Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?
1. Steroids are pharmaceuticals, and as such are heavily regulated. There is no constitutional protection for drugs. There is for speech, in such places that place a value on free speech. The standard is totally different.
2. With regard to sports leagues, steroids are banned *by the leagues*.
If your point is that modeling consortia should band together to ban skinny models, that would be a great step. I say this as a man who finds women who look like skeletons to be rather unattractive. Bring me healthier women any day. However, when you start talking about governments banning what people can talk about or the images they can portray, you have a different thing on your hands.
People need to get past their misogynist thinking that anorexia just means being lean.
Note that the argument about what people can talk about has nothing to do with cultural ideals of what women should/shouldn't look like, so the whole "let me justify my anti-free-speech position by declaring my opponents to be misogynist" angle isn't flying either.
I dunno. I have an HTPC and it's kinda a pain in the ass. If Apple can come out with a TV that has a built-in HD, a decent OS, and Siri, that could very well be the sweet spot for a lot of people, including me. "Siri, I'd like to watch the latest episode of Venture Brothers." Boom. Off ya go.
Alternately:
"Siri, I'd like to watch the latest episode of Venture Brothers
"...Sorry, Dave. You have exceeded the number of authorized devices for this content.
I really don't want to see Apple taking over another market that integrates content and devices. Frankly, I'd rather nobody did. I'll take standards that allow devices to interoperate over an integrated, controlled system any day.
Well, given what they could assimilate on most users, they know who you are, where you live, your medical problems, your political leanings, and your sexual orientation. I think that would give pause to anyone who is, or would ever like to be, employed.
While I don't envision them doing anything evil with that data, I can most certainly envision it being possible.
Perhaps those issues are addressed, but to be honest, it seems like one of those "sounds like a great idea" measures that will increase the amount of paperwork that people have to get their jobs done,
There does seem to be one potential advantage. If they go with open source, they don't have to fill out the paperwork, right? Seems like they shouldn't have to, anyway, since there's no point. If that's the case, call it a benefit that plays the lazy nature of your usual bureaucrat against themselves. You can get 10 machines running Fedora tomorrow, or you can file the paperwork to get your Windows boxes next month. Might make them think.
This is how to do things - beat the bureaucrats with their own damned paperwork.
What did you want, some law that lets employees print money by answering a few emails, without the company's ability to control that cost at all? Come on.
The greed doesn't stop there either. Not long ago I was a volunteer at a fairly prominent IEEE conference. The cost of attendance per person is in the $600-$1000 range.
Much of the rest of it will go to the venue costs. Running a non-profit organization isn't nearly as easy or cheap as people seem to think it is. Also, bear in mind that $600-$1000 fee is for industrial members, and that cost is intended to subsidize the student and faculty rates that are set way below break-even.
It's one thing to go after the for-profit journal companies (Wiley, Elsevier, etc), but the non-profit professional organizations are another matter. Many of them use journal and conference fees to pay for operational costs and philanthropy.
Is there any reason to believe that governments wouldn't put pressure on all OS vendors, telecom providers, etc that wanted to sell into their countries to do something like that? I'd be very surprised if very many cellphones so in the USA don't have a way in for the Feds.
The interesting bit is when they sell to one government while providing backdoors to another. I imagine the US gov is none too pleased if, while overseas, their employees are being surveilled by a US company (Apple) who provides the information to another government. RIM and Nokia are a bit of a different matter I suppose.
If I were the US government, I would require any potential telecom vendor to sign an affidavit that the devices sold have no backdoor for non-US governments, even when used in foreign countries. I would require that affadavit to be signed by an official who is a US citizen residing in the US and that violating it would be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
That goes both ways. This sounds like a fantastic facility that is often made open to the public, that is completely maintained by the members, and which they pay to use. The community benefits enormously, and from the council's comments, they know it.
But because they've got some greedy assholes in charge now, they've decided to increase the rent by a factor of 20x over 10 years. And what determines the fair market value? I'm certain the improvements made over the years, paid for by the members, are a big part of it.
