaucracy around the sale of same items. Let's take an example of something that isn't strictly military, but dual-use.
Hughes aircraft puts up a satellite on a Chinese launch vehicle (rocket) because it is cheaper than the US alternative and the launch window is more favorable (only so many launch vehicles fly at any given time). Rocket blows up in the air. Hughes aircraft gives the Chinese some pointers in ground control as to what caused the failure and how to avoid it in the future. partially becausee the ground operators were just THERE, partially because Hughes wants to put other satellites up later on the same kind of vehicle, and they don't want a 120 million dollar fireball for their efforts.
OOPS. Turns out that that 'advice' improved a dual use technology, and that the State Department (and Congress, blah, blah) wasn't too happy about it.
How did we figure out which bits of information were allowed or forbidden? It isn't just as simple as "are you an ally? Are you buying our stuff? Ok, go nuts." there is a complex (read: clumsy) enforcement scheme designed to stop information from leaving US borders. We all know this as what stopped cryptosystems from being exported--even though they weren't military-created or robust in any way.
Export enforcement schemes are complex and unwieldy. There is a strong incentive to streamline these restrictions (from Defense Corporations), but also strong incentives to strengthen them (From organizations like the state dept, the NSA, and from Congresscritters who get elected by raising up bogeymen).
Kerry's right to assembly doesn't enjoin anyone else from 'barging' in to also speak. That's the whole notion of a "free market of ideas" (although I hate that phrase).
Here's a 'safe' example. Let's say there is a KKK rally in your town. Unconstitutional response: Bar them from marching. Constitutional response: Allow them to march, but allow counterprotests to occur. Then see who shows up in greater numbers/with greater force of ideas.
It's pretty clear from the law that wherever possible, assembly rights are meant to be non-rival (meaning that my right to speak is not meant to prohibit your right to speak as well).
He's a journalism student, therefore he's going to only protest in order to dray attention to himself? Does that make any sense?
OH! I just found out he was in a high school science class, but never got to touch the Van De Graaf machine. I think that his REAL motive was to feel 200,000V against his skin.
So because you say that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" doesn't amount to free speech, suddenly it follows that there must be limits to protest in terms of how or where it is conducted? The 'fire' example is meant to exclude 'physical speech and action' with no corresponding content and that has other unambiguous meanings--shouting fire, waving a plastic gun around in order to promote gun safety, sending out press releases that there is cyanide in the water in order to promote water safety.
the hemming in of the how and where of protest has been more aligned pragmatically with the rise of television than with any detatched legal scholarship.
And, "shitting on the presidents afternoon tea" violates a dozen other laws unrelated to 1st ammnd. rights. Of course I can't come into Nancy Peloisi's living room in order to convince her to impeach Bush, that would be breaking and entering. Here we are talking about public figures in public roles in areas open to the same.
In that case, we are both talking about the same kind of failure: a company feeling that total restriction means security. It's inherently not true. when I wrote about webmail being superior to local email in a lot of cases for a lot of companies, I was referring to some intrinsic superiority (portability) and some non-intrinsic superiority (ease of use, files storage limits, searchability, 'smart' contact lists).
The best way for the company to limit use of the webmail service is to have the hosted service eliminate the intrinsic and non-intrinsic superiorty of the insecure alternative. Create a useful, robust VPN service (portablity). Write/buy an mail service that doesn't seem like a chore to use. It's sort of like offering music on iTunes for 99cents a song. It didn't add new laws or barriers to ripping music or downloading it from the internet, but it created a strong incentive to do it legally, with its own advantages over illicit downloading.
That doesn't answer your question, but maybe it explains why I hope that I shouldn't have provoked it.
to answer your question:
Do your best to explain what 'internet access' means, and that real-time access to support is worth its weight in gold considering the time to switch over, browse, upload the contents to ftp, blah, blah, blah. But, you rpobably already know that the company in question won't open up 'fort knox', so the real answer becomes: suck it up.:(
The security literature has been saying this for years. And, depending on who you classify as a 'user' this is a much broader problem. The TJX breech? If I consider that the company IT dept. allowed latitude in where computers were connected to the company intranet (for convenience) and which computers could be connected, the the protocols surrounding handling of data (either VISA, [PDF]or otherwise) become superfluous. the 'user' that wants to be able to check stock at a kiosk inserts problems not considered in the protocol.
This is largely fixed by changing/following protocol (although following PCI would not have eliminated the TJX breech, just limited it). dictating access limits to machines, enforcing those access limits through user and key management. Enforcing segregation of data by pushing it back from the user space. Etc.
