Should we just remove everyone from society because they COULD do something dangerous?
No more than we should remove from society everyone who owns a gun. But we do make an effort to remove from society the people who point those guns at other people and fire them. The same should be done for people who point high-powered lasers into the eyes of other people, specifically other people who are in the middle of doing something on which lives depend (pilots, surgeons, rescue crews, fire fighters, etc.)
Its not like google has released a tool to the unix world either, which shows that they still put the market above the glory.
First and foremost, Google is a business. What you call "put[ting] the market above the glory" they call "turning a profit." I won't pretend to know their business in any way, but it's safe to say that targetting the 90% marketshare over the 10% is a better idea.
Note also that other OSes already have, and have had for years, excellent search tools. An avid *nix user who has incorporated locate, grep, sed, awk, etc. into all his scripts and tools isn't about to run this.
When the biggest company in the world
Walmart?
with thousands of programmers can't create an efficient indexing tool for searching, you have some problems. I just wonder about the quality of longhorn and I will continue to use linux for years to come most likely.
Agreed. I imagine Longhorn will be shiny and new and suck in all kinds of innovative ways. I'll still end up with a copy in my hands and I'll still install it on one of my machines, but that's neither here nor there. I'm mostly curious to see it just to see where Microsoft is taking their overall design of this product, or if it's just another re-hash of the same old crap that's been going on since 95. Sure, a lot in Windows has gradually changed since 95, but they're keeping up the same pattern of replacing one design flaw with another and watching the whole thing bloat out of control. I picture a ball of duct tape that they just keep adding to, hoping that the next piece will make it a perfect sphere.
It would appear that locate is a tool that the windows world is badly in need of the fact that its been around as long as it has should be humiliating to windows developers.
Again, agreed. I can't imagine how something as vital as a set of search tools has eluded them for so long. Perhaps they haven't seen a need for anything of the sort, but all too often I hear an "average user" complain (on IRC mostly) about how he/she downloaded a file and now doesn't know where it is. A search-engine style tool for their machine would be the obvious solution, in my opinion.
Note, however, that you make mention of locate as a tool badly needed by Windows. This somewhat contradicts your earlier assertion that Google should release their software for *nix, since here you point out that something already exists. Again, I'm just pointing out that the *nix world has no vacuum to be filled by Google's Desktop Search, so they have very little reason (other than "geek cred") to make a *nix version.
Just now they are figuring out how to create indexed searches on hard drives and the media makes it a huge deal. Well they lost to unix based systems by a matter of years.
This isn't the first time they've done something like that. I remember back in school when I read an article about an innovative new feature in the upcoming Windows 2000 which will save diskspace by allowing users to create "hard links" to duplicate files on their computer. It brought a small chuckle to my day. I don't know what ever happened to that "innovation" and I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing in Windows. I guess the greatest disappointment was that I hoped at the time that they were taking the first step to replacing shortcuts with symlinks. Alas, I'm still waiting.
These kids are probably hoodlums with or without GTA.
Agreed. People who want to do bad or dumb things will do them no matter what. There was _plenty_ of graffiti long before Pong hit the market and the alleged warping of America's youth began.
GTA didn't make stupid kids vandalize things.
Beavis And Butthead didn't make stupid kids set their house on fire.
The Program didn't make stupid college kids lie down in the middle of a street and get run over.
Notice the recurring theme, anyone?
they can't sell you something you don't already want
You put very simply what is probably going to end up being one of the best points in this thread. GTA didn't make hoodlums, hoodlums made* GTA.
* No, not the programmers (though I don't know any of them personally), the general population craving the "mature" video games and shelling out big bucks for them.
Sure, because we all know that there wasn't a drop of alcohol sold or consumed in the US between 1919 and 1933. (Feel free to correct my dates, I didn't thoroughly Google before posting.)
