My grandmother came to this country from a country where drugs were not regulated (at the time). One of the consequences of that is that she had to be more informed about what drugs she was prescribed or prescribed for herself.
Since she's been in the U.S. of A., this knowledge has saved her life no less than 20 times in the last ca.25 years. How? Because while spending time in hospitals (she's old) she has been brought drugs that would have killed her. She is still alive today.
Another consequence is that this knowledge or an interest in it tends to be passed down through generations (like cooking recipes). Never in my household are any drugs taken without consulting a PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) and usually a few other sources. A similar culture can be seen by contrasting cultures that consume alcohol responsibly from an early age and most U.S. cultures, where we are restricted by law from consuming alcoholic beverages before the age of 21yrs.
Incidently, the rabid regulation of drugs in the U.S. prevents the use of less expensive and more effective drugs. Cocaine and paregoric are just two that come to mind. (Check WordNet, btw).
SciFi was running a special mockumentary about the history of the Galaxy Quest television show. It was hilarious. I might just have to see it before the world ends this weekend.
Re:Some gems from the maths & computer secton
on
Science in 1999
·
· Score: 1
I thought the Melissa mention was hilarious. Come to think of it the Y2k stuff is funny too. Where would researchers be if Microsoft didn't write bad code? *grin* *smirk* ROFLMAO!
(I know MS doesn't dominate that much, but you might get that impression from reading this list and just knowing 32bit *nixes are fine until 2038 and non-MS software is safe from Melissa.)
By Jove! I needed to read that after feeling gloomy about the DVD fiasco.
I also liked the stuff about Neanderthals. As I understand it most Neanderthal specimens reveal the blood type B- (or is it AB-, whichever is more rare among Homo Sapiens). Apparently the same blood type is common among the Basque. Put that together with the uniqueness of their language and you might suspect that their genetics are the result of a mixing of Neanderthals and Sapiens. My mother has the same blood type, and some of the last names in our family are of Basque origin.
I think the issue here is implemention of the algorithm in a way that infringes the patent. A different (kind of) implementation should not be a problem. The restriction of commercial rights I suggested applies to the same (kind of) implementation of the same algorithm.
For example, using the same algorithm to index a book would be a different implementation of the same algorithm and patentable in its own right. Or indexing websites by (say) manpower would be using a different method to achieve the same result; that's a different 'algorithm' of sorts and should not be patentable since it just involves coordination of labor (read: business models).
I think that's fine and good, so long as the other companies don't use the same implementation of the same algorithm. The competition (in this case) should (IMO) be among implementations of different algorithms, not just the ability to duplicate and provide. This is important because full-disclosure is supposed to be required for patenting and once that is done duplication is simple. Of course if patents are being granted without full-disclosure that another problem with today's patent system, not a patent system in general.
Perhaps this modification of patent law would be in order:
If someone implements an infringing thing, they may use it privately, but have no commercial (i.e. trading) rights to it.
Let me explain further.
Commercial rights would include distribution of the software and provision of the search engine service for others (i.e., doing what google does, as opposed to using it on your own websites.) 'Sharing with you neighbor' would be limited to showing them code as you would lend them a book, only one copy usable at a time. The cost of reimplementation could prohibit the (for lack of a better word) 'hijacking' of the technology by a corporation.
Of course you could copyright the code, but the copyright would be 'on hold' until the expiration of the patent. When the patent expires, you retain the copyright to your code and may license it or transfer it as you please.
Implementing this system would be troublesome and would require lots of legal research and work, but perhaps a method can be devised.
You are right, that was sloppy of me. I should have said 'implementations of algorithms in software'. Thanks for correcting me.
And before I goof again: 'in software' because I have no objections to patents of hardware implementations. Though I am aware that software implementations are patentable, I don't know if this should be so.
I agree, but I'm not sure why. I generally agree that algorithms shouldn't be patentable, but this seems like an exception. Maybe it isn't, but I'm trying to find the cause of my unrest. Some things come to mind:
1) The most hated patent: LZW. Why? It seems that Unisys submarined the patent; they waited until it was widely used then started suing to collect royalties. Is this the real history, or did people not read the licensing terms which permit gratis use for 'non-commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications'? According the the GNU no-gif page Unisys retracted these terms in 1999; that does fit the submarine story. But which is the problem here, a patented algorithm or the licensing practices of Unisys? If the former then the laws need changing, else boycott Unisys or try to file suit for dishonest licensing. (IANAL, so I don't know if that's possible or what magic words to invoke.)
