...but I'm curious, why would a public voting system be based on closed-source software?
I realize that this was meant as a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. "Closed source," I think can in this case be safely assumed to equal "maximized profit." Diebold's CEO, Walden O'Dell, has been very cozy with the Republican Party, penning invitations to a $1000-per-plate fundraiser, among other things. (Here's a link to a Plain Dealer story covering this.) If the whole project is closed-source, proprietary, and guarded by a pack of rabid weasels to boot, then Diebold stands a better chance of making sure that the politicians they/b/o/u/g/h/t/ donated to get elected. And those politicians will make sure that Diebold's investment continues to bear fruit.
(Yes, I know that I'm using a fallacious "Le etat, ces't moi" argument by extending the actions and political leanings of a corporation's CEO to the employees of the company. O'Dell!=Diebold, at least in theory. In practice, I haven't heard of many Diebold employees being sacked because they stood up to protest this issue.)
Oh, puh-leeze. He's not a writer. He "writes" balloons for silly little drawings, and occassionally whores out his name for some ghost writer on a book. And to call him a "successful" comic book writer, yeah, I guess. Because nobody else wants to waste their time with such a useless "art" how could you not succeed? Hell, may dog could shit on a piece of paper, I could photocopy it and call it a "graphic novel" and I'd be the top in the field. What a fucking joke. He isn't Shakespeare, hell he isn't even the late Stephen King. He's somewhere in between the guy that does the Bazooka Joe comics and the graffi in the men's room.
Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do. ~Dale Carnegie
A critic is one who tells the world how poorly someone does something which the critic does not at all. ~Attributed to H.L. Mencken
Given that the Sandman series is one of the most literary pieces of fiction -- graphic meduim or not -- that I've ever seen, drawing a comparison to bubble gum inserts smacks of the worst kind of petty ignorance (and no small amount of jealousy.) [sarcasm] But, silly me; surely you have two Hugo Awards cluttering up your mantelpiece. And all of those royalties from sales of your written works to boot. [/sarcasm] And, where in the hell did you get the idea that Stephen King was dead, anyway? He just released a new book. He still hasn't entirely recovered from his accident, and probably never will, but he's a long way from pushing up daisies.
I take back what I said earlier. Ignorance is curable. This reeks of stupidity.
Personally, I'm hoping for the mini-bots to be used in this technique, rather than actual cockroaches. When you look at the type of environment that the little buggers prefer, the Feds would be "finding" chemical and biological agents in every alley dumpster in the country. Not to mention the apartments of a large percentage of bachelor males. At least the robots will presumably go where you want them to.
Young bachelor to FBI agent: "That's not a biological weapons lab, man; that's my kitchen!
1) Dark or light colored rocks? How passe. Let's mark these clay tablets instead.
2)Clay tablets take too long to dry. Votes could be changed in the meantime. Pen and paper is better.
3)Pen and paper is too slow to tabulate. We're switching to these cool punch cards.
4)People are apparently too stupid to use punch cards. Long live the touch screen system!
5)These electronic voting boxes can apparently be h4x0r3d by any halfway intelligent three-year-old with a spoon and an old emery board. This system, however, is foolproof...
*pulls out basket full of rocks painted black or white*
Once again, we seem to be at an impasse. I dislike the intrusive security procedures, but until someone comes up with something better, that's all we've got. My objection is to the arrogant "I'm more important than you, so I bought myself a get-out-of-line- because-I-told-them-I-was-trustworthy *wink wink, nudge nudge* card" idea. I may dislike the security screening process, but I despise the whole "buy your way out" attitude that so many people embrace. And that is the last thing that I intend to say on the subject.
I'm not sure what airport you're flying out of most often, but the one that I'm most familiar with (Denver International), the screening process is anything but random. Everyone stands in line, everyone goes through the metal detectors / x-ray scanners, everyone who forgets to take off every bit of metal they're wearing can expect the pat-down and wand treatment. And while you're going through this, there's a whole mass of people, from all walks of life, in the cattle chutes behind you, waiting to go through exactly the same thing.
And yes, I've been tagged for one of the "random" checks as well; only it wasn't random. I knew exactly why I was pulled aside. I was flying home from an event in LA, and had put most of my event schwag into my checked luggage. Apparently, the screener x-raying my suitcase was not a James Bond film fan, because I had to explain to him just exactly what a stainless steel martini shaker is used for.;-)
My main points were rather different than the item upon which you seized. Yes, airport security is a hassle. My objections were to a) the less-obvious problems inherent in implementing the ID card scheme, and b) the notion of being able to purchase a "get-out-of-jail-free" card in the first place.