I never thought I'd see anyone on Slashdot saying (loosely translated), "The US government should force more control over our every-day lives. That would make things better." Not that I agree with all the anti-government fanboyism running rampant around here, but it's a well documented fact that such restrictions as you propose, mandated from on high, simply do not work. All it does is put a greater workload on our already insufficient law enforcement departments.
I don't know what the figures are for broadband penetration in New York, but if they're not higher, it's not because the infrastructure isn't there.
I couldn't find any statistics on the subject either. I'm guessing my point about customers not seeing the need to upgrade is more accurate than anything about the infrastructure itself. Another poster also brought up a point of companies using dated business models, and other people seem to agree by pointing out the high price for high-speed access in the US. The average New Yorker likely can't justify another $20-$40/month on top of what he's already paying, just so he can check his email and shop eBay at blazing speeds.
you said that the US was pretty much the oldest country in world
Please show me where I said that.
As for my post, sorry for not specifying technology-based, usually wired communication networks. I thought you could infer that from the context of the thread, but I guess I was mistaken.
It's the corperations that still believe there is profit to be made by selling things that are slightly cooler than what you have
You do allude to a good point there. Yes, companies trying to make as much money as they can off of dated business models is one thing that slows down technological progress in the US.
OK, fine, so let's compare Taiwan to New York City - just the city. That should be population-dense enough for you. What do you find? US still loses.
No, New York City loses. When you subtract the rest of the US from one side of the equation, you should subtract it from the other side as well. I realize it's fasionable to hate the US these days, but at least make sense about it.
Now let's also take into account the fact that NYC has a much more established communications grid than Taiwan. Where is the need to upgrade? Most people there just don't see it. Consider also the sheer cost of adding to and/or replacing this grid in New York. It's a lot of work on a lot of expensive property and has to be done without disturbing a single important transaction, without disrupting traffic, etc. It's just more of an undertaking than Taiwan and with less demand to back it.
Wrong. Unless you are comparing the US to countries like Israel, Taiwan and Kuwait, but you weren't, you where comparing the US to just about any other country in the world. The US is a very young country when compared with just about every country in the world. Come back in 500 to 1000 years, then we can talk.
Are you actually suggesting that other countries have had comunication networks comparable to the ones in the US for longer than the US has even existed? Given that the telegraph wasn't even invented until decades after the US broke apart from GB, that's pretty impressive.
I realize that the US is a very young country when compared to the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with wired communication networks?
Exactly. The Asian countries listed are about the size of one US state, but with much higher population density. So high-speed lines run through a town there will reach far more people per mile of cabling. (Not to mention the labor force to roll out such lines is much cheaper.)
As for Canada... Last time I checked, the population density of about 85% of the land mass was between 0 and 1 person per square kilometer. Put up some high speed networks in the southeast of Canada, stretch them west along the US border, and you've pretty much hit your entire population.
The US, on the other hand, has metropolitan areas (ranging in size/density of course) dotted across much of its land mass, with vast spaces of land in between. And not nearly as much of that land is as sparsely populated as Canada's northern wilderness. It will take a lot more work to reach as much of a majority of homes.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the US has a much larger, older, and more complicated communications network in place than just about any other country in the world. It takes time to roll over to new technologies without disturbing the existing infrastructure.
Indeed, the site is laced with the word "Beta" which, to me, would imply that everything can be appended with the words "for now." I'm interested to see where Google goes with this move, and whether or not they can successfully generate revenue while providing POP accounts to what is already an excellent service (though, one of their biggest services is the search functionality, which would require the web interface to truly be "Google").
My point is, a lot of people in this thread are talking about how they fear that Google may start charging or may revoke certain services as a future result of this move and these people will be left without their GMail accounts. To these people I can say only this: If you moved all your email activities to your GMail account and now completely rely upon it for your daily communication needs, you seriously need to pay more attention to that word "Beta."