2) The most hated, but assuredly bad, patents: Amazon's One-Click Shopping. This is fairly clear-cut, the patents should not have been granted because the technique is obvious. Everything here has been said many times over - next...
3) The worst recent change in the US patent sustem: patenting business models. This was probably to be expected as soon as an algorithm was patented. We seem to be on a slippery slope. Prediction: 'thought crimes' already exist under the name of 'hate crimes'. Will the penalty for execution of patented ideas on wetware be punishable by financial penalties or will the infringing computer be deactivated? This is not an example of the evils of capitalism or intellectual property or patents, it is the abandonment of the ideas which is the basis for those things. If man does not have his basic rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, the sanctity of his mind (aka. religion) - then he does not have the rights which necessarily depend on those.
Looking at these things, what of Google's patents? They are not submarine patents, good. They are not obvious (right?), good. Are they of those things which infringe upon the rights of others? I don't know. Google has the fairly unique (nowadays) feature of not throwing banner adds all over the page. Instead, they seem to be planning to generate revenue by providing a search engine service. I don't think they've patented the business model, good. They have patented what makes their business model work. As a result they provide an advertisement-free search engine to everyone and pay for it by providing customization services to their customers. If they weren't they only ones who could do this in this way, someone else (MS?) would surely come along and use Google's algorithms to provide the customized system for free. This would destroy Google and leave the system in the hands of whoever could use the service as a loss-leader - and we know what happens when those people no longer need to take a loss.
Perhaps I need to rethink my stand on algorithm patents. It seems that without them we will lose the good service businesses which we enjoy today. If the algorithm is patentable, then there is no need to patent the business model; if the business model is not patented, then anyone who does it better can do so.
I haven't play networked games in a while and never more than a few people in the same real world room, so please flame me (on email, find it) if anything I suggest is too ignorant or stupid.
Could a peer-to-peer, instead of server-client, system be useful to stop cheating? I have no idea, but since the.plan mentioned trusted servers et al. I immediately thought of trusted peers.
Maybe a new gaming paradigm should be introduced. 'To the best coder go the spoils,' anyone? 5 words: Dual Alpha Beowulf Bot Army.
Is anyone working on a VR client that could turn the gaming environment into a sort of 'holodeck'? With the appropriate hardware and code, we could make our Quake-selves look like us (or otherwise) and mimic our realworld movements. Add to this the peer-to-peer setup and then I'll show you a real home page! (No tactile-feedback fighting, please.)
Didn't everyone else think they would have caught on the manipulating 'The Matrix' while in it?
Excellent Post! I kept trying to write a reply, but couldn't do it without flaming. There is only one thing that disturbs me: if the technology is developed with government funding I believe patents should not be granted. Unfortunately this seems to happen very often. I think it is called 'technology transfer', but that could be something else.
Of course if the inventor just happens to work at a federally funded university, but received no extra funding and worked independently, then the patent should be o.k.
Funny thing about those traffic jams. Turns out that if everyone knows what is in their best interest and acts accordingly, the traffic jams will readily clear up.
It should be, but often isn't, painfully obvious that one should keep a good distance between oneself and the cars in front. Besides this being safer, it is also legally advisable (IANAL) because a) it is the law, and b) the liability in a collision rarely falls upon the lead car (IIRC).
When this rule is followed it is safer, traffic moves faster because of less 'resistance' (like in electrical conductors), and the ability of oncoming traffic to easily merge relieves the congestion on those same surface streets that feed the it.
For more information see Bill Beaty's Amateur Science site. Traffic simulations may be found there.
Hold on a second! What do you mean by capitalism? What's going on right now with all these goddamn awful stupid inane patents, trademarks and senseless bullshit is not the result of capitalism, it's the abandonment of it. There is a proper place for intellectual property. But the widespread mockery of justice that the article proposes is an infringement upon the rights of everyone; capitalism is supposed to protect rights, not destroy them.
The only place I can think of that the growth of the internet (pre-web) strayed from capitalism was that it was started under DARPA; and that depends on whether you consider the project a proper defense project. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion, yet. I do know that the internet is a good thing.
Also, one of the proper acts of gov't is 'to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures'. Internet Protocols, established under DARPA, could well fall into this category.
