Before we hold anyone accountable, someone needs to define 'faulty'. If a company doesn't claim that their product (software) has a specific attribute (such as security) or perhaps states *explicity* that it doesn't have some property, how can we possibly hold them accountable when we discover it doesn't have this property? There are some basic assumptions, like expecting that your car won't blow up when you turn the key, but beyond this sort of thing, it's not clear how much should automatically be expected.
Another problem with these discussions is that they treat all 'flaws' the same. I can see at least 3 distinct categories that people should be thinking about:
Malicious code, deliberately inserted into the program. I think everyone would agree the programmer should be held accountable in this case. Vendor could potentially have liability as well
True bugs: code that doesn't function as the programmer intended. I think accountability would vary dramatically on a case by case basis. What percentage of programmers would have made a similar mistake? Perhaps the QA team should be held accountable instead. But expecting perfection from either group seems unreasonable.
Unrealistic expectations: The windows on my house aren't bulletproof, but I don't sue the manufacturer if someone shoots me through them. We should be focusing on the perpetrators in these cases, and perhaps on countries that do nothing about them. As mentioned previously, cars aren't nearly 100% safe, and people are dying in those crashes.
You have got to be bloody kidding. Well, I guess you're right. Other countries haven't had this "erosion of protections" because they NEVER HAD THOSE RIGHTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. But let's not forget that Bush=Hiter, US=evil blah blah.
You're right. When he said the US government has been encroaching on our freedom with laws like the DMCA, he *clearly* meant that he hates his country and its neo-fascist leader.
You have this attitude because you're a programmer.
You may as well have said "you have that attitude because you understand the complexities involved."
If civil engineers said "so what, bridges fall down" everyone would be up in arms.
Software errors are very rarely fatal. This argument would only apply to a very small portion of software such as hospital equipment and flight control software.
Bug free software is possible
A bold claim for any non-trivial programs
so long as it is done right and people are prepared to pay for it.
If people are choosing free software, it would seem they're not prepared to pay for it. With small companies in particular, a low entry price will be more important that having someone to sue.
Now lets look at your faulty analogy. A bridge doesn't have to work in Seattle, Norway, and Egypt all at the same time. Furthermore, a driver in Beijing can't crash into and damage a bridge in New York. They don't excavate the ground beneath a bridge's foundations and replace it with different material every 6-12 months. Bridges have extremely simple use cases: you go across them, or you go under them. No engineer will ever be looking over their newly completed footbridge and see it destroyed by some jackass trying to land a 747 on it sideways. Zero 'bridge-smarts' are required to use one. They're so fundamentally simple that you can't help but do what the designers expected. Even squirels understand them.
please describe to me, in concrete terms, how the patriot act is threatens you as much as 9/11 threatens you.
I already did, but you seem to think things like 'statistics' are irrelevant. As awful as the attacks were, the chance of being killed by terrorists on US soil is about 0.1 in 100,000. Compared to 29.3 for car accidents, Osama isn't keeping me up at night. Anyway, neither of us seem to like the Patriot Act, so why are you defending it?
Being more emotionally charged doesn't make terrorism more of a threat. We'd probably have done more to protect American lives if we'd spent the cost of the war on improving highway safety. I haven't been defending the actions of terrorists, I've just been looking at how useful our response has been.
do you hear me?
NO, YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP. And remind me what your point is, because I'm not really sure how we got here from the article.
Why don't you drop in at the Daily Kos and see what some of the "pretty reasonable people" who "don't hate America" have to say on the issues of the day and then come back here and see if you can bring yourself to write the above paragraph again.
Somehow I don't think you'll be able to.
So if you love your country, you can't criticize anything? Good thing we've got infallible demigods for leaders. Not.
As it happens, the first article is criticizing Karl Rove for attending a Republican fundraiser in North Dakota when he's supposed to be 'in charge' of managing the reconstruction efforts on the coast. That seems like a pretty fair criticism.
It's pretty pathetic that you try discredit anyone that isn't in love with your precious Bush administration by calling them unamerican.
you have nice, phantom worries of future orwellian fascist governments
Right, because no government has ever abused the rights of citizens before. The danger terrorists pose to me is very nearly zero, while it's realively likely that laws like the Patriot Act will impinge my civil rights. It seems to me to be a clear violation of the constitution, and yet they've used it against more computer security researchers than terrorists.
* I would remind you all that it is not Britain that is uptight, it is the Home Office.
* All these Americans do very well to say that we are overreacting, but at least our PM bothered to make the journey from the G8 to London. President Bush would have sat in that classroom trying to comprehend The Three Little Pigs all morning if it were up to him.