You're missing my point. Everyone knows she didn't threaten him. But once there's any kind of documentation that implies that she might have had intentions of hurting the president, the Secret Service was obligated to follow up. I doubt the agents wanted to waste their time any more than she wanted to waste hers. But their job description is clear.
Think of it this way. You have the right to jog down your street any time you want. Now, suppose the president is on your street talking to people. He's surrounded by Secret Service agents. Now, his little area is on a public street and you have every right to jog past him. But if you are seen by the agents as running towards the president, you _will_ be stopped. You weren't threatening him, of course. But that's not the issue. They simply have a job to do.
As for whether or not they investigate you, that's all a matter of whether or not you're on their radar. You can say whatever you want (of course, there are exceptions that fall into the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater category) whenever you want, so get on your soapbox and shout to your heart's content. Just know that, if you get noticed by an agency whose job it is to investigate whatever it is you're talking about, they might ask you a couple questions.
And, honestly, keep some perspective. Personally, I'm glad to live in a country where I can voice my opinion about the government and the worst thing to happen is that a couple agents will ring my doorbell and calmly ask me a few questions and then be on their way.
It was obvious to me that this was meant as a joke.
True. However, "obvious" is not always the driving factor in government. I'm not just randomly bashing the system, but pointing out that it has regulations in place that bring certain responsibilities. Court records are full of cases where it was "obvious" that someone was guilty, but the physical evidence didn't satisfy the requirements of the system. It can seem like a waste at times, but it's all part of requiring that the powers that be "make sure" before they act. Just as it's better to let a guilty man go free than execute an innocent, it's also better to ask someone a couple questions than to assume they're not actually intending to kill the president (or anyone else).
The Secret Service is a lot more than a handful of agents running alongside a car in a parade. Part of what they do is investigate every potential threat to the administration that they find. Even if they know in their gut that it's fake (99.99% of them are, so it's usually a good bet), they are still required to investigate. From what I understand, they wasted as little of their time on the matter as they could. But once the "incident" in question was officially documented, some kind of follow-up to close the "case" was required.
As for "looking for real threats," they're doing that too. But the fact is that a presidential assassination messes things up bad, both domestically and internationally. It's a headache no government needs. So, to attempt to prevent it, these policies are in place. We know of the handful of presidents who were shot, but none of us know exactly how many attempts are thwarted before they ever get off the ground.
Sounds good. Let me know when you get this charity idea off the ground. Or, were you just shooting off your mouth and hoping that somebody else will bear the burden of "charity" for you? If this is the case, then go fuck yourself.
As for the guys at Penny Arcade, why flame them for choosing another charitable route? Face it, you can't help everybody with everything. But they're helping _somebody_ with _something_ which is better than most people do. Different charity organizations do different things. Some may be bigger, some may reach more people, but they all do some good (well, except the ones that are actually scams... but those are easy enough to avoid). Personally, my favorite is helping the Kiwanis International Foundation fight Iodine Deficiency Disorder. If you're looking for a way to stretch your dollar to help as many children around the world as possible, they're a good one.
Re:Movies while working are newsworthy & produ
on
A Dual Monitor Experiment
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
he's getting punished via the slashdot effect right about now
Or paid via advertising revenue from his site (I can't say for sure, it's not loading for me). Hopefully the/. editors will simply blacklist submissions pointing to his domain, since someone else in this thread pointed out that this is not his first offense.
I realize the temptation to submit geek-enticing articles to/. in order to drive traffic to one's site, but from the comments so far I'm being led to believe that the article has little more meat than, say, http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=307873
That's all well and good, but the problem is that the business doesn't want to bother with these things. You might as well suggest that they secure the machine by unplugging it. It'll be 100% secure, but the business isn't interested in such measures.
He'd have better luck trying to find a precedent somewhere to show them. Maybe another small business in the area has had serious problems. I know one of the small businesses in my area absolutely refused any kind of protection because "it had never been a problem before." Then they got hit by some trojans, and hit hard. Their entire business was halted for a few days because their data couldn't be accessed. After the dust settled, their data was downright gone.
