Well... assuming this ability still exists in humans, and further assuming that we find a way to turn it on, there are situations where one might be willing to accept an increased risk of cancer or some other infirmity. I mean, suppose you were someone that had had his penis shot off: wouldn't you take the chance of a little cancer to get your rod back?
True, but on the other hand, if we are able to reactivate an ancient yet problematic self-repair mechanism, there remains the possibility that we might fix it. Evolution doesn't guarantee optimal solutions by any means.
that mass quantities of crude fission weapons have their uses. For example, if we ever get invaded by technologically-advanced, elephantine aliens, we'll need them as fuel for our gigantic spacegoing attack platform.
What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)
You're making the assumption that the RIAA's attorneys care about that. I think it's been demonstrated that their activities center around scaring people away from acquiring music illegally via the Internet, rather than recovering "damages" due to copyright infringement. Suing innocent people just makes the RIAA's lawsuit mill appear even more intimidating.
'It worked for me, so I stuck with it. Until there is really some reason to totally abandon it, I won't.'
There are plenty of excellent reason to abandon AOL... it's just that he doesn't understand them, or simply isn't aware of them. And that, I'm afraid, is the reason that AOL still exists as an ISP.
I don't feel the outrage against them that I do the RIAA. They're more annoying than evil in their tactics.
Maybe... but keep firmly in mind that it was the MPAA that authored the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They're a dangerous outfit, in fact because they're more subtle than the RIAA they're even more dangerous. Don't let them off the hook.
Well, they're mobsters who are bought-and-paid-for by the big studios (who, themselves, are not exactly shining examples of good behavior.) They're funded to the tune of several hundred million dollars a year, in the United States alone. They sure behave in a mob-like fashion, it's true, but they're on a payroll. The studios are the ones who should take the blame, and are the only ones that can call off their dogs.
with politicians from any country that ramble on about banning this or that "on the Internet", as if it matters to the other 99.9999% of the Internet-using population what they do or think. It just exposes their ignorance (as well as the perceived ignorance of their constituency) when they say stupidass things like that.
Boggles the mind. It's about as useful to talk about banning anything on the Internet as it is to pass a law against any particular sex act. People will do what they're going to do.
What? How did you graduate from potential civil liability to criminal prosecution? A class action suit is a civil matter, not a criminal one in the United States. Very different legal subsystems, very different penalties, very different purposes. What I was trying to say is that a focus upon penalizing those organizations which screw up is not sufficient: Congress needs to raise the bar on the minimum security requirements that data aggregators have to meet, so that fewer breaches occur in the first place. The problem right now is that these assholes don't see any reason to spend money on security, because there is no significant penalty to them when a breach occurs. Who cares if a few hundred thousand people get their financial lives destroyed? Not their problem, you see. We need to make it their problem.
Better yet, simply outlaw the entire practice of collecting personal information for private sale. Outfits like Choicepoint have no legitimate reason to exist (other than to enrich a very few people in a very amoral fashion) and the risk of their being in operation is too great.
Sure... if that were how it worked in practice. But it's not. We've have one of the largest bureaucracies on the planet and it's getting bigger. Somehow I don't think bigger databases are going to help.
Just think of the consequences if homeopathic remedies - which are supposed to work better with minuscule quantities of an "active" ingredient - get into our drinking water, too?
Just think of the consequences if homeopathy actually worked.
It might be far below a medical dose, but the question is: Why are they putting it in drinkwater in the first place?
They're not. The drugs end up in the reprocessing loop because people throw them down the drain or flush them down the toilet, and the filtration systems currently in place don't get rid of all of them. Makes you wonder if bottled water is any better, or if there's any way to filter the water more thoroughly yourself. Would distillation and activated-charcoal filtering do the trick?
Because big corporations have a vested interest in never admitting they're wrong until a jury of their peers says so, and even then they keep trying to spin it in their favor. The lengths they go to does get pretty insane sometimes.
