I'd say those that AREN'T worried have a screw loose. Or ten.
I agree. But, if those same people would just use a sane password policy for the financial Web sites they visit, they'd be a hell of a lot better off. Face it, most successful "hacking" attempts don't revolve around some bad-ass computer genius, they have to do with users not doing their part to properly secure their own data. Sure, there are definitely security breaches at large companies and you can't do much about that (it happened to me once: I got a new credit card with a new number... they had a security "issue" and were proactively changing everyone's numbers) but the customer still has some responsibility. I like sites that simply won't let you choose a weak password: I wish more would do that.
I'll go a step further and say if you're using online banking, don't use a Windows box.
I gag at the thought of an endless stream of Prius drivers tooling along in their special "green" lane while the rest of us languish in stop and go watching our gas mileage go even further into the crapper.
Good news. I can think of a solution to your dilemma, but somehow I doubt you're going to want to hear it.
Yeah, I know, "Buy a Prius". Not much chance of that. Until they come up with something doesn't require the use of an internal combustion engine, I'll stick with what I have, thank you very much.
All that these "hybrids" are doing is running a Carnot-cycle engine in the most efficient part of its output curve, while trying to provide a better impedance match between the engine and the wheels (i.e., a better transmission.) Now that's great, but ultimately they are still converting chemical energy to physical motion the same way as every other vehicle on the road, with the same limits on conversion efficiency. Face it, the reciprocating internal combustion engine is now, and has always been, a joke from the standpoint of conversion efficiency.
Wake me when Carnot is no longer part of the equation, when the heat engine is obsolete. And no, I don't mean the pure electric: most of our electricity comes from coal, and gigantic coal-fired heat engines are not an improvement. Maybe if our duly-elected President had spent a couple of trillion dollars building out the distribution grid and commissioning new nuclear power plants I'd feel differently. But he had other uses for our money.
and you're just making things up because it's intellectually convenient for you to do so.
No, it's trendy. But his point stands. Plus which every goddamn Prius driver I encounter on the highway on the way to and from work is an inconsiderate prick who makes the average SUV driver look like a saint. They all seem to have their cruise controls set for 50 MPH while insisting on clogging the passing lane, and have trendy little iPhones stuck in their trendy little ears. Bastards
Worse yet, my State has decided, in its infinite wisdom, to set up a special lane just for people driving "efficient" vehicles on our tollways. Of course, they can't seem to manage to define what "efficient" is in this context (although one assumes that the Prius would qualify on principle, since it's the poster-boy for eco-friendliness.) The idea, of course, is to charge more money for less efficient vehicles: social engineering at its finest folks. Now, the hybrid really shines, in comparison to conventional vehicles, when operating in heavy traffic, whereas the standard internal combustion vehicle is far more efficient when running at a constant speed. So as usual, our government has got it exactly backwards. Dipsticks.
I gag at the thought of an endless stream of Prius drivers tooling along in their special "green" lane while the rest of us languish in stop and go watching our gas mileage go even further into the crapper.
It could have been any of them, it just happened to be BP first.
I think it's a matter of numbers. There are far more irresponsible voters, so of course they get the red-carpet treatment. Those of us who tried to play by the rules get hosed, over and over.
Shit safety standards aside BP at least say they strive to do no harm, whereas Monsanto actively attempt to do as much harm as possible.
"Say" they strive to do no harm? Are you serious?
All you're really saying is that British Petroleum is run by incompetents and liars, and Monsanto is run by aggressive menaces and liars. All that tells me is that you don't know enough about the petroleum industry.
In either case, it's all about money at the expense of lots of people, and I'm sorry, but BP is just as dangerous, just as overtly sociopathic. "Shit safety standards"? You think that doesn't apply to genetic engineering just as much as oil drilling? In either case, the law has failed to provide adequate protection, for the farmer on one hand, everyone else on the other.
In the end, there's little difference to the rest of us, so I'm not willing to give the likes of British Petroleum a free pass. Yes, I agree: Monsanto is run but a bunch of really bad dudes that have abused the law for profit, hurt a lot of people, and ought to be behind bars.