Your suggestions are good and would help protect them (emphasis on help... someone else said it best earlier that "security is a process, not a product"), but your suggestions can't protect them from not wanting to be protected.
I don't know where you live, nor do I know where the poster lives, but I can assure you that such an action is laughable where I live (Boston). There's practically a waiting list for apartments. They'll have you replaced by the end of the day, probably at a higher rate, after they collect their "early lease termination fee" from you.
If you live in an area where the housing market is truly dominated by the customers, be sure to thank $DIETY every day. And never, ever leave that area.
So far, my personal record is $225 to press "continue" on someone's laserjet when a computer tried to print to A4 paper. ($75 per hour charge, minimum of 1 hour, plus this call involved 1 hour of travel each way) Unfortunately, my employer reaped the benefits of that one, as I was salary.
In my spare time I'm slowly building up an infrastructure to run a home business that will allow me to profit from the technologically inept.
Seriously, what's the point of the question? People die in privately-funded adventures from time to time. But if they want to do it, that's their business. Perhaps they seek historical notariety, perhaps they look forward to possible commercial gains, or perhaps they just want that "extreme thrill" that nobody else has. Either way, it's their money/life, and it's not hurting anybody else, so it's their choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Should we just remove everyone from society because they COULD do something dangerous?
No more than we should remove from society everyone who owns a gun. But we do make an effort to remove from society the people who point those guns at other people and fire them. The same should be done for people who point high-powered lasers into the eyes of other people, specifically other people who are in the middle of doing something on which lives depend (pilots, surgeons, rescue crews, fire fighters, etc.)
Its not like google has released a tool to the unix world either, which shows that they still put the market above the glory.
First and foremost, Google is a business. What you call "put[ting] the market above the glory" they call "turning a profit." I won't pretend to know their business in any way, but it's safe to say that targetting the 90% marketshare over the 10% is a better idea.
Note also that other OSes already have, and have had for years, excellent search tools. An avid *nix user who has incorporated locate, grep, sed, awk, etc. into all his scripts and tools isn't about to run this.
When the biggest company in the world
Walmart?
with thousands of programmers can't create an efficient indexing tool for searching, you have some problems. I just wonder about the quality of longhorn and I will continue to use linux for years to come most likely.
Agreed. I imagine Longhorn will be shiny and new and suck in all kinds of innovative ways. I'll still end up with a copy in my hands and I'll still install it on one of my machines, but that's neither here nor there. I'm mostly curious to see it just to see where Microsoft is taking their overall design of this product, or if it's just another re-hash of the same old crap that's been going on since 95. Sure, a lot in Windows has gradually changed since 95, but they're keeping up the same pattern of replacing one design flaw with another and watching the whole thing bloat out of control. I picture a ball of duct tape that they just keep adding to, hoping that the next piece will make it a perfect sphere.
It would appear that locate is a tool that the windows world is badly in need of the fact that its been around as long as it has should be humiliating to windows developers.
Again, agreed. I can't imagine how something as vital as a set of search tools has eluded them for so long. Perhaps they haven't seen a need for anything of the sort, but all too often I hear an "average user" complain (on IRC mostly) about how he/she downloaded a file and now doesn't know where it is. A search-engine style tool for their machine would be the obvious solution, in my opinion.
Note, however, that you make mention of locate as a tool badly needed by Windows. This somewhat contradicts your earlier assertion that Google should release their software for *nix, since here you point out that something already exists. Again, I'm just pointing out that the *nix world has no vacuum to be filled by Google's Desktop Search, so they have very little reason (other than "geek cred") to make a *nix version.
Just now they are figuring out how to create indexed searches on hard drives and the media makes it a huge deal. Well they lost to unix based systems by a matter of years.