In a lot of cases, these things can be eliminated only through design--not draconian regulations. By design I mean something separate from limitations. A limitation (for example) would be to block any traffic going to popular webmail accounds through a browser. This is pretty easily circumvented by a half dozen trivial (read: largely non-technical and non-threatening) solutions. A design solution would be to incent users to use the internal mailing system to organize their mail and to VPN to it while away. Using Outlook as a primary means to communicate makes me pine for the responsiveness and search functionality of Gmail. eventually, rules be damned, I will migrate my work email to gmail (assuming I'm not security conscious) because it offers so many inherent advantages. The solution, bein to eliminate those advantages.
Without that, you are in the same boat that you were before. More rules, but the same incentive to break them.
You know that if you keep a certified copy at the Courthouse, if becomes a matter of public record (along w/ your name, address, SSN, etc). that's why they tell you at TAPS to just keep a copy in a safe deposit box, not with the county.
Here's the link
This isn't, and should be considered as, news. Later in the article, it is suggested that Vista growth is largely cannabalistic from XP, but somehow this is dismissed as a matter of course. Even MORE galling is the suggestion that the powerPC-->Intel switch and the vista switch are analogous, but conversions from PowerPC to Intel do not denote new sales.
read that again. TFA states early on the rate of conversion to Apple's new format, but fails to classify this as growth, only classifying growth as new sales from former Windows users. Ironically, conversion to intel is, prima facia, a new computer purchase, while vista only likely requires a new computer purchase.
Come on. If this were reversed, and an apple fan site showed Windows growth as stagnant because independent adoption of Vista was flat, it would be blatanly obvious.
The Nevada Gaming Commission [PDF] (As an example, I know the article isn't about Las Vegas) heavily regulates slot machines, their software, and their payout schedule. Machines that deviate from the payout schedule are inspected and machines whose software processes are not open to inspection and audit are not allowed on the floor. In this case it would be, prima facia, a crime to install software that was not audited by the authorities onto a machine. IANAL, so I can't tell you if proving criminal intent would be required, but I suspect that the threshold would be minimal, assuming that it could be proven that the users inserted the bug.
In this case, it doesn't appear as though the bug was inserted by the users, just (sigh) exploited in order to win. These cases are well litigated in Nevada (though probably not in Indiana/Kentucky), and elsewhere. The trend seems to be (Scroll Down to "Overpayment to Patron") that if it can be proven that the gaming patron didn't involve him or herself in the actual flaw of the machine, then not only are they not liable, but the Casino must still pay out the winnings.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not absurd if you are willing to pay for it. this isn't heart surgery (which is pretty pricey anyhow), it's a concert.
What in the world do you think the feds will do? Make everything better? C'mon, this is slashdot! Do you want more federal regulation for music sales and distribution?
Capitalism is all about the man in the middle. How do you think the grocery gets to market? Plenty of middlemen who feel they can makes some money off of it.
Are you serious? How can scalpers generate a shortage? If ticket prices were sold by the venue at the price that people would be willing to pay, then scalpers would have no place. Let's imagine this: Ticketmaster somehow (by solutions I NEVER thought I would see suggested on /., ID for entry, stronger CAPTCHA's as if that will never be broken) manages to remove scalpers entirely. Then they sell tickets for some super popular band at 55 dollars a pop. Do you think that there are more people willing to go @55 dollars than there are seats to hold them? Bam, shortage at that price. No scalpers necessary.
So stockbrokers and bankers are bloodsuckers too because they trade on volume and limited access?
Wouldn't it be easier if TM would just charge the price you were willing to pay for the ticket? Then you wouldn't have to deal with shady intermediaries. all this is largely a result of TM's monopoly and price fixing, not of the scalpers. They have seen room for advantage (the big difference between the price and what a large # of ppl are willing to pay) and they are going to push to exploit it for the largest number of tickets possible.
Just like there is no better way to stop piracy than through convenient DRM free online purchases, there is no better way to stop scalping than charging the market price for ticket from the vendor.
What view should we take? Why is it that when prices for this kind of thing come up, /. turns into a HAVEN for Command and Control economists? EVERY other political story is guaranteed a pretty libertarian response, but bring up ticket sales and we seem to lose it.
Even with a lottery system, we only 'help' the people who both win the lottery and can afford the TM price. And since when did access to overpriced concerts become some charitable goal? Are we really so socially conscious that TOOL needs to lock ticket prices at 20 bucks and just lotto off tickets for a concert?
Yeah. Scalps that wouldn't make a DIME if the price were set artificially high. Think about that. I want to pay 50 bucks for a ticket. TM sets the price at 100. Scalper buys 100 dollar ticket and then tries to sell it to me for their cost +anything. Do I want to buy it? Hell no. If my price point was more like 200, then the scalper starts to make some money.