Yes, and I always note whether or not it is a court order. If it is not a court order, it's just a letter saying what someone would like me to do, and may seek a court order in the future. Until then, it's just a letter, exactly as if I wrote you a letter.
True, but you shouldn't ignore it. You don't want it to go to court if you can possibly avoid it, so you take that letter to a lawyer to find out where you stand. Maybe you have him write a letter to corporate management, explaining the situation, and clue them in to the impending PR disaster that will occur if they don't call off the dogs. If this is truly a case where the opposing extremities are insufficiently well-acquainted, the matter may very well end right there. The attorney that sent the C&D is just doing his job: it won't go any further unless somebody higher up wants it to.
So you're right: if you get a C&D you don't panic, but you do get competent legal advice.
You'd really be amazed at what can be accomplished by getting on the phone and continuing to ask to talk to a more important person.
On a more trivial note, back in the seventies my father bought a Proctor & Gamble coffeemaker. It was a nice unit for the time, but the coffee it produced had a horrid petrochemical taste, basically it was undrinkable.
The store he purchased it from refused to accept it back, as he'd had the temerity to actually open the box and try to use the thing, and because it was run by jerks (Service Merchandise, as it happens... the store closed a year later.) So he called up the manufacturer's warranty line: they told him that the warranty could only be honored from the store where he'd bought it, and likewise refused to do anything about it.
So Dad started working his way up the Proctor & Gamble corporate ladder. It was an amazing lesson for me: it took him a couple of hours but by the time he was done, he'd spoken to the CEO of the company. I don't remember his name, but he was surprised and rather pleased to be hearing directly from a customer, apologized for the problem with the item, explaining that there was a problem with a plastic tube that carried water from the reservoir into the heating unit leaching plasticizer. Not only that, he promised to send a replacement out right away.
He was true to his word: a new coffeemaker was on our doorstop the next morning. Unfortunately, the flavor still sucked.
Verizon would have been better served all along by approaching this from a positive angle along the lines of "how we can get your content to our users, faster" than "you are screwing us by not paying us." Everyone likes a company that says "what can we do for you" a lot better than one that stamps its feet like a brat.
They called them "baby" Bells for a reason.
None of them proved to be any more capable of investing in the future than big media has ever been.
All dictatorial individuals can shape things on their own based on their irrepressible charisma.
Very true.
Why you think that is a complement is a mystery to me...
Because Apple gives him something he needs and wants. That leads him to accept that anything Jobs does is really okay because {insert rationalization here}. In that behavior he's no different than anyone who has stock in a major corporation and doesn't care what that organization does as long as the dividends are there.
Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Woz is still around, even on/....unless that car of his finally got to him.
Yes, I didn't mean to refer to him as if he were dead: I was discussing the design of the original Apple ][ series and that it was remarkable for its time.
If you're referring to Wozniak, I'm going to take exception to your remark.
I just assumed he meant Ballmer.
I try not to think of Steve Ballmer. Besides, he's hardly incompetent, he's just an even bigger asshole than Steve Jobs (hard to imagine, I know, but there it is.)
If not: are you sure about that? Can we afford the risk? Should we?
All good points, and I'm not really disputing any. But there is the fact that much of the world is starving, and GM crops could offer them some hope. The issue is not as clear-cut as some people would like to make it.
Having said that, we really don't know enough to be certain of the long-term effects. Much more research needs to be done, but companies like Monsanto are forging ahead now, and from what I can tell, with little regard for consequence.
Ha, that term could be taken a lot of different ways. Anyway, as of right now I don't think the law has really caught up to what Monsanto and other companies involved in genetic modification are doing. If anything, they've been using the law rather successfully to promote their business model at the expense of anyone who happens to be in the vicinity.
You probably don't want to outlaw such activities outright, kneejerk-style, because much good can come from them. That's certainly true in medicine and other fields, and in any event no matter what we do other countries will do as they please. On the other hand, you don't want to give outfits like Monsanto free reign either. It all comes down to a reasonable regulation, I suppose... not that I trust any of our governments to be capable of that any longer.