This isn't the first time they've done something like that. I remember back in school when I read an article about an innovative new feature in the upcoming Windows 2000 which will save diskspace by allowing users to create "hard links" to duplicate files on their computer. It brought a small chuckle to my day. I don't know what ever happened to that "innovation" and I've never heard of anyone doing such a thing in Windows. I guess the greatest disappointment was that I hoped at the time that they were taking the first step to replacing shortcuts with symlinks. Alas, I'm still waiting.
These kids are probably hoodlums with or without GTA.
Agreed. People who want to do bad or dumb things will do them no matter what. There was _plenty_ of graffiti long before Pong hit the market and the alleged warping of America's youth began.
GTA didn't make stupid kids vandalize things.
Beavis And Butthead didn't make stupid kids set their house on fire.
The Program didn't make stupid college kids lie down in the middle of a street and get run over.
Notice the recurring theme, anyone?
they can't sell you something you don't already want
You put very simply what is probably going to end up being one of the best points in this thread. GTA didn't make hoodlums, hoodlums made* GTA.
* No, not the programmers (though I don't know any of them personally), the general population craving the "mature" video games and shelling out big bucks for them.
the only real solution is a government ban
Sure, because we all know that there wasn't a drop of alcohol sold or consumed in the US between 1919 and 1933. (Feel free to correct my dates, I didn't thoroughly Google before posting.)
I never thought I'd see anyone on Slashdot saying (loosely translated), "The US government should force more control over our every-day lives. That would make things better." Not that I agree with all the anti-government fanboyism running rampant around here, but it's a well documented fact that such restrictions as you propose, mandated from on high, simply do not work. All it does is put a greater workload on our already insufficient law enforcement departments.
I don't know what the figures are for broadband penetration in New York, but if they're not higher, it's not because the infrastructure isn't there.
I couldn't find any statistics on the subject either. I'm guessing my point about customers not seeing the need to upgrade is more accurate than anything about the infrastructure itself. Another poster also brought up a point of companies using dated business models, and other people seem to agree by pointing out the high price for high-speed access in the US. The average New Yorker likely can't justify another $20-$40/month on top of what he's already paying, just so he can check his email and shop eBay at blazing speeds.
you said that the US was pretty much the oldest country in world
Please show me where I said that.
As for my post, sorry for not specifying technology-based, usually wired communication networks. I thought you could infer that from the context of the thread, but I guess I was mistaken.
It's the corperations that still believe there is profit to be made by selling things that are slightly cooler than what you have
You do allude to a good point there. Yes, companies trying to make as much money as they can off of dated business models is one thing that slows down technological progress in the US.
OK, fine, so let's compare Taiwan to New York City - just the city. That should be population-dense enough for you. What do you find? US still loses.
No, New York City loses. When you subtract the rest of the US from one side of the equation, you should subtract it from the other side as well. I realize it's fasionable to hate the US these days, but at least make sense about it.
Now let's also take into account the fact that NYC has a much more established communications grid than Taiwan. Where is the need to upgrade? Most people there just don't see it. Consider also the sheer cost of adding to and/or replacing this grid in New York. It's a lot of work on a lot of expensive property and has to be done without disturbing a single important transaction, without disrupting traffic, etc. It's just more of an undertaking than Taiwan and with less demand to back it.
Wrong. Unless you are comparing the US to countries like Israel, Taiwan and Kuwait, but you weren't, you where comparing the US to just about any other country in the world. The US is a very young country when compared with just about every country in the world. Come back in 500 to 1000 years, then we can talk.
Are you actually suggesting that other countries have had comunication networks comparable to the ones in the US for longer than the US has even existed? Given that the telegraph wasn't even invented until decades after the US broke apart from GB, that's pretty impressive.
I realize that the US is a very young country when compared to the rest of the world. But what does that have to do with wired communication networks?
We've got a LOT of ground to cover.