* The reaction of Britain to the attack was admirable. After one day of slight inactivity, London was completely back to normal for 98% ish of everyone living and working there.
You weren't the person behind Become A Republican, were you?
What in the Hell?
What part of my criticism of the Bush Administration, Fox News, and the patriot act gave you the impression that I could possibly be a Republican? How does my tearing-apart of the AC's anti-liberal hysteria make me conservative? Are you quite certain you can read English?
Nice example of the fallacy of "false dilemma".
Perhaps you'd like to explain further?
In situations where I must choose freedom or security, I'll choose freedom. Are you really so afraid of the terrorists?
you're wrong. first of all, there is a way to stop terrorism, and it's to be way more aggressive than we are now. you know, lots of death. i'm sure you're an idiot idealist and don't realize that grannies in the middle east wish the entire western world was dead. if we gave them what they wished they could give us...
Ah, the glass parking lot school of diplomacy
which brings me to another point. you guys always quote famous old americans to try to prove liberal points. if they were in charge right now they'd have wiped islam off the face of the earth. you don't have to give up freedoms when you are willing to murder your enemy. and yes, the innocents too! imagine that!
I never quoted anyone except the previous poster
THE ENEMY SETS THE RULES OF WAR - WHEN THEY ARE WILLING TO KILL YOUR INNOCENTS YOU KILL THEIRS.
How can killing innocent people ever be justified? If killing them was justified, they wouldn't be innocent. And I hope that if some wacko from the US --such as yourself-- kills a palestinian civilian, that palestine doesn't suddenly have the moral authority to kill me just for being from the same country.
this world is going to collapse because people care more about the opinions of idealist jackasses than the reality of our animal nature.
Sounds like there's not much separating you from the terrorists. Maybe you should sign up.
when i say that "you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealistic trolls completely miss the point, as i said above, you are just demonstrating exactly what i mean: there is no automatic tension between security and freedom
you completely miss the point
because the tension between security and freedoms is one you assume, not one that actually exists
While attempted to give a reasoned argument, you've decided to label me a troll. Try to read more carefully this time. You might also recall that this article involved unreasonable search and seizure, not protecting a water plant.
I'm certainly not advocating that we just fire all the security guards from everything, or that ALL security impairs freedom. My argument is that when extra security DOES deminish freedom, we should err on the side of protecting our rights. Even if the current government wouldn't abuse its power, a future government might. The more power government has, the more it will attract people who would abuse that power. Protecting citizen's rights is what keeps our government honest. If you give the government the ability to violate peoples right, eventually someone will find their way into government and do it.
My post was in response to the AC's anti-liberal, anti-UK rant more than the particulars of this article.
However, their basis for suspecting him was pretty weak. 1-2 officers questioning him and requesting to search him would have been more reasonable than mobbing him and immediately cuffing him. I understand that police are still jumpy, and while excessive, their actions weren't too aggregious.
Based on what they found in his backpack, I again have a hard time seeing how they justify searching his home. In the US I doubt they could have gotten a warrant which is a nice right to have when people are jumpy. Since the scanner was in his apartment, you can't use that to justify their initial suspicions. In the US, scanners are most popular with ex-cops and emergency personel anyway. I'd also say guilt by association with a company or coworkers is pretty dubious and again wouldn't pass muster in the US.
However, I do admire the British government quite a bit. Any time I see the parliment on C-SPAN I have to watch, because they do a far better job of holding the Prime Minister accountable than the US could ever hope to do. Where our President sends out some barely-literate crony to dodge questions, the Prime Minister directly answers extremely pointed questions from the members of parliament (that congress would be too afraid to even ask), and he answers them intelligently, and on the spot no less. Question after question on anything imaginable, and he has an answer. He's also informed enough about each of the members of parliment to expose them when they're being disingenuous.
Sadly, in the US criticism from citizens and even congress can be quelled simply by questioning their patriotism.
I don't know if his rights were violated, but their reaction seems a bit excessive based solely on a backpack and a cellphone. They could have asked him a few questions and seen if he would consent to a quick search before before they decided on hauling him away in handcuffs. I'd think after the recent attacks most people would be understanding about that sort of request.
"you can't give up freedom to gain security" idealists are just completely missing the whole point
No, we see the point quite clearly. Terrorism cannot be stopped by force. There are vastly more potential targets and attack methods in the US than there are people. It is completely impossible to guard everything. The terrorists will just attack whatever it is that's not getting all the security attention. All our security efforts can do is divert terrorists to some other target. The net gain in security is zero, while freedoms are eroded away. The same applies to Britain's situation, as well as any other country.