Of course today's Intellectual Property nonsense is like trying to patent the ruler or scale that implements that standard.
I was able to run it under Debian potato. I've had the same problems with logging in to/.
What did work worked fast. I didn't check memory use. I almost forgot what browser I was using!
I did think that I'd be willing to pay even $100 if the final version is as solid as I expect it will be. I'm glad to see someone mention that the expected (announced?) price is only $35. Geez, I haven't bought software since OS/2 in 1993! (Unless you count the MS tax *sigh*, I did reformat immediately;)
I haven't checked on where to submit bug reports yet. There is one 'bug' I haven't seen mentioned yet. I have no idea what files the binary installs on my system. I checked a few common places. It wrote directories ~/.opera and/tmp/opr. (That last may have been/var/tmp/opr, I've symlinked/tmp to/var/tmp). There was no man page or info page.
Well, besides not knowing what a binary is doing, I have no other problem; it is a first release, after all!
What I want to know is why don't the journalists ask the obvious questions? Instead of just printing the spin, they should follow up with, "But how secure is it compared to non-MS operating systems?" If the spokesman from MS refuses to answer or permit further questions, then the journalsist should say so and go ahead and state the obvious.
Or to be more spiteful, they could say that MS refused to answer the question; which they did by adding the qualifier 'Microsoft has ever shipped'. If this practice became commonplace, people might start answering properly since it would be bad to be perceived as saying 'no comment'.
And this should hold up in court in a libel case. Marketroid: "But I did answer the question!?!" Judge: "Sorry, post hoc ergo propter hoc non curat lex."
A uniform sales tax amounts to a tax on two groups of people:
1) People who buy goods that are not sensitive to price changes.
2) People who produce goods that are sensitive to price changes.
This happens because either 1) the sellers let the buyers eat the cost of the tax to reduce seller cost, or 2) the sellers absorb the cost of the tax to increase revenue on volume.
Basically it burdens everyone because everyone buys commodities (not sensitive) and it reduces the standard of living by discouraging the production of luxuries (sensitive).
Of course, IANAE(conomist).
Another problem is that it is not a just tax. Charging for services is similar to free trade; you pay for what you get. A sales tax is not a trade; you pay for nothing in return.
I do agree with your assessment of complex tax codes. But I have to wonder if our gov't officials consciously conspire against us, or if they're just strange attactors in the chaos.
Is this 'irrational exuberance'? Or is this a new phenomenon?
Suppose these companies never turn an accounting profit or share holders never see a dividend. Would that be money lost? Or might it reflect a non-tax, non-government method of funding society's infrastructure?
Are we witnessing the birth a new type of charity? One that yields slightly more direct returns than traditional charities?
Has anyone the The Leisure Theory of Value by Michael Miller? I think there may be some ideas in it that are very important as we become more of a service-based economy than an manufacture-based economy.
Change the tax laws! Ideally, we just get rid of them all. 'Impossible!', you say? 'The gov't need funding for *!', you say? 'No one would volunteer time or money to secure the blessings of liberty!', you say?
I say, 'Look at free software.'
Besides, the gov't could also raise revenue by charging per service. 'Simple' example: Notary services. The validation of contracts is an essential service that should be provided by our government. All credit activities (not just credit cards) are contract based. (M)|(B)|(Tr)illions of dollars move around on the basis of credit daily; it is an economic necessity. By charging for credit contract security as a ratio of the dollar amount, the government could surely raise enough revenue to perform its necessary functions. This would also discourage frivolous credit use by consumers.
I saw this last night but couldn't submit a link since 20/20 was inaccessible.
It was ridiculous.
I got the impression that those kids threatened ABC so they could spend sometime grandstanding.
Every single person who spoke sounded like a complete idiot. Cripes, the White House might have secure internal systems, but cracking the web site should be a trivial task. When it was done, the site was probably being run by a secretary using NT. [Point, Click, white-out]
Slashdot Mirror
This story is sending lots of bad feelings all around.
RTFMXlib Programming Manual by Adrian Nye
Chapter 10 - Internationalization
Chapter 11 - Internationalized Text Input
I can say nothing that hasn't already been said many times before by Kenton Lee or by Christopher Browne.
My grandmother came to this country from a country where drugs were not regulated (at the time). One of the consequences of that is that she had to be more informed about what drugs she was prescribed or prescribed for herself.