Exactly. The Asian countries listed are about the size of one US state, but with much higher population density. So high-speed lines run through a town there will reach far more people per mile of cabling. (Not to mention the labor force to roll out such lines is much cheaper.)
As for Canada... Last time I checked, the population density of about 85% of the land mass was between 0 and 1 person per square kilometer. Put up some high speed networks in the southeast of Canada, stretch them west along the US border, and you've pretty much hit your entire population.
The US, on the other hand, has metropolitan areas (ranging in size/density of course) dotted across much of its land mass, with vast spaces of land in between. And not nearly as much of that land is as sparsely populated as Canada's northern wilderness. It will take a lot more work to reach as much of a majority of homes.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the US has a much larger, older, and more complicated communications network in place than just about any other country in the world. It takes time to roll over to new technologies without disturbing the existing infrastructure.
I can't think of the gas station that hosts it off-hand, but there is a chain of gas station convenience stores (at least in SC) called S-Mart.
Now that you mention it, I remember that comic about hot future girl. My quote was close, but not quite so... angry.
Next we'll see remakes of Blade Runner, Citizen Kane and Casablanca. All staring Ben Affleck. All title tracks by Eminem.
You shut your filthy mouth.
You never know what Hollywood types might be reading this right now looking for ideas.
"free for now."
Indeed, the site is laced with the word "Beta" which, to me, would imply that everything can be appended with the words "for now." I'm interested to see where Google goes with this move, and whether or not they can successfully generate revenue while providing POP accounts to what is already an excellent service (though, one of their biggest services is the search functionality, which would require the web interface to truly be "Google").
My point is, a lot of people in this thread are talking about how they fear that Google may start charging or may revoke certain services as a future result of this move and these people will be left without their GMail accounts. To these people I can say only this: If you moved all your email activities to your GMail account and now completely rely upon it for your daily communication needs, you seriously need to pay more attention to that word "Beta."
You're missing my point. Everyone knows she didn't threaten him. But once there's any kind of documentation that implies that she might have had intentions of hurting the president, the Secret Service was obligated to follow up. I doubt the agents wanted to waste their time any more than she wanted to waste hers. But their job description is clear.
Think of it this way. You have the right to jog down your street any time you want. Now, suppose the president is on your street talking to people. He's surrounded by Secret Service agents. Now, his little area is on a public street and you have every right to jog past him. But if you are seen by the agents as running towards the president, you _will_ be stopped. You weren't threatening him, of course. But that's not the issue. They simply have a job to do.
As for whether or not they investigate you, that's all a matter of whether or not you're on their radar. You can say whatever you want (of course, there are exceptions that fall into the shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater category) whenever you want, so get on your soapbox and shout to your heart's content. Just know that, if you get noticed by an agency whose job it is to investigate whatever it is you're talking about, they might ask you a couple questions.
And, honestly, keep some perspective. Personally, I'm glad to live in a country where I can voice my opinion about the government and the worst thing to happen is that a couple agents will ring my doorbell and calmly ask me a few questions and then be on their way.
It was obvious to me that this was meant as a joke.
True. However, "obvious" is not always the driving factor in government. I'm not just randomly bashing the system, but pointing out that it has regulations in place that bring certain responsibilities. Court records are full of cases where it was "obvious" that someone was guilty, but the physical evidence didn't satisfy the requirements of the system. It can seem like a waste at times, but it's all part of requiring that the powers that be "make sure" before they act. Just as it's better to let a guilty man go free than execute an innocent, it's also better to ask someone a couple questions than to assume they're not actually intending to kill the president (or anyone else).
The Secret Service is a lot more than a handful of agents running alongside a car in a parade. Part of what they do is investigate every potential threat to the administration that they find. Even if they know in their gut that it's fake (99.99% of them are, so it's usually a good bet), they are still required to investigate. From what I understand, they wasted as little of their time on the matter as they could. But once the "incident" in question was officially documented, some kind of follow-up to close the "case" was required.