It still doesn't matter. If the band insists on doing this, then shortages will result, because you have more tickets demanded at that price than will be supplied. In this case you have a direct tradeoff ONLY if you assume that no one breaks the rules (hah). The tradeoff is this. If prices are allowed to rise to equilibrium, then some people will not be able to go because they can't afford it. If we hold prices low, then some people won't be able to go REGARDLESS of their ability to afford it.
The band can make a goal to sell concert tickets cheaply, but if demand is such at that price that it outstrips supply, then they will have trouble meeting that goal. Scalpers move in to resell tickets at what is more likely the market price. Does this mean scalpers are good? No, of course not. Scalpers introduce all sorts of negative externalities, but they are making mutually beneficial transactions occur, they are pretty irrepresable in that regard.
You don't know what you're talking about. Imagine rent control for me. That's a price ceiling meant to 'keep prices below the market rate'. What happens? The people who are first in line (poor, rich or indifferent) get a sweet deal (assuming no funny business), with a cheap apartment. The rest of us get boned because we can't find an apartment. What happens? Mutually beneficial transactions take place, but through means that we aren't comfortable with. For the issue of rent control, landowners take finders fees, cash on the side, etc. for tickets, we have scalpers. If ticketmaster is selling tickets at a fixed price regardless of demand, then there will be a shortage, and there will be pressure to resell tickets in order to make up that difference.
In general, messing with the market is bad, especially messing with it in such an ineffectual way.
It does seem to be less than the record there. But we can hardly fualt (har har) the team for not digging the full 50 miles to the asthenosphere. :)
Penny Arcade!
Too bad, I liked Zangarmarsh. Much more fun to lvl there than Terrokar Forest or HFP. Even blade's edge and Nagrand seemed to be a little uninspired. The first zone i liked after Zangarmarsh was Netherstorm.
Price of a given software good too high for teachers to use it? Russian teachers have already tried pirating it, because the cost of an XP OS license is ridiculous in comparison to budgets for schools there, especially outside of moscow. Microsoft comes down like a ton of bricks on the teacher, so it becomes clear that this isn't a useful route for other teachers. The switch is made to an Os without license fees and distribution limitations.
Microsoft could have solved this by lowering the price of XP for educators in russia enough so that it could have been meaningfully distributed around the country. But they didn't. Oh well.
No it doesn't. You've missed my point in the 2nd comment entirely. There are HUGE structural and informational limitations preventing someone from another country from writing and negotiating a contract properly. While there are demonstrably fewer limitations for the australians than the indonesians (also airframe customers of US companies), those limitations still exist and still serve to prevent perfect contracts from being executed.
in your summation you still return to the notion that all parties have equal information regarding equipment capabilities--they don't. Information between the two sides is asymmetrical. That asymmetry can be reduced with proper contract negotiations--assuming there isn't some constraint on either party for the release of information. Those constraints are ALL over technology export laws in the US. Given those informational constraints, the Australian negotiators could have done a perfect job but still recieved a bum deal.
The UK manages because the US has had a lot more incentive to allow them leeway on security rules--england was viewed as one of the last places in Europe that wouldn't have russian tanks in it 3 days after WWIII broke out. We have similarly cozy secrecy rules with Iceland, but since they don't really have a large defense manufacturing base, we haven't shared the same sort of technical secrets with them
But it IS done by company execs along with those diplomants. The sale is negotiated by US Defense Corps to Austrialian diplomats. It is in the interest of the seller (Boeing/MCD) to limit their disclosure of problems in the products--if they had been clear that there existed a mechanism to prevent the planes from being functional that WOULDN'T be disabled by the US, they would not have made the sale. The end product meets the needs of the buyer only insofar as the buyer does due diligence--that's where the austrailians would try to hire someone (say an ex-designer or fighter pilot) who knew a shitload about these things in order to help them through the negotiations. Because the technology is 'secret', those kinds of people are in short supply.
:)
In this case, I think we are conflating the US Gvt with US business involved in the sale of aircraft. The Gov't will sell aircraft that have been in service, but companies will sell new aircraft, license the manufacture of same aircraft, and sell aircraft that the US has 'junked' to other countries (All with the permission and under the export schemes of the government). When we say that the "US" has reached a deal with another country to provide aircraft, it is almost NEVER a purely diplomatic deal. Even the lend-lease program (which both predated the modern military-industrial complex and involved assets that today would have been directly sold by services or sold after decommissioning by the decomissioning contractor) was an emergency long term loan to England of ships and supplies.