The best thing would for the council to realize the benefit they gain from having a fantastic learning resource run for them for free, and subsidizing the rent - maybe an increase is fair, but not that much - is a win/win for everyone.
Yes, and placed the interests of his company ahead of his country. It would be great to see the US government display to IBM that they need to do a bit of relationship building here at home, perhaps through a complete absence of government grants or contracts in the future until they give us that sort of consideration.
I love crappy recruiters who take a list of skills and reflexively put 5 or 10 years of experience on it. My favorite is when they slap that one on a new programming language. Frequently you'll see a requirement for 5 years of experience in a technology that hasn't been around that long. I recall around 2008 I started seeing postings requiring 5 years experience in Hadoop. That's when you know you're dealing with an HR weasel who really takes the job seriously.
Right, if decades ago the inventors of the internet had realized that it would scale from 10s of users to billions. I'd say the address space length that they used still makes it outrageously overengineered for the time, and we're lucky they had the vision that they did. To criticize them is preposterous.
I say we take those rights away and let United Nations handle TLD's like...
The problem is that 'we' usually means 'somebody else'. And since the US isn't going to give that right away anytime soon, 'we' will need to have some teeth.
That, and if you think it's screwed up now, wait until the UN gets it. That'll be hilarious.
It wasn't a question as to whether it's legal. The question was whether it's a kind of crappy thing to do. If the issue was legal, he would have sent a C&D - since the issue instead was CNET's being crappy, he used public shame instead, which is the effective means of attack in that instance.
I can attest that it's being researched for numbers 1-3. Numbers 4-5 are likely but outside my field. #6 is currently unlikely as graphene is a helluvalot more expensive than copper.
For one, because if you're engaging in a "cyber attack" you wouldn't want someone else to have that much insight into what you're doing. Do you want the Eastern European thugs knowing how your stuff works? Worse, do you want to be dependent on their vector?
It makes more sense here to do it right than to piggyback. I'd also like to think that the agency that might have created these things can out-do a rag-tag bunch of European criminals.
They let the market sort it out. I might not have been the best approach from a technical point of view, but from a capitalistic point of view it was fine.
Why? I'm all about the free-market love story where supply meets demand and they live happily ever after, but that doesn't describe the cell carrier industry. You have a market where there are at most...5 participants? In a mature market where the margins are about 2%, and the barrier to market entry is measured in many billions? The 'market' doesn't solve problems under those conditions because no new entrant can jump in.
I don't tend to be a huge fan of centrally planned economies either, but I think it's important to recognize situations where the 'free' market doesn't exist and won't solve your problems. In those cases, we might benefit from some sane regulations.
Right, because fatasses are only found in America. How come when blatant insults are hurled regarding someone's nationality, they get -1 - unless it happens to be America, in which case it's +5? Really, there was absolutely *nothing* insightful about that comment.
I just bought four SanDisk USB drives, in original packaging, at Costco. I had to clean them of junk before using them. They even had autorun files and some kind of installer. Send the guy an empty drive that's really empty. That's a real gift today.
That's an especially fun gift for computer security professional. Since they'll never believe the drive is actually *empty*, you've given them a fun game where they try to figure out how you hid the malware. Everybody wins.
Yeah, but like every company, they continuously issue new shares. They obviously haven't initiated another public offering, but I imagine the executives are more than happy to keep issuing themselves additional shares every year.
Do consider that, in 2000, MSFT was still considered a growth company - I'd say that a tripling of earnings was probably baked into the price at that point. We could also consider share dilution, but I can't find stats on how the number of (split adjusted) shares increased since 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
Really... How would regulating this be any different than banning steroids in professional sports?
1. Steroids are pharmaceuticals, and as such are heavily regulated. There is no constitutional protection for drugs. There is for speech, in such places that place a value on free speech. The standard is totally different.
2. With regard to sports leagues, steroids are banned *by the leagues*.
If your point is that modeling consortia should band together to ban skinny models, that would be a great step. I say this as a man who finds women who look like skeletons to be rather unattractive. Bring me healthier women any day. However, when you start talking about governments banning what people can talk about or the images they can portray, you have a different thing on your hands.