I stand by my earlier statement. The security screening process -- inconvenient, annoying, and frustrating as it is -- is one of the few remaining great equalizers. Grandmothers, CEOs, leather-clad punks, and all others are treated in exactly the same manner. If you think that you're too important to be subjected to the scrutiny, then hire a Learjet. The rest of us won't have to put up with your fidgety, type-A impatience, and we'll all be a lot happier.
Leaving aside all of the massive-breach-of-security issues for a moment, I think that there are more problems with the execution of this idea than are immediately obvious. These ID cards will be linked to fingerprint information. Okay, fine. What if you don't have a printable finger?
No, I'm not attempting to be facetious. There is a small, yet statistically signifigant percentage of the world's population (IIRC, around 2%) whose fingers just don't produce the patterns of whorls and loops in any usable form. Usually, the skin doesn't form deep enough ridges (result: a blurry, useless smudge.) There was an article carried in the local news a couple of years ago about a woman who was having troubles with the INS because she couldn't be fingerprinted, for just this reason. Also, there are those who have suffered severe burns. Scar tissue doesn't give a usable result, either. Or, what if an applicant is an amputee? I can see a potential loophole here that an ADA lawyer would give his/her left arm to exploit.
Much as I've come to dislike airport security (think you've been embarrassed by the screening process? Try having the underwire in your bra trip the metal detector), I've come to the conclusion that it really is one of the last few great equalizing experiences. Everybody suffers through it, regardless of who you (think you) are, and everybody should. IMN-S-G-D-HO.
While we don't know the identity of GAIN-Supported Software users, the GAIN AdServer and TGC collect and use the following kinds of anonymous information:
* Some of the Web pages viewed
* The amount of time spent at some Web sites
* Response to GAIN Ads
* Standard web log information (excluding IP Addresses) and system settings *What software is on the personal computer
*First name, country, city, and five digit ZIP code
* Non-personally identifiable information on Web pages and forms
* Software usage characteristics and preferences
The implication: we don't know your color, style, and size preference for your underwear, the names of your pets, or your checking account number. Yet.
Obviously, having the Unix command line available is useful, if you do any sort of DBA-type work. Duh. I could (I won't, but I could) sit here and dictate chapter and verse about how my Caphalon skillet is incredibly useful. This does not make me an employee of -- or shill for -- Caphalon cookware. To paraphrase Freud: sometimes a personal endorsement is just a personal endorsement.
For one thing, this discussion is not about kiddie porn. It is about restricting minors' access to sexually explicit images, and the detrimental effect that this could have on legitimate research. I'm not thrilled about the idea of any of my kids (should I have them) being granted access to "100sofhorsef**kingvideos.com", but I wouldn't want them rendered unable to research a paper on breast cancer, just because the site has a photo of a naked boobie or three.
Sex, in and of itself, is not evil. The way in which many people react to the thought of it, however, is. Children do not maintain that dewey-eyed innocence much past the age of six, no matter how much society romanticizes the ideal, and tries to keep them at that stage. And, as a woman (since there had been a lot of discourse about how pr0n objectifies the gender), I would far rather have my hypothetical 8-year-old stumble across a picture of a man and a woman having sex on the 'Net, than have that same child absorb thousands of graphically violent images piped into the home courtesy of network TV.
Ultimately, I think that this is about parental responsibility. In short, if you don't intend to do your job as a parent, and guide your children as they grow up, then don't have kids in the first place. It really is that simple.
Having read the effin' articles (and no, I'm not new here), I find this policy reprehensible. Moreover, I find the overall/. reaction a bit -- hypocritical, not to put too fine a point on it.
1)UF has instituted a ban on any and all file sharing, regardless of intent or content. 2)UF is scanning students' private computers to look for violations.
Slashdot reaction: No problem; these damn kids are just downloading music and pr0n anyway. (And, they'll be competing with us for tech jobs once they graduate, so three cheers for them getting hosed!)
[rant] Excuse me? Is this the same place that collectively does the wave when the RIAA comes up against any sort of opposition? The same place that actively discussed hacking Sen. Orrin Hatch's website when he advocated developing spyware, and remotely destroying the computer of anyone caught with copyrighted files? Did my DSL open up a wormhole, and somehow I've managed to log onto the Bizarro World's.\ ?? [/rant]
*regains composure* Yes, I'm certain that college dorms are hotbeds for distributing copyrighted MP3s. So is off-campus housing. The fact is, there are many legitimate uses for P2P. The person trying to obtain public domain photographs for a history research project is tarred with the same brush as those trying to download the collected works of Britney Spears. Someone sending a friend a shareware MP3 (provided by the band for the purpose of downloading) suffers the same penalty as someone looking for warez. Since FU has gone after IRC, I suppose that the next target will be ICQ, since both allow for file sharing; if you prefer using an IM service besides AIM, tough luck, kid. But we can't take the risk of you doing anything illegal.