While I agree with you from my own perspective as a software engineer that has to make similar recommendations, you also have to look at this from how a typical not-particularly-computer-literate customer would see it. They go to a store to buy a laptop with the latest Microsoft OS on it, and they have certain expectations... that it will work at least as well as the last version of Windows they had, for one. Given what's been coming out of Microsoft in discovery so far, it seems to me that Microsoft knew they had a dog on their hands, and sold it anyway. They took a chance that nobody would call them on it and lost.
So far as sales go, this is probably gonna hurt. Me, I'm sticking with XP and Linux for the time being.
... and would jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill with class members.
If Microsoft had any goodwill with the class members, why would said members be suing Microsoft? That statement doesn't make any sense on the face of it.
Well, if you get experts of the caliber of Jon Postel (RIP) I'd say they'd be a hell of a lot better, and if they're primarily technologists they'll have a priority system much more aligned with that of most Internet users.
Actually, capturing the MAC address was common practice at one point (the modem would only talk to the first PC that was connected to it.) And that was the idea: if you wanted more systems in your house, you would pay for more for each machine. AT&T Broadband was famous for that, wanting an extra five bucks per computer. Then NAT routers starting getting popular, and they threatened to disconnect anyone that used one. Then they said they wouldn't provide any tech support if you used one. Then they gave it up as a bad idea. Nowadays ISPs don't object to home networks so long as they're entirely within the home, although they may charge you for an extra IP (I have one for my VoIP box.) Sharing service with people outside the confines of the service address is generally a no-no.
Slashdot Mirror
Well ... assuming this ability still exists in humans, and further assuming that we find a way to turn it on, there are situations where one might be willing to accept an increased risk of cancer or some other infirmity. I mean, suppose you were someone that had had his penis shot off: wouldn't you take the chance of a little cancer to get your rod back?
True, but on the other hand, if we are able to reactivate an ancient yet problematic self-repair mechanism, there remains the possibility that we might fix it. Evolution doesn't guarantee optimal solutions by any means.
that mass quantities of crude fission weapons have their uses. For example, if we ever get invaded by technologically-advanced, elephantine aliens, we'll need them as fuel for our gigantic spacegoing attack platform.
The void of anarchy is usually filled with totalitarianism.
What I still don't get though, is how they ended suing guys without computers.)
You're making the assumption that the RIAA's attorneys care about that. I think it's been demonstrated that their activities center around scaring people away from acquiring music illegally via the Internet, rather than recovering "damages" due to copyright infringement. Suing innocent people just makes the RIAA's lawsuit mill appear even more intimidating.
but, Ray, as an experienced attorney, what odds would you give that any of this will stick?
'It worked for me, so I stuck with it. Until there is really some reason to totally abandon it, I won't.'
... it's just that he doesn't understand them, or simply isn't aware of them. And that, I'm afraid, is the reason that AOL still exists as an ISP.
There are plenty of excellent reason to abandon AOL
I don't feel the outrage against them that I do the RIAA. They're more annoying than evil in their tactics.
... but keep firmly in mind that it was the MPAA that authored the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. They're a dangerous outfit, in fact because they're more subtle than the RIAA they're even more dangerous. Don't let them off the hook.
Maybe
why is it that profits for the thing that can't be pirated have increased and the profits for the thing that can be pirated are down?
Or, to look at it yet another way, you're inferring cause and effect, Mr. Glickman.
Oh, I agree, I misspoke me. When I said "studio" I really meant "big bloodsucking content distribution company", ala Vivendi, Universal, etc.
Well, they're mobsters who are bought-and-paid-for by the big studios (who, themselves, are not exactly shining examples of good behavior.) They're funded to the tune of several hundred million dollars a year, in the United States alone. They sure behave in a mob-like fashion, it's true, but they're on a payroll. The studios are the ones who should take the blame, and are the only ones that can call off their dogs.