As for "looking for real threats," they're doing that too. But the fact is that a presidential assassination messes things up bad, both domestically and internationally. It's a headache no government needs. So, to attempt to prevent it, these policies are in place. We know of the handful of presidents who were shot, but none of us know exactly how many attempts are thwarted before they ever get off the ground.
Alex would say Hans; you would say Who shot first
"Hans"? "HANS"? That's it. You are no longer welcome here. Turn in your geek card at the door and go sit in the pit of shame.
You draw your own conclusions as to what that will mean.
The cyber-freedom of 1998 with the connection speeds of 2006. Where do I sign up?
How about fighting for insurance for everyone
Sounds good. Let me know when you get this charity idea off the ground. Or, were you just shooting off your mouth and hoping that somebody else will bear the burden of "charity" for you? If this is the case, then go fuck yourself.
As for the guys at Penny Arcade, why flame them for choosing another charitable route? Face it, you can't help everybody with everything. But they're helping _somebody_ with _something_ which is better than most people do. Different charity organizations do different things. Some may be bigger, some may reach more people, but they all do some good (well, except the ones that are actually scams... but those are easy enough to avoid). Personally, my favorite is helping the Kiwanis International Foundation fight Iodine Deficiency Disorder. If you're looking for a way to stretch your dollar to help as many children around the world as possible, they're a good one.
he's getting punished via the slashdot effect right about now
/. editors will simply blacklist submissions pointing to his domain, since someone else in this thread pointed out that this is not his first offense.
/. in order to drive traffic to one's site, but from the comments so far I'm being led to believe that the article has little more meat than, say, http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=307873
Or paid via advertising revenue from his site (I can't say for sure, it's not loading for me). Hopefully the
I realize the temptation to submit geek-enticing articles to
oh yeah it's IRAN
Of course. Here in the US the public mind is already disturbed.
That's all well and good, but the problem is that the business doesn't want to bother with these things. You might as well suggest that they secure the machine by unplugging it. It'll be 100% secure, but the business isn't interested in such measures.
He'd have better luck trying to find a precedent somewhere to show them. Maybe another small business in the area has had serious problems. I know one of the small businesses in my area absolutely refused any kind of protection because "it had never been a problem before." Then they got hit by some trojans, and hit hard. Their entire business was halted for a few days because their data couldn't be accessed. After the dust settled, their data was downright gone.
Your suggestions are good and would help protect them (emphasis on help... someone else said it best earlier that "security is a process, not a product"), but your suggestions can't protect them from not wanting to be protected.
voice your opinion by leaving
I don't know where you live, nor do I know where the poster lives, but I can assure you that such an action is laughable where I live (Boston). There's practically a waiting list for apartments. They'll have you replaced by the end of the day, probably at a higher rate, after they collect their "early lease termination fee" from you.
If you live in an area where the housing market is truly dominated by the customers, be sure to thank $DIETY every day. And never, ever leave that area.
maybe I don't charge enough for service calls?
So far, my personal record is $225 to press "continue" on someone's laserjet when a computer tried to print to A4 paper. ($75 per hour charge, minimum of 1 hour, plus this call involved 1 hour of travel each way) Unfortunately, my employer reaped the benefits of that one, as I was salary.
In my spare time I'm slowly building up an infrastructure to run a home business that will allow me to profit from the technologically inept.
What is this "outdoors" of which you speak?
This PDA was designed for use in that very large room with the blue ceiling. You know, the room where they keep all the people we don't like.
What happens when people start dying?
They go to Heaven. Or possibly Hell.
Seriously, what's the point of the question? People die in privately-funded adventures from time to time. But if they want to do it, that's their business. Perhaps they seek historical notariety, perhaps they look forward to possible commercial gains, or perhaps they just want that "extreme thrill" that nobody else has. Either way, it's their money/life, and it's not hurting anybody else, so it's their choice.