True, bandwidth is not free. Handing the worst offenders a bill for their usage would provide an immensely powerful real-world lesson. Big Brother tactics, however, are not the solution. And to see/. endorsing such things leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Believe it or not, this is not an attempt to flame or troll. I just find it incredibly baffling that this policy is drawing large numbers of cheers from the same crowd that roundly condemns other attempts to infringe upon personal privacy.
The commonly accepted definition is: 10 meters in diameter or larger is an asteroid. Anything smaller than 10 meters is relegated to the status of meteroid.
Astronomer to lab assistant: "Hmm; it's too close to call. Hand me those calipers, willya?";)
...it seems to me that anyone who works in the glass house of the tech market right now shouldn't be tossing around high-velocity stones. The overall job market in Denver sucks rocks through a straw right now. I can say this with authority, because I live there. I've seen people in all sectors of the market sweating blood to keep their jobs, and looking for months on end when they get laid off. Other parts of the country may be recovering, but Denver is historically one of the last places to feel an economic downturn, and one of the very last to come back from one.
Yes, Mr. Dvorkin is being extremely tongue-in-cheek in his essay. Sometimes, black humor is the only way to keep from ripping your hair out in handfulls. (And, to those helpful souls who have griped about Mr. Dvorkin's writing style, I cheerfully direct you to Messrs. Strunk and White, to learn the difference between "formal" and "informal".) David Dvorkin has both my support and my sympathies.
To all of his vocal detractors, I hope that you're never in the position of trying to figure out how that unemployment check is going to cover your mortgage, and still allow you to eat.
Looking through the information on what, exactly, implies "consent", I ran across this:
(1)For the purposes of this Act, the consent of the relevant electronic account-holder may not be inferred from the mere fact that the relevant electronic address has been published.
Exception--conspicuous publication
(2)However, if:
(a)a particular electronic address enables the public, or a section of the public, to send electronic messages to:
(i) a particular employee; or
(ii) a particular director or officer of an
organisation; or
(iii) a particular partner in a partnership; or
(iv) a particular holder of a statutory or other office; or
(v) a particular self-employed individual; or
(vi) an individual from time to time holding, occupying or performing the duties of, a particular office or position within the operations of an organisation; or
(vii) an individual, or a group of individuals, from time to time performing a particular function, or fulfilling a particular role, within the operations of an organisation; and
(b) the electronic address has been conspicuously published; and
(c) it would be reasonable to assume that the publication occurred with the agreement of:
(i) if subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) applies--the employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder or self-employed individual concerned; or
(ii) if subparagraph (a)(vi) or (vii)
applies--the organisation concerned; and
(d) the publication is not accompanied by:
(i) a statement to the effect that the relevant electronic account-holder does not want to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at that electronic address (emphasis mine); or
(ii) a statement to similar effect;
the relevant electronic account-holder is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have consented to the sending of commercial electronic messages to that address, so long as the messages are relevant to:
(e) if subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) applies--the work-related business, functions or duties of the employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder or self-employed individual concerned; or
(f) if subparagraph (a)(vi) applies--the office or position concerned; or
(g) if subparagraph (a)(vii) applies--the
function or role concerned.
So, in other words, if I don't put a big notice on my e-commerce website saying "Don't even think about spamming these contact e-mails," I can expect to have to muck out the mailbox three times a day, as usual. Oh, wait; per the law, it will all be relevant to my business, and therefore legitimate.
Sorry, buddy. Spam is spam, no matter how it's sliced.
My dad -- a geek's geek, to be sure -- pulled a stunt like this on our family, once upon a time. It all started innocently enough, with him taking an updated home electronics course. This was all a clever ruse to cover his ulterior motive -- building the big-screen TV for which he had been lusting. Add the 2 VCRs, one BetaMax (to copy protected VHS tapes), the cable box, the Atari, and the switch box to run them all; you finally has a conglomeration which required an E.E. to operate, four remotes, and rarely worked according to plan.
Heh. I'll never forget the look on his face when Mom walked over to me and said "Here! You fix it!!"