The Dirty Jobs of IT
Is that you, Steve?
Science. It works, bitches.
Science always does. Scientists usually do. The rest of us have to make do with educated guesses.
Was a genius.
with politicians from any country that ramble on about banning this or that "on the Internet", as if it matters to the other 99.9999% of the Internet-using population what they do or think. It just exposes their ignorance (as well as the perceived ignorance of their constituency) when they say stupidass things like that.
Boggles the mind. It's about as useful to talk about banning anything on the Internet as it is to pass a law against any particular sex act. People will do what they're going to do.
What? How did you graduate from potential civil liability to criminal prosecution? A class action suit is a civil matter, not a criminal one in the United States. Very different legal subsystems, very different penalties, very different purposes. What I was trying to say is that a focus upon penalizing those organizations which screw up is not sufficient: Congress needs to raise the bar on the minimum security requirements that data aggregators have to meet, so that fewer breaches occur in the first place. The problem right now is that these assholes don't see any reason to spend money on security, because there is no significant penalty to them when a breach occurs. Who cares if a few hundred thousand people get their financial lives destroyed? Not their problem, you see. We need to make it their problem.
Better yet, simply outlaw the entire practice of collecting personal information for private sale. Outfits like Choicepoint have no legitimate reason to exist (other than to enrich a very few people in a very amoral fashion) and the risk of their being in operation is too great.
Sure ... if that were how it worked in practice. But it's not. We've have one of the largest bureaucracies on the planet and it's getting bigger. Somehow I don't think bigger databases are going to help.
Just think of the consequences if homeopathic remedies - which are supposed to work better with minuscule quantities of an "active" ingredient - get into our drinking water, too?
Just think of the consequences if homeopathy actually worked.
It might be far below a medical dose, but the question is: Why are they putting it in drinkwater in the first place?
They're not. The drugs end up in the reprocessing loop because people throw them down the drain or flush them down the toilet, and the filtration systems currently in place don't get rid of all of them. Makes you wonder if bottled water is any better, or if there's any way to filter the water more thoroughly yourself. Would distillation and activated-charcoal filtering do the trick?
Because big corporations have a vested interest in never admitting they're wrong until a jury of their peers says so, and even then they keep trying to spin it in their favor. The lengths they go to does get pretty insane sometimes.
Ah. Now that makes more sense. Microsoft just wants to keep the class from growing.
While I agree with you from my own perspective as a software engineer that has to make similar recommendations, you also have to look at this from how a typical not-particularly-computer-literate customer would see it. They go to a store to buy a laptop with the latest Microsoft OS on it, and they have certain expectations ... that it will work at least as well as the last version of Windows they had, for one. Given what's been coming out of Microsoft in discovery so far, it seems to me that Microsoft knew they had a dog on their hands, and sold it anyway. They took a chance that nobody would call them on it and lost.
So far as sales go, this is probably gonna hurt. Me, I'm sticking with XP and Linux for the time being.
... and would jeopardize Microsoft's goodwill with class members.
If Microsoft had any goodwill with the class members, why would said members be suing Microsoft? That statement doesn't make any sense on the face of it.
Well, if you get experts of the caliber of Jon Postel (RIP) I'd say they'd be a hell of a lot better, and if they're primarily technologists they'll have a priority system much more aligned with that of most Internet users.
Actually, capturing the MAC address was common practice at one point (the modem would only talk to the first PC that was connected to it.) And that was the idea: if you wanted more systems in your house, you would pay for more for each machine. AT&T Broadband was famous for that, wanting an extra five bucks per computer. Then NAT routers starting getting popular, and they threatened to disconnect anyone that used one. Then they said they wouldn't provide any tech support if you used one. Then they gave it up as a bad idea. Nowadays ISPs don't object to home networks so long as they're entirely within the home, although they may charge you for an extra IP (I have one for my VoIP box.) Sharing service with people outside the confines of the service address is generally a no-no.