That's the real problem, when you get right down to it: the concept of a truly "free" market is fundamentally unworkable because it depends upon those humans at the top of the corporate food chain having a certain level of ethics. By and large, that's never been the case, which is one reason why we still need the institution of government. Unfortunately, once said government comes under the sway of the very corporations it is supposed to be regulating, bad things invariably happen.
Is it bad that the plants have escaped or is it bad the some American corporation is going to make less money next year?
It's (potentially) bad that the genes escaped. The fact that Monsanto might make less money is Monsanto's problem. Their inability to do what they claim with their genetically modified plants is our problem.
The funniest thing is that in their response to the film Monsato even directly admits they require farmers saving seed to provide "samples for testing".
In other words, we aren't an arm of government, we have no legal authority to "require" a private citizen to do anything whatsoever... but if you don't we'll bankrupt you in court.
Face it, Monsanto is the BP of their particular sector of the economy. Both need to be taken down a few notches, if not outright disbanded and their assets sold off.
So one Steve has joined the other Steve, the one who - and that makes a difference - never shone with competence.
If you're referring to Wozniak, I'm going to take exception to your remark. I've never liked Jobs, not from day one. Anyone who "adores" Steve Jobs wasn't around back in the beginning, isn't aware of the arrogance and bungling the man exhibited early on. Once an asshole, always an asshole, and running Apple has NOT improved his demeanor nor his attitude, not one iota. Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius. As someone who was very big in the Apple ][ development scene at one point, I must say Wozniak's work impressed me far more than anything Jobs did. Was the Woz a a businessman, a corporate leader? No, of course not: unlike Jobs though, he never pretended to be. But he was a hell of an engineer.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say those that AREN'T worried have a screw loose. Or ten.
I agree. But, if those same people would just use a sane password policy for the financial Web sites they visit, they'd be a hell of a lot better off. Face it, most successful "hacking" attempts don't revolve around some bad-ass computer genius, they have to do with users not doing their part to properly secure their own data. Sure, there are definitely security breaches at large companies and you can't do much about that (it happened to me once: I got a new credit card with a new number ... they had a security "issue" and were proactively changing everyone's numbers) but the customer still has some responsibility. I like sites that simply won't let you choose a weak password: I wish more would do that.
I'll go a step further and say if you're using online banking, don't use a Windows box.
I gag at the thought of an endless stream of Prius drivers tooling along in their special "green" lane while the rest of us languish in stop and go watching our gas mileage go even further into the crapper.
Good news. I can think of a solution to your dilemma, but somehow I doubt you're going to want to hear it.
Yeah, I know, "Buy a Prius". Not much chance of that. Until they come up with something doesn't require the use of an internal combustion engine, I'll stick with what I have, thank you very much.
All that these "hybrids" are doing is running a Carnot-cycle engine in the most efficient part of its output curve, while trying to provide a better impedance match between the engine and the wheels (i.e., a better transmission.) Now that's great, but ultimately they are still converting chemical energy to physical motion the same way as every other vehicle on the road, with the same limits on conversion efficiency. Face it, the reciprocating internal combustion engine is now, and has always been, a joke from the standpoint of conversion efficiency.
Wake me when Carnot is no longer part of the equation, when the heat engine is obsolete. And no, I don't mean the pure electric: most of our electricity comes from coal, and gigantic coal-fired heat engines are not an improvement. Maybe if our duly-elected President had spent a couple of trillion dollars building out the distribution grid and commissioning new nuclear power plants I'd feel differently. But he had other uses for our money.
and you're just making things up because it's intellectually convenient for you to do so.
No, it's trendy. But his point stands. Plus which every goddamn Prius driver I encounter on the highway on the way to and from work is an inconsiderate prick who makes the average SUV driver look like a saint. They all seem to have their cruise controls set for 50 MPH while insisting on clogging the passing lane, and have trendy little iPhones stuck in their trendy little ears. Bastards
Worse yet, my State has decided, in its infinite wisdom, to set up a special lane just for people driving "efficient" vehicles on our tollways. Of course, they can't seem to manage to define what "efficient" is in this context (although one assumes that the Prius would qualify on principle, since it's the poster-boy for eco-friendliness.) The idea, of course, is to charge more money for less efficient vehicles: social engineering at its finest folks. Now, the hybrid really shines, in comparison to conventional vehicles, when operating in heavy traffic, whereas the standard internal combustion vehicle is far more efficient when running at a constant speed. So as usual, our government has got it exactly backwards. Dipsticks.