This will probably get modded "redundant", but it does seem like a reasonable way to test the borders of the current interpretation of "Right of First Sale." Unless the RIAA tries to ban the sales of used media(which, given the current state of affairs, wouldn't surprise me in the least), I can't see this as anything other than another legitimate way to transfer the ownership of previously listened-to music. Obviously, you're going to want to keep your anti-virus package updated if you purchase used MP3s. (It's a good idea, anyway.) But, at least to me, it seems like the next logical step.
On a related note... Of course, I wish that he had put in the auction description that all profits are being donated to the EFF. That kind of information (and the appropriate link) just might spread more awareness of the RIAA's tactics where it would do a great deal of good. Die-hard geeks and nerds already know what we're up against. The word needs to be spread to the Common (i.e. non-geek) Man.
So what happens if someone mining diamonds were to challenge de Beers? de Beers would make sure that their network of retailers don't do business with that producer. They'd also release some of their capacity to temporarily drop prices. That would put that producer out of business.
It's already been done, in Australia.
http://www.gem.org.au/gallery/diamond.htm When a diamond-bearing kimberlite pipe was discovered in Australia, DeBeers sneered. The stones were what was deemed an "unattractive muddy brown." Undeterred, the owners of the mine bought equipment, hired workers, and designed a marketing campaign for the diamonds. Peoperly cut and polished, they are anything but "muddy" or "unattractive." The cognac colors range from the warm red-brown of good hot tea, to almost the hue of dark chocolate. They exhibit strong secondary body colors as well, such as orange and gold. The same is true for the lighter "champagne" diamonds, with the addition of secondary colors such as pink and peach. They have incredible sparkle, and don't carry the outrageous price tag of DeBeers' homogenized offerings. (And yes, there's one on my finger, so I know of what I write.)
Finally, though, the Aussies got the last laugh. Argyle started producing natural pink, purple, and even fantastically rare red diamonds, as well as a number of greens and blues. Of course, that got DeBeers' attention, and the cartel approached Ashton Mining with a partnership offer -- only to be told "thanks, but no thanks. We can manage by ourselves." Since then, auctions of rough and finished pink diamonds have brought in millions, with not a dime going into DeBeers' pockets.
Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but it's far sweeter when it's almost entirely accidental.
On one hand, it's amazing that we can use things that developed naturally to enhance our lives and assist our technological growth. OTOH, it distresses me that the mindset is becoming more prevalent that the only reason to value the natural world is because of what the things we find there can do to enhance our lives and further our technology.
[sarcasm] Silly me. I'd forgotten that it's unfashionable to appreciate a tree (flower, sponge, animal) for its own sake and nothing else. [/sarcasm]
Snarky comments aside, I do hope that discoveries like this one will once again illustrate why we need to be better conservators of what is, so far, the only planet we've got.
"Hey, we don't need to cut class sizes, hire more teachers, and encourage them to be more involved with their students! We've got this nifty database that'll tell us who the potential losers are! And it costs less than the personnel expenditures would. Bonus!"
Yes, this might - and I say that with skepticism - help identify potential dropouts who need more attention. It will also identify the kids who just don't fit in, for whatever reason; but they fit the "at risk" profile. However, this is high school; no matter how secure the admins think the information is, it won't stay a secret, so long as a school allows student staffing in the office. (If the school doesn't allow that, finding out will just take longer.) Once their peers find out that a student's name is in the "dropout database," the hazing will begin in earnest.
Does this sound to anyone else like a potential recipe for school shootings?
Umm, just a WAG, but probably because Newfoundland is an island . The crossing by ferry from the mainland alone takes longer than the flight directly from Toronto to St. John's International. Then there's the drive (or train ride) time from Toronto to the coast, just to get to the ferry...
When your time is a valuable commodity, air travel usually is the cheapest, most hassle-free way to go, and certainly the quickest. The issues here are shoddy record-keeping; incompetent, underpaid security personnel who can't form an independent thought between them; and a draconian, knee-jerk, post-9/11 security policy that inconveniences the innocent and still doesn't keep banned items from being smuggled onboard the plane. And these things can happen to anyone; the fact that Mr. Mann suffered physical injury above the hassle-driven headache that most of us suffer during flying these days just adds to the insult.
Gee, I wonder if a kid that I went to school with in 5th grade is now employed by DirecTV?
He had a great "business model": he would approach another kid, invariably one who was smaller than him, and say "I heard you were talking about me behind my back. So, you're gonna bring me a dollar tomorrow, or I'm gonna beat you up and take your lunch money every day for a whole week." After the first demonstration of his willingness to enforce the demand, the threatened kids paid up.