The ideal we're supporting is a willingness to live with danger in order to live free. That is what our country was based on.
It's all ok, because after all, they are not the evil warmongering America, and have free health care. This is who we should be aspring to be like, right? right? Hmm...the usual liberal freaks aren't responding...the silence is deafening.
Maybe a tinfoil hat will prevent all those evil liberals from finding you
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Britain is in over-reaction mode, just as the US was after 9/11. Unfortunate, but not suprising. They may get a bit more carried away since they are lacking some of the guarantees our constitution provides, but that doesn't negate other things that they're doing well. Spazzing out as though it did is just silly.
This should just serve to illustrate how important our civil liberties are, especially in times of crisis. This is why the patriot act was and still is a mistake. Further, the U.S. government is never above criticism. That is our right and our duty as citizens. During wartime, the government should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
Keep It Simple you freakin paranoid Spaz. We're not talking about government secrets, just enough anonymity to make students comfortable enough to answer truthfully.
For a society to be free, it MUST be possible for people to do things that are against the law. That's just how it works. If people do something illegal then you can punish them, but only an extremely facist government could hope to prevent crimes before they occur.
You may not have an expectation of privacy on the road, but you sure as hell have an expectation that no one is going to rewire your car. They might have a case if they created a stick-on GPS that was independent from the car's systems.
I think the distinction is that spammers are plugging networks by sending massive amounts of crap, while everything on your list is a simple website which waits for someone to come to it.
Pirates will be able do download their illegal wares much faster, without the inconvenience of web mirrors going offline by pesky interference by law enforcement officials.
Let's just be clear: BitTorrent is legal, and can be very useful
but the trackers on suprnova.org pretty much all link to ILLEGAL pirated files.
Good. The government shouldn't be helping corporations cling to outdated business models. The government is not serving the people's interests on IP issues, and tools like this give individuals power.
Holy Crap, do you work for valve or something? You seem to have been completely duped into accepting this notion of buying a license. Suckers like you are going to ruin it for everyone. If consumers accept this, we're going to see more and more software subject to cancellation on the whim of corporations. Perhaps more likely, when companies fold or even just get bought, we may be stuck with useless software.
For me that is unacceptable, and where games are concerned it will push many people toward consoles where activation isn't an issue.
I think the difference is that most games you're killing a generalization, not a specific person. Giving them a real person's identity would definitely change things.
If this was actually done as a historical lesson, compiling all the evidence and letting you experiment with the different theories, it might be interesting. This just sounds like a tasteless gimmick though.
eBooks will take over when you can buy a book of electronic paper with a USB adapter. Plug it into your computer, load whatever you want, then read like a normal book. That will be most excellent when it comes out.
Yes, act all offended. Because geeks HATE it when their cool gadgets are made to do more cool stuff.
I know you've got major wood for apple, but in this case they're waving the DMCA around just like all the companies we hate. This isn't what they said the DMCA was for. This is stifling innovation, not protecting anyone. The article even states that apple makes essentially no money on music sales, so who cares if Real gets in on it?
Slashdot Mirror
Before we hold anyone accountable, someone needs to define 'faulty'. If a company doesn't claim that their product (software) has a specific attribute (such as security) or perhaps states *explicity* that it doesn't have some property, how can we possibly hold them accountable when we discover it doesn't have this property? There are some basic assumptions, like expecting that your car won't blow up when you turn the key, but beyond this sort of thing, it's not clear how much should automatically be expected.
Being more emotionally charged doesn't make terrorism more of a threat. We'd probably have done more to protect American lives if we'd spent the cost of the war on improving highway safety. I haven't been defending the actions of terrorists, I've just been looking at how useful our response has been.
NO, YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP. And remind me what your point is, because I'm not really sure how we got here from the article.As it happens, the first article is criticizing Karl Rove for attending a Republican fundraiser in North Dakota when he's supposed to be 'in charge' of managing the reconstruction efforts on the coast. That seems like a pretty fair criticism.
It's pretty pathetic that you try discredit anyone that isn't in love with your precious Bush administration by calling them unamerican.
What part of my criticism of the Bush Administration, Fox News, and the patriot act gave you the impression that I could possibly be a Republican? How does my tearing-apart of the AC's anti-liberal hysteria make me conservative? Are you quite certain you can read English?
Nice example of the fallacy of "false dilemma". Perhaps you'd like to explain further? In situations where I must choose freedom or security, I'll choose freedom. Are you really so afraid of the terrorists?