The austrailians COULD have used the possiblity of switching to french hardware (Less so british, because US/British hardware share a LOT of the same suppliers (and protocols, and sometimes end contractors, etc) and basically have the same capabilities/limitations), but that brings in two problems:
1. Aircraft already purchased come at a pretty high cost. Once you buy a 20 million dollar airframe, the near term cost of maintaining it is relatively low in comparison to a switch to a different structure.
2. Arms 'deals' are reciprocal and intertwined. If the Australians told the US to fuck off with their f-18's, the possiblity exists that they may have to buy their cruisers and destroyers from France, too. While the French make pretty damn good airplanes (and have a bunch), the same isn't necessarily true for other military assets.
The reason I mentioned dual-use (going backwards here) was that it is a less restricted export commodity that purely military technology. So export control schemes for dual-use tech have less of an incentive to be restrictive and obscure. It may have been illegal (probably was, even though we have plenty of secret sharing agreements w/ NZ,AU, CA, UK, including special classifications that they may see but others may not) to let them know before the deal that this possible limitation exists, even though it was legal to sell them the multi-million dollar weapon in the first place.
EX:
When I was in the navy, we occasionally had Australian riders onboard the submarine. they had Top-Secret clearances and could see plenty of things the russians generally weren't allowed to see.
But, despite this clearance, they were NOT allowed in the engine room, even though the highest lvl of classification there was Confidential (not as nasty as TS). A law passed in 1956 forbid them (but not the british) from even seeing the insides of the engine room, or asking about our capabilities. They could however, read message traffic, look at our sonar capabilities, etc, etc, etc.
sometimes these laws are caprecious and stupid.
Read the original comment:
The export restrictions on military hardware doesn't just stop Joe Shmoe from buying an F-18. It helps to create an entire bureaucracy around the sale of same items. Let's take an example of something that isn't strictly military, but dual-use.
Hughes aircraft puts up a satellite on a Chinese launch vehicle (rocket) because it is cheaper than the US alternative and the launch window is more favorable (only so many launch vehicles fly at any given time). Rocket blows up in the air. Hughes aircraft gives the Chinese some pointers in ground control as to what caused the failure and how to avoid it in the future. partially becausee the ground operators were just THERE, partially because Hughes wants to put other satellites up later on the same kind of vehicle, and they don't want a 120 million dollar fireball for their efforts.
OOPS. Turns out that that 'advice' improved a dual use technology, and that the State Department (and Congress, blah, blah) wasn't too happy about it.
How did we figure out which bits of information were allowed or forbidden? It isn't just as simple as "are you an ally? Are you buying our stuff? Ok, go nuts." there is a complex (read: clumsy) enforcement scheme designed to stop information from leaving US borders. We all know this as what stopped cryptosystems from being exported--even though they weren't military-created or robust in any way.
Export enforcement schemes are complex and unwieldy. There is a strong incentive to streamline these restrictions (from Defense Corporations), but also strong incentives to strengthen them (From organizations like the state dept, the NSA, and from Congresscritters who get elected by raising up bogeymen).
Oops. Low amperage devices.
Potential Whore!
Kerry's right to assembly doesn't enjoin anyone else from 'barging' in to also speak. That's the whole notion of a "free market of ideas" (although I hate that phrase).
Here's a 'safe' example. Let's say there is a KKK rally in your town. Unconstitutional response: Bar them from marching. Constitutional response: Allow them to march, but allow counterprotests to occur. Then see who shows up in greater numbers/with greater force of ideas.
It's pretty clear from the law that wherever possible, assembly rights are meant to be non-rival (meaning that my right to speak is not meant to prohibit your right to speak as well).
+5 insightful?
He's a journalism student, therefore he's going to only protest in order to dray attention to himself? Does that make any sense?
OH! I just found out he was in a high school science class, but never got to touch the Van De Graaf machine. I think that his REAL motive was to feel 200,000V against his skin.
electron whore!
Wait, what?
So because you say that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" doesn't amount to free speech, suddenly it follows that there must be limits to protest in terms of how or where it is conducted? The 'fire' example is meant to exclude 'physical speech and action' with no corresponding content and that has other unambiguous meanings--shouting fire, waving a plastic gun around in order to promote gun safety, sending out press releases that there is cyanide in the water in order to promote water safety.
the hemming in of the how and where of protest has been more aligned pragmatically with the rise of television than with any detatched legal scholarship.
And, "shitting on the presidents afternoon tea" violates a dozen other laws unrelated to 1st ammnd. rights. Of course I can't come into Nancy Peloisi's living room in order to convince her to impeach Bush, that would be breaking and entering. Here we are talking about public figures in public roles in areas open to the same.