I gag at the thought of an endless stream of Prius drivers tooling along in their special "green" lane while the rest of us languish in stop and go watching our gas mileage go even further into the crapper.
It could have been any of them, it just happened to be BP first.
I think it's a matter of numbers. There are far more irresponsible voters, so of course they get the red-carpet treatment. Those of us who tried to play by the rules get hosed, over and over.
Shit safety standards aside BP at least say they strive to do no harm, whereas Monsanto actively attempt to do as much harm as possible.
"Say" they strive to do no harm? Are you serious?
All you're really saying is that British Petroleum is run by incompetents and liars, and Monsanto is run by aggressive menaces and liars. All that tells me is that you don't know enough about the petroleum industry.
In either case, it's all about money at the expense of lots of people, and I'm sorry, but BP is just as dangerous, just as overtly sociopathic. "Shit safety standards"? You think that doesn't apply to genetic engineering just as much as oil drilling? In either case, the law has failed to provide adequate protection, for the farmer on one hand, everyone else on the other.
In the end, there's little difference to the rest of us, so I'm not willing to give the likes of British Petroleum a free pass. Yes, I agree: Monsanto is run but a bunch of really bad dudes that have abused the law for profit, hurt a lot of people, and ought to be behind bars.
But so is BP.
We want the rights to the SERIES.
Did they get it?
thinking audiences
I think I just found the problem.
The next big Discovery Channel hit: "Feed the Discovery Channel Lawyers to the Sharks Week"
I dunno about that ... will sharks eat their own?
>Have you ever read a cease and desist notice?
Yes, and I always note whether or not it is a court order. If it is not a court order, it's just a letter saying what someone would like me to do, and may seek a court order in the future. Until then, it's just a letter, exactly as if I wrote you a letter.
True, but you shouldn't ignore it. You don't want it to go to court if you can possibly avoid it, so you take that letter to a lawyer to find out where you stand. Maybe you have him write a letter to corporate management, explaining the situation, and clue them in to the impending PR disaster that will occur if they don't call off the dogs. If this is truly a case where the opposing extremities are insufficiently well-acquainted, the matter may very well end right there. The attorney that sent the C&D is just doing his job: it won't go any further unless somebody higher up wants it to.
So you're right: if you get a C&D you don't panic, but you do get competent legal advice.
You'd really be amazed at what can be accomplished by getting on the phone and continuing to ask to talk to a more important person.
On a more trivial note, back in the seventies my father bought a Proctor & Gamble coffeemaker. It was a nice unit for the time, but the coffee it produced had a horrid petrochemical taste, basically it was undrinkable.
... the store closed a year later.) So he called up the manufacturer's warranty line: they told him that the warranty could only be honored from the store where he'd bought it, and likewise refused to do anything about it.
The store he purchased it from refused to accept it back, as he'd had the temerity to actually open the box and try to use the thing, and because it was run by jerks (Service Merchandise, as it happens
So Dad started working his way up the Proctor & Gamble corporate ladder. It was an amazing lesson for me: it took him a couple of hours but by the time he was done, he'd spoken to the CEO of the company. I don't remember his name, but he was surprised and rather pleased to be hearing directly from a customer, apologized for the problem with the item, explaining that there was a problem with a plastic tube that carried water from the reservoir into the heating unit leaching plasticizer. Not only that, he promised to send a replacement out right away.
He was true to his word: a new coffeemaker was on our doorstop the next morning. Unfortunately, the flavor still sucked.
Your comment has no bering on the question.
Who let you out of your strait jacket?
That Google is Santa Claus?
Well, both Google and Santa Claus give out all kinds of free goodies, so it's possible. Besides, Santa's been in beta for a while now.
but I don't think I'm alone in saying that I trust my "neighbor" more than I trust law enforcement or shadowy military organizations.
You don't know my neighbor.