People need to get past their misogynist thinking that anorexia just means being lean.
Note that the argument about what people can talk about has nothing to do with cultural ideals of what women should/shouldn't look like, so the whole "let me justify my anti-free-speech position by declaring my opponents to be misogynist" angle isn't flying either.
I dunno. I have an HTPC and it's kinda a pain in the ass. If Apple can come out with a TV that has a built-in HD, a decent OS, and Siri, that could very well be the sweet spot for a lot of people, including me. "Siri, I'd like to watch the latest episode of Venture Brothers." Boom. Off ya go.
Alternately:
I really don't want to see Apple taking over another market that integrates content and devices. Frankly, I'd rather nobody did. I'll take standards that allow devices to interoperate over an integrated, controlled system any day.
Well, given what they could assimilate on most users, they know who you are, where you live, your medical problems, your political leanings, and your sexual orientation. I think that would give pause to anyone who is, or would ever like to be, employed.
While I don't envision them doing anything evil with that data, I can most certainly envision it being possible.
Perhaps those issues are addressed, but to be honest, it seems like one of those "sounds like a great idea" measures that will increase the amount of paperwork that people have to get their jobs done,
There does seem to be one potential advantage. If they go with open source, they don't have to fill out the paperwork, right? Seems like they shouldn't have to, anyway, since there's no point. If that's the case, call it a benefit that plays the lazy nature of your usual bureaucrat against themselves. You can get 10 machines running Fedora tomorrow, or you can file the paperwork to get your Windows boxes next month. Might make them think.
This is how to do things - beat the bureaucrats with their own damned paperwork.
What did you want, some law that lets employees print money by answering a few emails, without the company's ability to control that cost at all? Come on.
I'd say your overgeneralizations completely prove his point.
The greed doesn't stop there either. Not long ago I was a volunteer at a fairly prominent IEEE conference. The cost of attendance per person is in the $600-$1000 range.
Perhaps some of that fee goes here:
http://www.ieee.org/membership_services/membership/students/awards/index.html
Much of the rest of it will go to the venue costs. Running a non-profit organization isn't nearly as easy or cheap as people seem to think it is. Also, bear in mind that $600-$1000 fee is for industrial members, and that cost is intended to subsidize the student and faculty rates that are set way below break-even.
It's one thing to go after the for-profit journal companies (Wiley, Elsevier, etc), but the non-profit professional organizations are another matter. Many of them use journal and conference fees to pay for operational costs and philanthropy.
Is there any reason to believe that governments wouldn't put pressure on all OS vendors, telecom providers, etc that wanted to sell into their countries to do something like that? I'd be very surprised if very many cellphones so in the USA don't have a way in for the Feds.
The interesting bit is when they sell to one government while providing backdoors to another. I imagine the US gov is none too pleased if, while overseas, their employees are being surveilled by a US company (Apple) who provides the information to another government. RIM and Nokia are a bit of a different matter I suppose.
If I were the US government, I would require any potential telecom vendor to sign an affidavit that the devices sold have no backdoor for non-US governments, even when used in foreign countries. I would require that affadavit to be signed by an official who is a US citizen residing in the US and that violating it would be subject to civil and criminal penalties.
That goes both ways. This sounds like a fantastic facility that is often made open to the public, that is completely maintained by the members, and which they pay to use. The community benefits enormously, and from the council's comments, they know it.
But because they've got some greedy assholes in charge now, they've decided to increase the rent by a factor of 20x over 10 years. And what determines the fair market value? I'm certain the improvements made over the years, paid for by the members, are a big part of it.
The best thing would for the council to realize the benefit they gain from having a fantastic learning resource run for them for free, and subsidizing the rent - maybe an increase is fair, but not that much - is a win/win for everyone.
Yes, and placed the interests of his company ahead of his country. It would be great to see the US government display to IBM that they need to do a bit of relationship building here at home, perhaps through a complete absence of government grants or contracts in the future until they give us that sort of consideration.