Not sure what I'm supposed to comment on.
:(
In that case, we are both talking about the same kind of failure: a company feeling that total restriction means security. It's inherently not true. when I wrote about webmail being superior to local email in a lot of cases for a lot of companies, I was referring to some intrinsic superiority (portability) and some non-intrinsic superiority (ease of use, files storage limits, searchability, 'smart' contact lists).
The best way for the company to limit use of the webmail service is to have the hosted service eliminate the intrinsic and non-intrinsic superiorty of the insecure alternative. Create a useful, robust VPN service (portablity). Write/buy an mail service that doesn't seem like a chore to use. It's sort of like offering music on iTunes for 99cents a song. It didn't add new laws or barriers to ripping music or downloading it from the internet, but it created a strong incentive to do it legally, with its own advantages over illicit downloading.
That doesn't answer your question, but maybe it explains why I hope that I shouldn't have provoked it.
to answer your question:
Do your best to explain what 'internet access' means, and that real-time access to support is worth its weight in gold considering the time to switch over, browse, upload the contents to ftp, blah, blah, blah. But, you rpobably already know that the company in question won't open up 'fort knox', so the real answer becomes: suck it up.
wow. editing is awesome. Breech evidently =/= breach. :)
Also, damn google for not just linking my search result as an actual page.
The security literature has been saying this for years. And, depending on who you classify as a 'user' this is a much broader problem. The TJX breech? If I consider that the company IT dept. allowed latitude in where computers were connected to the company intranet (for convenience) and which computers could be connected, the the protocols surrounding handling of data (either VISA, [PDF]or otherwise) become superfluous. the 'user' that wants to be able to check stock at a kiosk inserts problems not considered in the protocol.
This is largely fixed by changing/following protocol (although following PCI would not have eliminated the TJX breech, just limited it). dictating access limits to machines, enforcing those access limits through user and key management. Enforcing segregation of data by pushing it back from the user space. Etc.
In a lot of cases, these things can be eliminated only through design--not draconian regulations. By design I mean something separate from limitations. A limitation (for example) would be to block any traffic going to popular webmail accounds through a browser. This is pretty easily circumvented by a half dozen trivial (read: largely non-technical and non-threatening) solutions. A design solution would be to incent users to use the internal mailing system to organize their mail and to VPN to it while away. Using Outlook as a primary means to communicate makes me pine for the responsiveness and search functionality of Gmail. eventually, rules be damned, I will migrate my work email to gmail (assuming I'm not security conscious) because it offers so many inherent advantages. The solution, bein to eliminate those advantages.
Without that, you are in the same boat that you were before. More rules, but the same incentive to break them.
You know that if you keep a certified copy at the Courthouse, if becomes a matter of public record (along w/ your name, address, SSN, etc). that's why they tell you at TAPS to just keep a copy in a safe deposit box, not with the county. Here's the link
Hahahahahaah. Quality reference.
This isn't, and should be considered as, news. Later in the article, it is suggested that Vista growth is largely cannabalistic from XP, but somehow this is dismissed as a matter of course. Even MORE galling is the suggestion that the powerPC-->Intel switch and the vista switch are analogous, but conversions from PowerPC to Intel do not denote new sales.
read that again. TFA states early on the rate of conversion to Apple's new format, but fails to classify this as growth, only classifying growth as new sales from former Windows users. Ironically, conversion to intel is, prima facia, a new computer purchase, while vista only likely requires a new computer purchase.
Come on. If this were reversed, and an apple fan site showed Windows growth as stagnant because independent adoption of Vista was flat, it would be blatanly obvious.
The Nevada Gaming Commission [PDF] (As an example, I know the article isn't about Las Vegas) heavily regulates slot machines, their software, and their payout schedule. Machines that deviate from the payout schedule are inspected and machines whose software processes are not open to inspection and audit are not allowed on the floor. In this case it would be, prima facia, a crime to install software that was not audited by the authorities onto a machine. IANAL, so I can't tell you if proving criminal intent would be required, but I suspect that the threshold would be minimal, assuming that it could be proven that the users inserted the bug.
In this case, it doesn't appear as though the bug was inserted by the users, just (sigh) exploited in order to win. These cases are well litigated in Nevada (though probably not in Indiana/Kentucky), and elsewhere. The trend seems to be (Scroll Down to "Overpayment to Patron") that if it can be proven that the gaming patron didn't involve him or herself in the actual flaw of the machine, then not only are they not liable, but the Casino must still pay out the winnings.