This seems to me to be nothing more than a refinement of the same tactic: pay up, or We the Corporation will proceeed to make your life an absolute hell. Most people will cough up the cash, because no matter how good their lawyer migh be, the corporation has deeper pockets and near-infinate patience. Just like Mr. Sosa in the article, people have wives, kids, careers, and mortgages that they do not want to see threatened by a huge legal judgement, lawyer's fees, and the stigma of defending one's self against the accusation of an illegal activity. Compared to everything that a potential defendant has to lose, $3500 usually looks like a bargain. The lawsuits are unethical as can be, because DirecTV clearly does not give a tinker's damn about the guilt or innocence of the accused parties.
Sadly, this pattern of abuse will continue until DirecTV meets up with a proverbial Mouse that Roared. Just like the schoolyard bully. What happened to him, you ask? Let's just say that he never expected to get his lights punched out by a geeky girl.
You missed something, there. My point was that the blame lies equally thick.
My sisters and I were not raised in an completely unorthodox manner; we also had dolls, stuffed animals, and suchlike. I won't speak for my sisters, but I always found such things boring after a while, because there's only so much that you can do with them. (I feel I should point out that one sister is now in med school, and the other had a BS, and is looking forward to grad school.) Our family puts a lot of stock in varied interests, and none of us got the message "you have to act X way, or boys won't like you" from our parents. We grew up to be fairly independent and strong-willed; but as a consequence, none of us had an active social calendar.
The problem, as I see it, is that boys and young men are taught to ignore, if not outright torment, girls and young women who show any sign of intellectual achievement. Cheerleaders will ooh and aah over you and make you feel like a stud; a girl who reads all of the time proably has other things on her mind than playing trophy. Girls learn early on to downplay their intelligence; if you want a social life, act like an airhead, and keep your interests in robotics and biology to yourself.
Most women out there aren't airheads, but it's a game that they're accustomed to playing. (The ones who time and again go for abusive jackasses have specific issues that I won't go into here, as it's a different can of worms.) My point is, the majority of women act in accordance with the role they've been told is necessary to attract male attention. Don't be too smart. Obsess about being thin and "pretty". Guys won't like you if you are intelligent, outspoken, and have a realistic figure. Women are to blame for buying into this, sure; but the guys who perpetuate this myth by their behavior are just as much at fault. There's a certain amount of reciprocity involved: I've never gotten involved with anyone who didn't value me as a thinking being. My theory is this (and it isn't directed at you; it's a general statement): if you want to find an intelligent woman, let the women around you know that you value their smarts along with everything else, and see if their IQs don't suddenly improve.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
I realize that this was meant as a rhetorical question, but I'll bite. /b/o/u/g/h/t/ donated to get elected. And those politicians will make sure that Diebold's investment continues to bear fruit.
"Closed source," I think can in this case be safely assumed to equal "maximized profit." Diebold's CEO, Walden O'Dell, has been very cozy with the Republican Party, penning invitations to a $1000-per-plate fundraiser, among other things. (Here's a link to a Plain Dealer story covering this.) If the whole project is closed-source, proprietary, and guarded by a pack of rabid weasels to boot, then Diebold stands a better chance of making sure that the politicians they
(Yes, I know that I'm using a fallacious "Le etat, ces't moi" argument by extending the actions and political leanings of a corporation's CEO to the employees of the company. O'Dell!=Diebold, at least in theory. In practice, I haven't heard of many Diebold employees being sacked because they stood up to protest this issue.)
Young bachelor to FBI agent: "That's not a biological weapons lab, man; that's my kitchen!
2)Clay tablets take too long to dry. Votes could be changed in the meantime. Pen and paper is better.
3)Pen and paper is too slow to tabulate. We're switching to these cool punch cards.
4)People are apparently too stupid to use punch cards. Long live the touch screen system!
5)These electronic voting boxes can apparently be h4x0r3d by any halfway intelligent three-year-old with a spoon and an old emery board. This system, however, is foolproof...
*pulls out basket full of rocks painted black or white*
Once again, we seem to be at an impasse. I dislike the intrusive security procedures, but until someone comes up with something better, that's all we've got.
My objection is to the arrogant "I'm more important than you, so I bought myself a get-out-of-line- because-I-told-them-I-was-trustworthy *wink wink, nudge nudge* card" idea. I may dislike the security screening process, but I despise the whole "buy your way out" attitude that so many people embrace. And that is the last thing that I intend to say on the subject.