Verizon would have been better served all along by approaching this from a positive angle along the lines of "how we can get your content to our users, faster" than "you are screwing us by not paying us." Everyone likes a company that says "what can we do for you" a lot better than one that stamps its feet like a brat.
They called them "baby" Bells for a reason.
None of them proved to be any more capable of investing in the future than big media has ever been.
Yep. But look at the subject. Wozniak was a genius. Look at the subject. Mine is the other Steve.
Yeah. Sorry about that. At least I said, "If ...".
I've worked for him twice.
Oh. I'm sorry.
All dictatorial individuals can shape things on their own based on their irrepressible charisma.
Very true.
Why you think that is a complement is a mystery to me ...
Because Apple gives him something he needs and wants. That leads him to accept that anything Jobs does is really okay because {insert rationalization here}. In that behavior he's no different than anyone who has stock in a major corporation and doesn't care what that organization does as long as the dividends are there.
Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Woz is still around, even on /. ...unless that car of his finally got to him.
Yes, I didn't mean to refer to him as if he were dead: I was discussing the design of the original Apple ][ series and that it was remarkable for its time.
If you're referring to Wozniak, I'm going to take exception to your remark.
I just assumed he meant Ballmer.
I try not to think of Steve Ballmer. Besides, he's hardly incompetent, he's just an even bigger asshole than Steve Jobs (hard to imagine, I know, but there it is.)
Chip Guru Papermaster Loses Signal At Apple
"You can't stop the signal, Mel."
If not: are you sure about that? Can we afford the risk? Should we?
All good points, and I'm not really disputing any. But there is the fact that much of the world is starving, and GM crops could offer them some hope. The issue is not as clear-cut as some people would like to make it.
Having said that, we really don't know enough to be certain of the long-term effects. Much more research needs to be done, but companies like Monsanto are forging ahead now, and from what I can tell, with little regard for consequence.
genetic pollution
Ha, that term could be taken a lot of different ways. Anyway, as of right now I don't think the law has really caught up to what Monsanto and other companies involved in genetic modification are doing. If anything, they've been using the law rather successfully to promote their business model at the expense of anyone who happens to be in the vicinity.
... not that I trust any of our governments to be capable of that any longer.
You probably don't want to outlaw such activities outright, kneejerk-style, because much good can come from them. That's certainly true in medicine and other fields, and in any event no matter what we do other countries will do as they please. On the other hand, you don't want to give outfits like Monsanto free reign either. It all comes down to a reasonable regulation, I suppose
That's the real problem, when you get right down to it: the concept of a truly "free" market is fundamentally unworkable because it depends upon those humans at the top of the corporate food chain having a certain level of ethics. By and large, that's never been the case, which is one reason why we still need the institution of government. Unfortunately, once said government comes under the sway of the very corporations it is supposed to be regulating, bad things invariably happen.
Is it bad that the plants have escaped or is it bad the some American corporation is going to make less money next year?
It's (potentially) bad that the genes escaped. The fact that Monsanto might make less money is Monsanto's problem. Their inability to do what they claim with their genetically modified plants is our problem.
The funniest thing is that in their response to the film Monsato even directly admits they require farmers saving seed to provide "samples for testing".
In other words, we aren't an arm of government, we have no legal authority to "require" a private citizen to do anything whatsoever ... but if you don't we'll bankrupt you in court.
Face it, Monsanto is the BP of their particular sector of the economy. Both need to be taken down a few notches, if not outright disbanded and their assets sold off.
So one Steve has joined the other Steve, the one who - and that makes a difference - never shone with competence.
If you're referring to Wozniak, I'm going to take exception to your remark. I've never liked Jobs, not from day one. Anyone who "adores" Steve Jobs wasn't around back in the beginning, isn't aware of the arrogance and bungling the man exhibited early on. Once an asshole, always an asshole, and running Apple has NOT improved his demeanor nor his attitude, not one iota. Wozniak, on the other hand, was a rare spark of true genius. As someone who was very big in the Apple ][ development scene at one point, I must say Wozniak's work impressed me far more than anything Jobs did. Was the Woz a a businessman, a corporate leader? No, of course not: unlike Jobs though, he never pretended to be. But he was a hell of an engineer.