That bit right there says an awful lot about the appeal of blogs.
I'm sure there's an awful lot of people who feel that their voices are either a) being ignored, or, b) being silenced by the "mighty". Ignoring which side of the political aisle you love/hate, when was the last time you felt your local elected official was truly acting in your best interests, instead of his or her own? Or, how much do you really trust the corporate world, the insurance industry, your gas company, etc., when they say they're really sorry, but the rates need to go up because of "X" ("X" usually having somethig to do with a major fuck-up on their part). The short answer is, you can't, and most people don't. What's been particularly troubling over the past few years is the active call to silence the voices that disagree, disapprove, or dismiss the hypocrisy, or those that actively highlight it.
Blogs give the smallest a voice that can be heard. They are freedom of speech in its purest form: a pamphlet produced by the masses, and distributed to the masses, completely independant of the channels that the mighty now control. This scares the hell of the people in power.
Whoah! Careful there, DV. You start saying things like the the Bible contains metaphors and thematic exercises and you're gonna get a nasty-gram from Pat Robertson.;-)
You're saying that if person "A" kills person "B", then person "B" isn't really dead until person "A" gets convicted?
Nope. What I'm saying is that the article in question says the police believe the man was killed by a 419 ring. While it is highly probable that his death is related to the scam, there have been no arrests, charges, trials, or convictions thus far - we simply do not have any facts that say "the 419'ers did this". Without facts, all that's left is speculation; we might as well say that he was killed by the Italian/Russian Mafia.
Try this experiment, re-read what you just posted and replace the word "little" with "a corporation".
Now before you get too bent out of shape, let me say that I totally agree that the guilty should not go free - in fact, I believe the punishment should be extremely harsh. It should not be death, though.
My iniital post was targeted at the comment that we should shoot the Nigerian scammers. However, I never hear any calls to do the same to some recently mentioned corporate employees convicted of the same type of crime. If we're gonna preach justice, preach true justice.
Interpol and the police forces of South Africa, America and Greece have joined forces to investigate the brutal murder of a wealthy Greek national...
When they get a conviction, then we get to pass out bullets and handguns. But remember, we get to shoot U.S. businessmen as well. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing a few executions of the latter.
Real life is that the nigerian scammers are criminals, and deserve to be locked up and/or shot.
Come on, people. Locked up? Yes. Shot? No.
The punishment should fit the crime. These guys, while scumbags, have not killed anyone (yet). Once they cross that line it'll be OK to open fire on them, as well as Bernie Ebbers, Scott Sullivan, Andrew and Leah Fastow, and possibly, in the near future Jeffrey Skillings and Ken Lay. Fraud is not a capital offense, and corporate America will not ever allow it to become one.
Hell, just dealing with the telcos alone would produce a higher body count than the Spanish American War.
Isn't 'People for the American Way' a left-leaning organization?
Good catch - You're right, of course. I should've used "Americans for Tax Reform" instead.
As to Bill O'Reilly. He's nothing more than a thug and a bully - no different than the average high school punk who can only pick on others when the odds are heavily stacked in his favor. Whenever somebody calls his bluff, he backs off. FWIW, here's a transcript from a show where Phil Donahue turned the tables.
It's usually the extradition part that's sorta hard concidering these firms need just move to bermuda.
Then we level the playing field by increasing the duties on products they produce. They leave do dodge a legal penalty, they pay extra to bring their stuff back in for sale - make the import penalty equal to the legal damages. (I personally feel we should be doing this to corporations that set up tax shelters in places like Antigua, but that's just me).
Of course, I know it'll never happen, but it's a thought.
Experts say it takes a financial sting to make the software's real value apparent
Computer security experts say that they've already felt plenty of sting, thank you very much. Thanks to the openings in their already paid for OS, they'd really like a chance to not be stung anymore.
And when they do, it tends to go something like this:
Liberal commentator: "Well you know, Bill, the IAEA found that..."
Bill O'Reilly: "What! So now you're saying that some commie-loving commission, a commission run by an Arab for Christ's sake, is telling the truth to the American people - people still suffering from the shock of seeing newborn babies falling from the windows of the Twin Towers. I know for a fact that the IAEA is receiving funds directly from Osama Bin Laden himself!"
Liberal commentator: "Now, that's just not true..."
Bill O'Reilly: "I've seen the checks!!! When are you lefties going to start loving your country? Or are you only gonna be happy when all of us are dead or worshipping Allah?"
Liberal commentator: "Now, Bill, don't you think..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Shut UP!!! I'm not finished talking here! You open your lying liberal mouth one more time spouting your hatred of America and I'm gonna cut of your mike!!!"
Liberal commentator: "But I . .."
Bill O'Reilly: "I'm not gonna tell you again, you pinko bastard..."