And yes, I've been tagged for one of the "random" checks as well; only it wasn't random. I knew exactly why I was pulled aside. I was flying home from an event in LA, and had put most of my event schwag into my checked luggage. Apparently, the screener x-raying my suitcase was not a James Bond film fan, because I had to explain to him just exactly what a stainless steel martini shaker is used for. ;-)
I stand by my earlier statement. The security screening process -- inconvenient, annoying, and frustrating as it is -- is one of the few remaining great equalizers. Grandmothers, CEOs, leather-clad punks, and all others are treated in exactly the same manner. If you think that you're too important to be subjected to the scrutiny, then hire a Learjet. The rest of us won't have to put up with your fidgety, type-A impatience, and we'll all be a lot happier.
Okay, fine. What if you don't have a printable finger?
No, I'm not attempting to be facetious. There is a small, yet statistically signifigant percentage of the world's population (IIRC, around 2%) whose fingers just don't produce the patterns of whorls and loops in any usable form. Usually, the skin doesn't form deep enough ridges (result: a blurry, useless smudge.) There was an article carried in the local news a couple of years ago about a woman who was having troubles with the INS because she couldn't be fingerprinted, for just this reason. Also, there are those who have suffered severe burns. Scar tissue doesn't give a usable result, either. Or, what if an applicant is an amputee? I can see a potential loophole here that an ADA lawyer would give his/her left arm to exploit.
Much as I've come to dislike airport security (think you've been embarrassed by the screening process? Try having the underwire in your bra trip the metal detector), I've come to the conclusion that it really is one of the last few great equalizing experiences. Everybody suffers through it, regardless of who you (think you) are, and everybody should. IMN-S-G-D-HO.
The implication: we don't know your color, style, and size preference for your underwear, the names of your pets, or your checking account number. Yet.
Obviously, having the Unix command line available is useful, if you do any sort of DBA-type work. Duh. I could (I won't, but I could) sit here and dictate chapter and verse about how my Caphalon skillet is incredibly useful. This does not make me an employee of -- or shill for -- Caphalon cookware. To paraphrase Freud: sometimes a personal endorsement is just a personal endorsement.
Sex, in and of itself, is not evil. The way in which many people react to the thought of it, however, is. Children do not maintain that dewey-eyed innocence much past the age of six, no matter how much society romanticizes the ideal, and tries to keep them at that stage. And, as a woman (since there had been a lot of discourse about how pr0n objectifies the gender), I would far rather have my hypothetical 8-year-old stumble across a picture of a man and a woman having sex on the 'Net, than have that same child absorb thousands of graphically violent images piped into the home courtesy of network TV.
Ultimately, I think that this is about parental responsibility. In short, if you don't intend to do your job as a parent, and guide your children as they grow up, then don't have kids in the first place. It really is that simple.
1)UF has instituted a ban on any and all file sharing, regardless of intent or content.
2)UF is scanning students' private computers to look for violations.
Slashdot reaction: No problem; these damn kids are just downloading music and pr0n anyway. (And, they'll be competing with us for tech jobs once they graduate, so three cheers for them getting hosed!)
[rant] Excuse me? Is this the same place that collectively does the wave when the RIAA comes up against any sort of opposition? The same place that actively discussed hacking Sen. Orrin Hatch's website when he advocated developing spyware, and remotely destroying the computer of anyone caught with copyrighted files? Did my DSL open up a wormhole, and somehow I've managed to log onto the Bizarro World's .\ ?? [/rant]
*regains composure* Yes, I'm certain that college dorms are hotbeds for distributing copyrighted MP3s. So is off-campus housing. The fact is, there are many legitimate uses for P2P. The person trying to obtain public domain photographs for a history research project is tarred with the same brush as those trying to download the collected works of Britney Spears. Someone sending a friend a shareware MP3 (provided by the band for the purpose of downloading) suffers the same penalty as someone looking for warez. Since FU has gone after IRC, I suppose that the next target will be ICQ, since both allow for file sharing; if you prefer using an IM service besides AIM, tough luck, kid. But we can't take the risk of you doing anything illegal.
True, bandwidth is not free. Handing the worst offenders a bill for their usage would provide an immensely powerful real-world lesson. Big Brother tactics, however, are not the solution. And to see /. endorsing such things leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Believe it or not, this is not an attempt to flame or troll. I just find it incredibly baffling that this policy is drawing large numbers of cheers from the same crowd that roundly condemns other attempts to infringe upon personal privacy.
Astronomer to lab assistant: "Hmm; it's too close to call. Hand me those calipers, willya?" ;)
My mom could finally send me a completely fat-free chocolate bunny for Easter! ;)
The overall job market in Denver sucks rocks through a straw right now. I can say this with authority, because I live there. I've seen people in all sectors of the market sweating blood to keep their jobs, and looking for months on end when they get laid off. Other parts of the country may be recovering, but Denver is historically one of the last places to feel an economic downturn, and one of the very last to come back from one.