Since she's been in the U.S. of A., this knowledge has saved her life no less than 20 times in the last ca.25 years. How? Because while spending time in hospitals (she's old) she has been brought drugs that would have killed her. She is still alive today.
Another consequence is that this knowledge or an interest in it tends to be passed down through generations (like cooking recipes). Never in my household are any drugs taken without consulting a PDR (Physicians Desk Reference) and usually a few other sources. A similar culture can be seen by contrasting cultures that consume alcohol responsibly from an early age and most U.S. cultures, where we are restricted by law from consuming alcoholic beverages before the age of 21yrs.
Incidently, the rabid regulation of drugs in the U.S. prevents the use of less expensive and more effective drugs. Cocaine and paregoric are just two that come to mind. (Check WordNet, btw).
SciFi was running a special mockumentary about the history of the Galaxy Quest television show. It was hilarious. I might just have to see it before the world ends this weekend.
Should you include a disclaimer?
I thought the Melissa mention was hilarious. Come to think of it the Y2k stuff is funny too. Where would researchers be if Microsoft didn't write bad code? *grin* *smirk* ROFLMAO!
(I know MS doesn't dominate that much, but you might get that impression from reading this list and just knowing 32bit *nixes are fine until 2038 and non-MS software is safe from Melissa.)
By Jove! I needed to read that after feeling gloomy about the DVD fiasco.
I also liked the stuff about Neanderthals. As I understand it most Neanderthal specimens reveal the blood type B- (or is it AB-, whichever is more rare among Homo Sapiens). Apparently the same blood type is common among the Basque. Put that together with the uniqueness of their language and you might suspect that their genetics are the result of a mixing of Neanderthals and Sapiens. My mother has the same blood type, and some of the last names in our family are of Basque origin.
Therefore, I am a Neanderthal!
Don't forget that forces are aligned to make it like television with immediate response to advertisements. (Both purchases and profiling.)
At least we still have xxx.lanl.gov
I think the issue here is implemention of the algorithm in a way that infringes the patent. A different (kind of) implementation should not be a problem. The restriction of commercial rights I suggested applies to the same (kind of) implementation of the same algorithm.
For example, using the same algorithm to index a book would be a different implementation of the same algorithm and patentable in its own right. Or indexing websites by (say) manpower would be using a different method to achieve the same result; that's a different 'algorithm' of sorts and should not be patentable since it just involves coordination of labor (read: business models).
I think that's fine and good, so long as the other companies don't use the same implementation of the same algorithm. The competition (in this case) should (IMO) be among implementations of different algorithms, not just the ability to duplicate and provide. This is important because full-disclosure is supposed to be required for patenting and once that is done duplication is simple. Of course if patents are being granted without full-disclosure that another problem with today's patent system, not a patent system in general.
See my other responses in this thread for more.
Perhaps this modification of patent law would be in order:
If someone implements an infringing thing, they may use it privately, but have no commercial (i.e. trading) rights to it.
Let me explain further.
Commercial rights would include distribution of the software and provision of the search engine service for others (i.e., doing what google does, as opposed to using it on your own websites.) 'Sharing with you neighbor' would be limited to showing them code as you would lend them a book, only one copy usable at a time. The cost of reimplementation could prohibit the (for lack of a better word) 'hijacking' of the technology by a corporation.
Of course you could copyright the code, but the copyright would be 'on hold' until the expiration of the patent. When the patent expires, you retain the copyright to your code and may license it or transfer it as you please.
Implementing this system would be troublesome and would require lots of legal research and work, but perhaps a method can be devised.
You are right, that was sloppy of me. I should have said 'implementations of algorithms in software'. Thanks for correcting me.
And before I goof again: 'in software' because I have no objections to patents of hardware implementations. Though I am aware that software implementations are patentable, I don't know if this should be so.
Still thinking...
I agree, but I'm not sure why. I generally agree that algorithms shouldn't be patentable, but this seems like an exception. Maybe it isn't, but I'm trying to find the cause of my unrest. Some things come to mind:
1) The most hated patent: LZW. Why? It seems that Unisys submarined the patent; they waited until it was widely used then started suing to collect royalties. Is this the real history, or did people not read the licensing terms which permit gratis use for 'non-commercial, non-profit GIF-based applications'? According the the GNU no-gif page Unisys retracted these terms in 1999; that does fit the submarine story. But which is the problem here, a patented algorithm or the licensing practices of Unisys? If the former then the laws need changing, else boycott Unisys or try to file suit for dishonest licensing. (IANAL, so I don't know if that's possible or what magic words to invoke.)