I'm certainly not advocating that we just fire all the security guards from everything, or that ALL security impairs freedom. My argument is that when extra security DOES deminish freedom, we should err on the side of protecting our rights. Even if the current government wouldn't abuse its power, a future government might. The more power government has, the more it will attract people who would abuse that power. Protecting citizen's rights is what keeps our government honest. If you give the government the ability to violate peoples right, eventually someone will find their way into government and do it.
However, their basis for suspecting him was pretty weak. 1-2 officers questioning him and requesting to search him would have been more reasonable than mobbing him and immediately cuffing him. I understand that police are still jumpy, and while excessive, their actions weren't too aggregious.
Based on what they found in his backpack, I again have a hard time seeing how they justify searching his home. In the US I doubt they could have gotten a warrant which is a nice right to have when people are jumpy. Since the scanner was in his apartment, you can't use that to justify their initial suspicions. In the US, scanners are most popular with ex-cops and emergency personel anyway. I'd also say guilt by association with a company or coworkers is pretty dubious and again wouldn't pass muster in the US.
However, I do admire the British government quite a bit. Any time I see the parliment on C-SPAN I have to watch, because they do a far better job of holding the Prime Minister accountable than the US could ever hope to do. Where our President sends out some barely-literate crony to dodge questions, the Prime Minister directly answers extremely pointed questions from the members of parliament (that congress would be too afraid to even ask), and he answers them intelligently, and on the spot no less. Question after question on anything imaginable, and he has an answer. He's also informed enough about each of the members of parliment to expose them when they're being disingenuous.
Sadly, in the US criticism from citizens and even congress can be quelled simply by questioning their patriotism.
I don't know if his rights were violated, but their reaction seems a bit excessive based solely on a backpack and a cellphone. They could have asked him a few questions and seen if he would consent to a quick search before before they decided on hauling him away in handcuffs. I'd think after the recent attacks most people would be understanding about that sort of request.
The ideal we're supporting is a willingness to live with danger in order to live free. That is what our country was based on.
Or maybe you could realize that most liberals don't hate America, they just want to make it better. You can't make things better unless you look at what's wrong. It also helps to look at what other countries are doing that is working better. Despite the success the Bush Administration and Fox News have had in turning 'liberal' into some sort of insult, most of them are pretty reasonable people.
Britain is in over-reaction mode, just as the US was after 9/11. Unfortunate, but not suprising. They may get a bit more carried away since they are lacking some of the guarantees our constitution provides, but that doesn't negate other things that they're doing well. Spazzing out as though it did is just silly.
This should just serve to illustrate how important our civil liberties are, especially in times of crisis. This is why the patriot act was and still is a mistake. Further, the U.S. government is never above criticism. That is our right and our duty as citizens. During wartime, the government should be held to higher standards, not lower ones.
Keep It Simple you freakin paranoid Spaz. We're not talking about government secrets, just enough anonymity to make students comfortable enough to answer truthfully.
For a society to be free, it MUST be possible for people to do things that are against the law. That's just how it works. If people do something illegal then you can punish them, but only an extremely facist government could hope to prevent crimes before they occur.
You may not have an expectation of privacy on the road, but you sure as hell have an expectation that no one is going to rewire your car. They might have a case if they created a stick-on GPS that was independent from the car's systems.
I think the distinction is that spammers are plugging networks by sending massive amounts of crap, while everything on your list is a simple website which waits for someone to come to it.
Holy Crap, do you work for valve or something? You seem to have been completely duped into accepting this notion of buying a license. Suckers like you are going to ruin it for everyone. If consumers accept this, we're going to see more and more software subject to cancellation on the whim of corporations. Perhaps more likely, when companies fold or even just get bought, we may be stuck with useless software. For me that is unacceptable, and where games are concerned it will push many people toward consoles where activation isn't an issue.
I think the difference is that most games you're killing a generalization, not a specific person. Giving them a real person's identity would definitely change things. If this was actually done as a historical lesson, compiling all the evidence and letting you experiment with the different theories, it might be interesting. This just sounds like a tasteless gimmick though.
This just in: if keylogging programs are installed on public computers, they may reveal your data. Saving documents on desktop also suspect
eBooks will take over when you can buy a book of electronic paper with a USB adapter. Plug it into your computer, load whatever you want, then read like a normal book. That will be most excellent when it comes out.
I know you've got major wood for apple, but in this case they're waving the DMCA around just like all the companies we hate. This isn't what they said the DMCA was for. This is stifling innovation, not protecting anyone. The article even states that apple makes essentially no money on music sales, so who cares if Real gets in on it?