Yes, Mr. Dvorkin is being extremely tongue-in-cheek in his essay. Sometimes, black humor is the only way to keep from ripping your hair out in handfulls. (And, to those helpful souls who have griped about Mr. Dvorkin's writing style, I cheerfully direct you to Messrs. Strunk and White, to learn the difference between "formal" and "informal".) David Dvorkin has both my support and my sympathies.
To all of his vocal detractors, I hope that you're never in the position of trying to figure out how that unemployment check is going to cover your mortgage, and still allow you to eat.
Exception--conspicuous publication
(2)However, if:
(a)a particular electronic address enables the public, or a section of the public, to send electronic messages to:
(i) a particular employee; or
(ii) a particular director or officer of an organisation; or
(iii) a particular partner in a partnership; or
(iv) a particular holder of a statutory or other office; or
(v) a particular self-employed individual; or
(vi) an individual from time to time holding, occupying or performing the duties of, a particular office or position within the operations of an organisation; or
(vii) an individual, or a group of individuals, from time to time performing a particular function, or fulfilling a particular role, within the operations of an organisation; and
(b) the electronic address has been conspicuously published; and
(c) it would be reasonable to assume that the publication occurred with the agreement of:
(i) if subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) applies--the employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder or self-employed individual concerned; or
(ii) if subparagraph (a)(vi) or (vii) applies--the organisation concerned; and
(d) the publication is not accompanied by:
(i) a statement to the effect that the relevant electronic account-holder does not want to receive unsolicited commercial electronic messages at that electronic address (emphasis mine); or
(ii) a statement to similar effect; the relevant electronic account-holder is taken, for the purposes of this Act, to have consented to the sending of commercial electronic messages to that address, so long as the messages are relevant to:
(e) if subparagraph (a)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) applies--the work-related business, functions or duties of the employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder or self-employed individual concerned; or
(f) if subparagraph (a)(vi) applies--the office or position concerned; or
(g) if subparagraph (a)(vii) applies--the function or role concerned.
So, in other words, if I don't put a big notice on my e-commerce website saying "Don't even think about spamming these contact e-mails," I can expect to have to muck out the mailbox three times a day, as usual. Oh, wait; per the law, it will all be relevant to my business, and therefore legitimate.
Sorry, buddy. Spam is spam, no matter how it's sliced.
Heh. I'll never forget the look on his face when Mom walked over to me and said "Here! You fix it!!"
I believe that you might thinking of her relationship with Nine Inch Nails' frontman, Trent Reznor. Her summation of that pairing:
Don't we all, sometimes. Add my copy of "Dream Country" (and some Bailey's to the cocoa), and you have the ideal recipe for a Very Happy GeekWench.Obviously, you're going to want to keep your anti-virus package updated if you purchase used MP3s. (It's a good idea, anyway.) But, at least to me, it seems like the next logical step.
On a related note...
Of course, I wish that he had put in the auction description that all profits are being donated to the EFF. That kind of information (and the appropriate link) just might spread more awareness of the RIAA's tactics where it would do a great deal of good. Die-hard geeks and nerds already know what we're up against. The word needs to be spread to the Common (i.e. non-geek) Man.
- So what happens if someone mining diamonds were to challenge de Beers? de Beers would make sure that their network of retailers don't do business with that producer. They'd also release some of their capacity to temporarily drop prices. That would put that producer out of business.
It's already been done, in Australia. http://www.gem.org.au/gallery/diamond.htmWhen a diamond-bearing kimberlite pipe was discovered in Australia, DeBeers sneered. The stones were what was deemed an "unattractive muddy brown." Undeterred, the owners of the mine bought equipment, hired workers, and designed a marketing campaign for the diamonds. Peoperly cut and polished, they are anything but "muddy" or "unattractive."
The cognac colors range from the warm red-brown of good hot tea, to almost the hue of dark chocolate. They exhibit strong secondary body colors as well, such as orange and gold. The same is true for the lighter "champagne" diamonds, with the addition of secondary colors such as pink and peach. They have incredible sparkle, and don't carry the outrageous price tag of DeBeers' homogenized offerings. (And yes, there's one on my finger, so I know of what I write.)
Finally, though, the Aussies got the last laugh. Argyle started producing natural pink, purple, and even fantastically rare red diamonds, as well as a number of greens and blues. Of course, that got DeBeers' attention, and the cartel approached Ashton Mining with a partnership offer -- only to be told "thanks, but no thanks. We can manage by ourselves." Since then, auctions of rough and finished pink diamonds have brought in millions, with not a dime going into DeBeers' pockets.