Liberal commentator: "...but..."
Bill O'Reilly: "That's IT!!! You and me! Outside!"
Liberal commentator: "...what the..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Shut him off, Ox. And take his sorry ass outside!"
Liberal commentator: "...put me down....you can't do this!..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Well folks, looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue. We'll be back after this commercial break, brought to you by the fine folks at 'People for the American Way'."
Nah, that requires too much effort. It is much easier to find someone whose name is tied to the code.
Damn. I guess this means the end of Microsoft, and Linux, and FreeBSD, and UNIX (I would say SCO-UNIX, but let's face it, they're gone already), etc. - God knows they've got plenty of names lurking in their code and all have had some sort of vulnerability at some point in time. I guess all that'll be left is OpenBSD, although that one exploit may come back to haunt 'em.
On another note, I'm curious to see how Mr. Schmidt would lke the liabilities to be addressed. Are we talking say a $5.00 fine for typos, $100.00 for DLL/Library breakage, $1000.00 for a viral vulnerability, and, oh, maybe $1,000,000.00 for a exploit that grants root privileges? Would these penalties be scaled by installed user base so that smaller companies like Bob's Fuzzy Linux won't go bankrupt after the first lawsuit? Or will larger companies be able to buy "vulnerability credits"?
How in the world do they think they will "forcibly" do this without full US support? I'd like to see them try to land UN troops on US soil.
They wouldn't need troops at all. Just bankers.
The U.S. owes a lot of money to a lot of countries it's not on the best of terms with right now. While I doubt that these countries would ever establish something like a global economic sanction over something like control of the Internet, the U.S needs to remember that such sanctions would hurt. We've become to dependant on the kindness of strangers to keep spitting in their face every time there is a minor philosophical difference.
Both sides need to rein in the rhetoric. There's plenty of far simpler, and much less histrionic ways to work this out.
So it's dismissed, but she still owes somewhere between a couple thousand and a hundred thousand dollars? She's fucked regardless.
Not necessarily. There's always the chance that her attorney took the case Pro Bono...
Granted, it'd be highly unlikely that one did, but there's plenty of lawyers out there that are a) actually morally repulsed by the RIAA, and/or b)looking to build a reputation for "sticking it to the man".
Slashdot Mirror
That bit right there says an awful lot about the appeal of blogs.
I'm sure there's an awful lot of people who feel that their voices are either a) being ignored, or, b) being silenced by the "mighty". Ignoring which side of the political aisle you love/hate, when was the last time you felt your local elected official was truly acting in your best interests, instead of his or her own? Or, how much do you really trust the corporate world, the insurance industry, your gas company, etc., when they say they're really sorry, but the rates need to go up because of "X" ("X" usually having somethig to do with a major fuck-up on their part). The short answer is, you can't, and most people don't. What's been particularly troubling over the past few years is the active call to silence the voices that disagree, disapprove, or dismiss the hypocrisy, or those that actively highlight it.
Blogs give the smallest a voice that can be heard. They are freedom of speech in its purest form: a pamphlet produced by the masses, and distributed to the masses, completely independant of the channels that the mighty now control. This scares the hell of the people in power.
I think that's a good thing.
Whoah! Careful there, DV. You start saying things like the the Bible contains metaphors and thematic exercises and you're gonna get a nasty-gram from Pat Robertson. ;-)
Nope. What I'm saying is that the article in question says the police believe the man was killed by a 419 ring. While it is highly probable that his death is related to the scam, there have been no arrests, charges, trials, or convictions thus far - we simply do not have any facts that say "the 419'ers did this". Without facts, all that's left is speculation; we might as well say that he was killed by the Italian/Russian Mafia.
Try this experiment, re-read what you just posted and replace the word "little" with "a corporation".
Now before you get too bent out of shape, let me say that I totally agree that the guilty should not go free - in fact, I believe the punishment should be extremely harsh. It should not be death, though.
My iniital post was targeted at the comment that we should shoot the Nigerian scammers. However, I never hear any calls to do the same to some recently mentioned corporate employees convicted of the same type of crime. If we're gonna preach justice, preach true justice.
When they get a conviction, then we get to pass out bullets and handguns. But remember, we get to shoot U.S. businessmen as well. Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing a few executions of the latter.
Come on, people. Locked up? Yes. Shot? No.
The punishment should fit the crime. These guys, while scumbags, have not killed anyone (yet). Once they cross that line it'll be OK to open fire on them, as well as Bernie Ebbers, Scott Sullivan, Andrew and Leah Fastow, and possibly, in the near future Jeffrey Skillings and Ken Lay. Fraud is not a capital offense, and corporate America will not ever allow it to become one.
Hell, just dealing with the telcos alone would produce a higher body count than the Spanish American War.
Not sure, but I did hear they gave him a swift kick in the orb.