I love crappy recruiters who take a list of skills and reflexively put 5 or 10 years of experience on it. My favorite is when they slap that one on a new programming language. Frequently you'll see a requirement for 5 years of experience in a technology that hasn't been around that long. I recall around 2008 I started seeing postings requiring 5 years experience in Hadoop. That's when you know you're dealing with an HR weasel who really takes the job seriously.
I can confidently say no NASA money was wasted on hookers and blow, in space. yet.
Money has never been wasted on hookers and blow. Spent, yes, but not wasted.
Right, if decades ago the inventors of the internet had realized that it would scale from 10s of users to billions. I'd say the address space length that they used still makes it outrageously overengineered for the time, and we're lucky they had the vision that they did. To criticize them is preposterous.
I say we take those rights away and let United Nations handle TLD's like...
The problem is that 'we' usually means 'somebody else'. And since the US isn't going to give that right away anytime soon, 'we' will need to have some teeth.
That, and if you think it's screwed up now, wait until the UN gets it. That'll be hilarious.
It wasn't a question as to whether it's legal. The question was whether it's a kind of crappy thing to do. If the issue was legal, he would have sent a C&D - since the issue instead was CNET's being crappy, he used public shame instead, which is the effective means of attack in that instance.
I can attest that it's being researched for numbers 1-3. Numbers 4-5 are likely but outside my field. #6 is currently unlikely as graphene is a helluvalot more expensive than copper.
Who says they'd find out? All they'd know is that you used their software to open up a port.
They had pretty good control over that bad boy, and if activity happened that wasn't theirs I'd think they'd know.
If you can get someone else to do your dirty work without them realizing they're doing it, it's harder to trace back to you.
I get the deniability angle, but you can always deflect even if you did the dirty work.
For one, because if you're engaging in a "cyber attack" you wouldn't want someone else to have that much insight into what you're doing. Do you want the Eastern European thugs knowing how your stuff works? Worse, do you want to be dependent on their vector?
It makes more sense here to do it right than to piggyback. I'd also like to think that the agency that might have created these things can out-do a rag-tag bunch of European criminals.
If you do Air and Space, you want to do the one out by Dulles Airport. That's the one that has a space shuttle, Enola Gay, tons of other awesomeness.
50k to develop an app? How is that high, again?
Sounds like someone is unfamiliar with developing real budgets for real companies.
They let the market sort it out. I might not have been the best approach from a technical point of view, but from a capitalistic point of view it was fine.
Why? I'm all about the free-market love story where supply meets demand and they live happily ever after, but that doesn't describe the cell carrier industry. You have a market where there are at most...5 participants? In a mature market where the margins are about 2%, and the barrier to market entry is measured in many billions? The 'market' doesn't solve problems under those conditions because no new entrant can jump in.
I don't tend to be a huge fan of centrally planned economies either, but I think it's important to recognize situations where the 'free' market doesn't exist and won't solve your problems. In those cases, we might benefit from some sane regulations.
Right, because fatasses are only found in America. How come when blatant insults are hurled regarding someone's nationality, they get -1 - unless it happens to be America, in which case it's +5? Really, there was absolutely *nothing* insightful about that comment.
I just bought four SanDisk USB drives, in original packaging, at Costco. I had to clean them of junk before using them. They even had autorun files and some kind of installer. Send the guy an empty drive that's really empty. That's a real gift today.
That's an especially fun gift for computer security professional. Since they'll never believe the drive is actually *empty*, you've given them a fun game where they try to figure out how you hid the malware. Everybody wins.
Yeah, but like every company, they continuously issue new shares. They obviously haven't initiated another public offering, but I imagine the executives are more than happy to keep issuing themselves additional shares every year.
Do consider that, in 2000, MSFT was still considered a growth company - I'd say that a tripling of earnings was probably baked into the price at that point. We could also consider share dilution, but I can't find stats on how the number of (split adjusted) shares increased since 2000.