Revenge may be a dish best served cold, but it's far sweeter when it's almost entirely accidental.
[sarcasm] Silly me. I'd forgotten that it's unfashionable to appreciate a tree (flower, sponge, animal) for its own sake and nothing else. [/sarcasm]
Snarky comments aside, I do hope that discoveries like this one will once again illustrate why we need to be better conservators of what is, so far, the only planet we've got.
Yes, this might - and I say that with skepticism - help identify potential dropouts who need more attention. It will also identify the kids who just don't fit in, for whatever reason; but they fit the "at risk" profile. However, this is high school; no matter how secure the admins think the information is, it won't stay a secret, so long as a school allows student staffing in the office. (If the school doesn't allow that, finding out will just take longer.) Once their peers find out that a student's name is in the "dropout database," the hazing will begin in earnest.
Does this sound to anyone else like a potential recipe for school shootings?
Umm, just a WAG, but probably because Newfoundland is an island . The crossing by ferry from the mainland alone takes longer than the flight directly from Toronto to St. John's International. Then there's the drive (or train ride) time from Toronto to the coast, just to get to the ferry...
When your time is a valuable commodity, air travel usually is the cheapest, most hassle-free way to go, and certainly the quickest. The issues here are shoddy record-keeping; incompetent, underpaid security personnel who can't form an independent thought between them; and a draconian, knee-jerk, post-9/11 security policy that inconveniences the innocent and still doesn't keep banned items from being smuggled onboard the plane. And these things can happen to anyone; the fact that Mr. Mann suffered physical injury above the hassle-driven headache that most of us suffer during flying these days just adds to the insult.
He had a great "business model": he would approach another kid, invariably one who was smaller than him, and say "I heard you were talking about me behind my back. So, you're gonna bring me a dollar tomorrow, or I'm gonna beat you up and take your lunch money every day for a whole week." After the first demonstration of his willingness to enforce the demand, the threatened kids paid up.
This seems to me to be nothing more than a refinement of the same tactic: pay up, or We the Corporation will proceeed to make your life an absolute hell. Most people will cough up the cash, because no matter how good their lawyer migh be, the corporation has deeper pockets and near-infinate patience. Just like Mr. Sosa in the article, people have wives, kids, careers, and mortgages that they do not want to see threatened by a huge legal judgement, lawyer's fees, and the stigma of defending one's self against the accusation of an illegal activity. Compared to everything that a potential defendant has to lose, $3500 usually looks like a bargain. The lawsuits are unethical as can be, because DirecTV clearly does not give a tinker's damn about the guilt or innocence of the accused parties.
Sadly, this pattern of abuse will continue until DirecTV meets up with a proverbial Mouse that Roared. Just like the schoolyard bully. What happened to him, you ask? Let's just say that he never expected to get his lights punched out by a geeky girl.
*buffs nails on shirt and walks away whistling*
My sisters and I were not raised in an completely unorthodox manner; we also had dolls, stuffed animals, and suchlike. I won't speak for my sisters, but I always found such things boring after a while, because there's only so much that you can do with them. (I feel I should point out that one sister is now in med school, and the other had a BS, and is looking forward to grad school.) Our family puts a lot of stock in varied interests, and none of us got the message "you have to act X way, or boys won't like you" from our parents. We grew up to be fairly independent and strong-willed; but as a consequence, none of us had an active social calendar.
The problem, as I see it, is that boys and young men are taught to ignore, if not outright torment, girls and young women who show any sign of intellectual achievement. Cheerleaders will ooh and aah over you and make you feel like a stud; a girl who reads all of the time proably has other things on her mind than playing trophy. Girls learn early on to downplay their intelligence; if you want a social life, act like an airhead, and keep your interests in robotics and biology to yourself. ;-)
Most women out there aren't airheads, but it's a game that they're accustomed to playing. (The ones who time and again go for abusive jackasses have specific issues that I won't go into here, as it's a different can of worms.) My point is, the majority of women act in accordance with the role they've been told is necessary to attract male attention. Don't be too smart. Obsess about being thin and "pretty". Guys won't like you if you are intelligent, outspoken, and have a realistic figure. Women are to blame for buying into this, sure; but the guys who perpetuate this myth by their behavior are just as much at fault. There's a certain amount of reciprocity involved: I've never gotten involved with anyone who didn't value me as a thinking being. My theory is this (and it isn't directed at you; it's a general statement): if you want to find an intelligent woman, let the women around you know that you value their smarts along with everything else, and see if their IQs don't suddenly improve.