Good catch - You're right, of course. I should've used "Americans for Tax Reform" instead.
As to Bill O'Reilly. He's nothing more than a thug and a bully - no different than the average high school punk who can only pick on others when the odds are heavily stacked in his favor. Whenever somebody calls his bluff, he backs off. FWIW, here's a transcript from a show where Phil Donahue turned the tables.
Then we level the playing field by increasing the duties on products they produce. They leave do dodge a legal penalty, they pay extra to bring their stuff back in for sale - make the import penalty equal to the legal damages. (I personally feel we should be doing this to corporations that set up tax shelters in places like Antigua, but that's just me).
Of course, I know it'll never happen, but it's a thought.
Computer security experts say that they've already felt plenty of sting, thank you very much. Thanks to the openings in their already paid for OS, they'd really like a chance to not be stung anymore.
Then let them.
We don't need to go out of our way to bring it to them. Even the most greedy should show a little philosophical restraint now and then.
Ah...I see. The second company is a front. Good to see the Soprano's financial morality have finally made their way into corporate culture.
Oh wait, I forgot. It's a U.S. company trying to make money. They're supporting the U.S economy. They maybe even pay U.S. taxes....occasionally.
Silly me...thinking there'd be a need for a moral distinction there. Must've gotten my "values" confused again.
And when they do, it tends to go something like this:
Liberal commentator: "Well you know, Bill, the IAEA found that..."
Bill O'Reilly: "What! So now you're saying that some commie-loving commission, a commission run by an Arab for Christ's sake, is telling the truth to the American people - people still suffering from the shock of seeing newborn babies falling from the windows of the Twin Towers. I know for a fact that the IAEA is receiving funds directly from Osama Bin Laden himself!"
Liberal commentator: "Now, that's just not true..."
Bill O'Reilly: "I've seen the checks!!! When are you lefties going to start loving your country? Or are you only gonna be happy when all of us are dead or worshipping Allah?"
Liberal commentator: "Now, Bill, don't you think..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Shut UP!!! I'm not finished talking here! You open your lying liberal mouth one more time spouting your hatred of America and I'm gonna cut of your mike!!!"
Liberal commentator: "But I . . ."
Bill O'Reilly: "I'm not gonna tell you again, you pinko bastard..."
Liberal commentator: "...but..."
Bill O'Reilly: "That's IT!!! You and me! Outside!"
Liberal commentator: "...what the..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Shut him off, Ox. And take his sorry ass outside!"
Liberal commentator: "...put me down....you can't do this!..."
Bill O'Reilly: "Well folks, looks like we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this issue. We'll be back after this commercial break, brought to you by the fine folks at 'People for the American Way'."
You mispelled billions.
Damn. I guess this means the end of Microsoft, and Linux, and FreeBSD, and UNIX (I would say SCO-UNIX, but let's face it, they're gone already), etc. - God knows they've got plenty of names lurking in their code and all have had some sort of vulnerability at some point in time. I guess all that'll be left is OpenBSD, although that one exploit may come back to haunt 'em.
On another note, I'm curious to see how Mr. Schmidt would lke the liabilities to be addressed. Are we talking say a $5.00 fine for typos, $100.00 for DLL/Library breakage, $1000.00 for a viral vulnerability, and, oh, maybe $1,000,000.00 for a exploit that grants root privileges? Would these penalties be scaled by installed user base so that smaller companies like Bob's Fuzzy Linux won't go bankrupt after the first lawsuit? Or will larger companies be able to buy "vulnerability credits"?
They wouldn't need troops at all. Just bankers.
The U.S. owes a lot of money to a lot of countries it's not on the best of terms with right now. While I doubt that these countries would ever establish something like a global economic sanction over something like control of the Internet, the U.S needs to remember that such sanctions would hurt. We've become to dependant on the kindness of strangers to keep spitting in their face every time there is a minor philosophical difference.
Both sides need to rein in the rhetoric. There's plenty of far simpler, and much less histrionic ways to work this out.
The Hague.
Don't forget the dancing!
Can somebody explain how pollution credits eliminate pollution? I'm under the impression they just shift it somewhere else?
My favorite bit was when Wash and Zoe were arguing (after Wash had changed the control codes on the flight system) and Mal gets stuck in the middle:
Mal: I'm lost...I'm angry......and I'm armed...
Hey, come on now. Look at the bright side.
Nowadays, the people that used to pick on you are bringing you your french fries.
Not necessarily. There's always the chance that her attorney took the case Pro Bono...
Granted, it'd be highly unlikely that one did, but there's plenty of lawyers out there that are a) actually morally repulsed by the RIAA, and/or b)looking to build a reputation for "sticking it to the man".
Oops (rushing to go home). Meant to say "did not see a thing".