2) The most hated, but assuredly bad, patents: Amazon's One-Click Shopping. This is fairly clear-cut, the patents should not have been granted because the technique is obvious. Everything here has been said many times over - next...
3) The worst recent change in the US patent sustem: patenting business models. This was probably to be expected as soon as an algorithm was patented. We seem to be on a slippery slope. Prediction: 'thought crimes' already exist under the name of 'hate crimes'. Will the penalty for execution of patented ideas on wetware be punishable by financial penalties or will the infringing computer be deactivated? This is not an example of the evils of capitalism or intellectual property or patents, it is the abandonment of the ideas which is the basis for those things. If man does not have his basic rights - life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, the sanctity of his mind (aka. religion) - then he does not have the rights which necessarily depend on those.
Looking at these things, what of Google's patents? They are not submarine patents, good. They are not obvious (right?), good. Are they of those things which infringe upon the rights of others? I don't know. Google has the fairly unique (nowadays) feature of not throwing banner adds all over the page. Instead, they seem to be planning to generate revenue by providing a search engine service. I don't think they've patented the business model, good. They have patented what makes their business model work. As a result they provide an advertisement-free search engine to everyone and pay for it by providing customization services to their customers. If they weren't they only ones who could do this in this way, someone else (MS?) would surely come along and use Google's algorithms to provide the customized system for free. This would destroy Google and leave the system in the hands of whoever could use the service as a loss-leader - and we know what happens when those people no longer need to take a loss.
Perhaps I need to rethink my stand on algorithm patents. It seems that without them we will lose the good service businesses which we enjoy today. If the algorithm is patentable, then there is no need to patent the business model; if the business model is not patented, then anyone who does it better can do so.
I haven't play networked games in a while and never more than a few people in the same real world room, so please flame me (on email, find it) if anything I suggest is too ignorant or stupid.
.plan mentioned trusted servers et al. I immediately thought of trusted peers.
Could a peer-to-peer, instead of server-client, system be useful to stop cheating? I have no idea, but since the
Maybe a new gaming paradigm should be introduced. 'To the best coder go the spoils,' anyone? 5 words: Dual Alpha Beowulf Bot Army.
Is anyone working on a VR client that could turn the gaming environment into a sort of 'holodeck'? With the appropriate hardware and code, we could make our Quake-selves look like us (or otherwise) and mimic our realworld movements. Add to this the peer-to-peer setup and then I'll show you a real home page! (No tactile-feedback fighting, please.)
Didn't everyone else think they would have caught on the manipulating 'The Matrix' while in it?
Excellent Post! I kept trying to write a reply, but couldn't do it without flaming. There is only one thing that disturbs me: if the technology is developed with government funding I believe patents should not be granted. Unfortunately this seems to happen very often. I think it is called 'technology transfer', but that could be something else.
Of course if the inventor just happens to work at a federally funded university, but received no extra funding and worked independently, then the patent should be o.k.
The Streambox Press Release may be found here: .asp
http://www.streambox.com/Products/press
Funny thing about those traffic jams. Turns out that if everyone knows what is in their best interest and acts accordingly, the traffic jams will readily clear up.
It should be, but often isn't, painfully obvious that one should keep a good distance between oneself and the cars in front. Besides this being safer, it is also legally advisable (IANAL) because a) it is the law, and b) the liability in a collision rarely falls upon the lead car (IIRC).
When this rule is followed it is safer, traffic moves faster because of less 'resistance' (like in electrical conductors), and the ability of oncoming traffic to easily merge relieves the congestion on those same surface streets that feed the it.
For more information see Bill Beaty's Amateur Science site. Traffic simulations may be found there.
Hold on a second! What do you mean by capitalism? What's going on right now with all these goddamn awful stupid inane patents, trademarks and senseless bullshit is not the result of capitalism, it's the abandonment of it. There is a proper place for intellectual property. But the widespread mockery of justice that the article proposes is an infringement upon the rights of everyone; capitalism is supposed to protect rights, not destroy them.
The only place I can think of that the growth of the internet (pre-web) strayed from capitalism was that it was started under DARPA; and that depends on whether you consider the project a proper defense project. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion, yet. I do know that the internet is a good thing.
Also, one of the proper acts of gov't is 'to fix the Standard of Weights and Measures'. Internet Protocols, established under DARPA, could well fall into this category.
Of course today's Intellectual Property nonsense is like trying to patent the ruler or scale that implements that standard.
I was able to run it under Debian potato. I've had the same problems with logging in to /.
;)
/tmp/opr. (That last may have been /var/tmp/opr, I've symlinked /tmp to /var/tmp). There was no man page or info page.
What did work worked fast. I didn't check memory use. I almost forgot what browser I was using!
I did think that I'd be willing to pay even $100 if the final version is as solid as I expect it will be. I'm glad to see someone mention that the expected (announced?) price is only $35. Geez, I haven't bought software since OS/2 in 1993! (Unless you count the MS tax *sigh*, I did reformat immediately
I haven't checked on where to submit bug reports yet. There is one 'bug' I haven't seen mentioned yet. I have no idea what files the binary installs on my system. I checked a few common places. It wrote directories ~/.opera and
Well, besides not knowing what a binary is doing, I have no other problem; it is a first release, after all!
s/its/it's/
I must be going blind, this is my second follow-up to my own previewed post.
I think it is supposed to mean 'New Technology'.
Which is kind of funny becuase IIRC its based on VMS.
Oh, I forgot to say 'IANAL".
IANAL
What I want to know is why don't the journalists ask the obvious questions? Instead of just printing the spin, they should follow up with, "But how secure is it compared to non-MS operating systems?" If the spokesman from MS refuses to answer or permit further questions, then the journalsist should say so and go ahead and state the obvious.
Or to be more spiteful, they could say that MS refused to answer the question; which they did by adding the qualifier 'Microsoft has ever shipped'. If this practice became commonplace, people might start answering properly since it would be bad to be perceived as saying 'no comment'.
And this should hold up in court in a libel case.
Marketroid: "But I did answer the question!?!"
Judge: "Sorry, post hoc ergo propter hoc non curat lex."
A uniform sales tax amounts to a tax on two groups of people:
1) People who buy goods that are not sensitive to price changes.
2) People who produce goods that are sensitive to price changes.
This happens because either 1) the sellers let the buyers eat the cost of the tax to reduce seller cost, or 2) the sellers absorb the cost of the tax to increase revenue on volume.
Basically it burdens everyone because everyone buys commodities (not sensitive) and it reduces the standard of living by discouraging the production of luxuries (sensitive).
Of course, IANAE(conomist).
Another problem is that it is not a just tax. Charging for services is similar to free trade; you pay for what you get. A sales tax is not a trade; you pay for nothing in return.
I do agree with your assessment of complex tax codes. But I have to wonder if our gov't officials consciously conspire against us, or if they're just strange attactors in the chaos.
Is this 'irrational exuberance'? Or is this a new phenomenon?
Suppose these companies never turn an accounting profit or share holders never see a dividend. Would that be money lost? Or might it reflect a non-tax, non-government method of funding society's infrastructure?
Are we witnessing the birth a new type of charity? One that yields slightly more direct returns than traditional charities?
Has anyone the The Leisure Theory of Value by Michael Miller? I think there may be some ideas in it that are very important as we become more of a service-based economy than an manufacture-based economy.
Change the tax laws!
Ideally, we just get rid of them all.
'Impossible!', you say?
'The gov't need funding for *!', you say?
'No one would volunteer time or money to secure the blessings of liberty!', you say?
I say, 'Look at free software.'
Besides, the gov't could also raise revenue by charging per service. 'Simple' example: Notary services. The validation of contracts is an essential service that should be provided by our government. All credit activities (not just credit cards) are contract based. (M)|(B)|(Tr)illions of dollars move around on the basis of credit daily; it is an economic necessity. By charging for credit contract security as a ratio of the dollar amount, the government could surely raise enough revenue to perform its necessary functions. This would also discourage frivolous credit use by consumers.
Live free or die.
I saw this last night but couldn't submit a link since 20/20 was inaccessible.
It was ridiculous.
I got the impression that those kids threatened ABC so they could spend sometime grandstanding.
Every single person who spoke sounded like a complete idiot. Cripes, the White House might have secure internal systems, but cracking the web site should be a trivial task. When it was done, the site was probably being run by a secretary using NT. [Point, Click, white-out]