Re:Falling on it's own improbability
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
it falls flat on it's face from the sheer impossiblity of a) managing to register and tattoing everyone without someone noticing
Did the article mention tatooing?
I'm sure it's a bureaucrats wet dream to know everything about everyone
I doub't it. Imagine the forms he'd have to fill out!
Anywho, though, I'm not sure I see any real evidence to show this is impossible, either. Certainly it is theoretically quite possible; such a scale of data management is no big feat compared to some, and there are indeed government programs which approximate this close enough to make it somewhat more believable than the claims of those who say we never landed on the moon (or that there is no moon).
Bear in mind programs like Total Information Awareness (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness to try and dispell some of the fear raised by the notion of a program led by John Poindexter of Iran-contra fame designed to gather as much information on as many American's activities as possible), CAPS (the airline flight risk profiler which is, admittedly, fairly ineffectual), and so forth. Are all of these bad? No, probably not. Is there a great potential for misuse? Absolutely.
I believe it is this case with blood donations now, with the American Red Cross (or perhaps other private blood-banks; I'm not sure which).
I don't think the analogy to private fire services is fair; it is not a monetary donation being requested. Sure, ideally we could help everybody, regardless of their own desire to help others or their own hypocrisy in regards to donations, but that just isn't the case.
I personally am afraid of needles, and have never given blood. On the other hand, were I to need it, it would be fairly hypocritical of me to think I deserve preference. If the ability to get preference can be used as incentive to promote donation (and it certainly does motivate me to want to give), I see no harm.
This is much closer, then, to an anlogy of a volunteer fire service which goes first to the homes of volunteer members. First, but not only.
And of course there are plenty of people who choose not to send the crash report to MS, or, even more likely, do not (*gasp*) have always-on-connections and cannot send the report to MS. The vast majority, for all we know, go unreported. This is, after all, hardly an accurate means of statistical sampling.
I'm all in favor of privacy, but this is pure lunacy. It is entirely up to the end-user to accept cookies. The only reasons end users may feel they do not have a choice are that their browsers are configured by default to accept them and a few (not many) pages require cookies to work.
So, if they really wanted to mix it up, they'd order the browsers to have them off by default (or ask the user on their first run) and make sure websites don't need them to function. But requiring them to get consent is silly. Cookies are an essential part of web design, misused, for sure, but I can misuse images or session headers or the REFERER field in HTTP/1.1 to track someone as well. Government should not be legislating technology, when possible, be it for corporate gain or perceived consumer safety.
And forcing the ISP to give out information is what this and the Verizon cases are about. But the parent post appeared to hink logging the IP address was a violation of privacy, that there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when conducting communication on the Internet.
By that logic, couldn't you just pop off to the store real quick and grab the CDs if you get nailed? It'd be a lot cheaper than a protracted legal battle.
Alas, if you check out the MP3.com case, I don't think the courts will accept that.
As much as I am a fan of my privacy, you are mistaken to state that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy from the recipient of the source IP address in any Internet communication. In other words, if I connect to a webserver, I can hardly accuse them to be violating my privacy for logging my IP address.
Since the nature of "sharing" on Kazaa is one of offering your files to anyone who may care to download them, including the RIAA and their agents, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is not breaking and entering to find out your identity. This is logging the IP address of a computer, at the behest of its owner, offering up files to anyone and everyone.
This is the digital equivalent of them marking down the license plate number of someone with a bumper sticker that says, "THUG FOR HIRE." Or something like that.
Statistically, you or your family members are far more likely to be shot with your own gun than with that of a crack addled burglar. But no one ever said the NRA cared about logic.
By the way, how is the gun a "basic human right"? Guaranteed by our Constitution? Perhaps. Fundamental and inviolable? Certainly not.
If guns are merely tools, what makes them a basic human right and not hammers or screw drivers? And if they're so fundamental, why are we just about the only, if not the only, industrialized nation to approve their widespread use? Are we the only haven of liberty left in the world? Or have we gone astray?
I am aware there is no "three guns a month" law. That's because it was staunchly opposed by the NRA. My question was not, "why do you guys not support the existing three guns per month law," but rather, "why do you fight over every little regulation which really does not impact your legitimate gun usage at all but does limit that of psychopaths and criminals?"
As for registration with the FBI; my car has a unique VIN number on all parts of it. Suggest fingerprinting guns and the NRA nuts get upset over--what? The possibility that if they shoot someone, the bullets will be tracked to them? I thought they only defended legitimate usage anyway, that shooting a burglar in the act was an act of courage and heroism! So why would you not want the shooting tracked to you? How else will you claim your medal?
My photo, height, weight, address, prior criminal record, prior driving record, birth, social security number, residence, and so forth, are all available with the swipe of my driver's license. Does a gun license even have a bar code?
Many cars contain GPS systems, electronic locks, "black box" data recorders, and the like, to prevent unauthorized use and to track legitimate use. Suggest mandatory trigger locks and NRA nuts say it will prevent them from being able to quick-draw and shoot burglars on sight.
If I screw up with my car, it goes on my record; if I do something serious enough (or often enough), I have to go through retraining and risk losing my license. Now, I know you are going to say, "well, with a gun, if I shoot someone, I face risks, too." That's correct, but, in fact, there are regulations concerning non-criminal misuse of a car. If you accidentally discharge your gun into your foot--something the NRA are quite good at doing metaphorically, at least--are there repurcussions?
With a car, if I use it drunk, I then may face having an electronic breath-tester installed. If I have a history of using a gun drunk--non-criminally, mind you--do I face the same consequences? In other words, is the crime misuse of a gun itself, even if I was lucky enough not to hurt anyone?
With a care, I must have insurance to cover any injuries I may accidentally inflict. Do I need to have insurance for my gun use?
With a car, use is strictly regulated. I am told where I can operate, how I can operate, how much training I must have before I can operate. I am strictly liable for anything stupid I do while operating my car. Information is retained and collected; with EZPass, closed-circuit camers, GPS, license data, and so forth, my driving patters, past criminal behavior, medical history, family history, and whether I am a good citizen are all immediately evailable. Guns are, despite your claim, far, far more laisse fair.
I'm not capable of taking up the challenge of liberty, eh?
Let's look at this from a standpoint just a tad more grounded in facts. You say that only the majority vote of the people have the right to take away the individual liberties of the people. Two problems with that argument: first, this is not a democracy; it's a republic. There are specific safeguards in place to avoid what Jefferson, if I'm not mistaken, referred to as the tyranny of the majority. You yourself would probably cite those safeguards, including the Second Amendment, as specific inalienable rights which are unaffected by all but the most overwhelming of majorities modifying the Constitution. Second, if you do want to go by the majority, tough break for you. The majority of American's favor tougher gun control; believe it or not, despite their loud voices, the NRA are actually in the minority.
You don't seem to realize that there is a middle ground between anarchism and totalitarianism; the mere fact that I am not a Libertarian does not lable me a fascist. We make compromises on all issues of government to balance the multiple interests, both personal and societal, at stake. That does not lable us sellouts who are incapable of taking up the challenge of liberty.
We have photoids and licenses for automobiles, and a lot more people benefit from their use than from guns. We have greater monitoring and accountability for their use, and far greater restrictions to get a license, even though in many parts of the US cars are critical to our freedom of movement. We have strict crackdowns on the use of "illicit" drugs, even though their use is statistically far less dangerous for others than that of handguns. We crack down on encryption technology even though it serves a significant legitimate purpose of protecting anonymous speech, which the Supreme Court has defended as a critical component of our First Amendment rights.
All of you gun-nuts think the gob'mint is going to come grab your precious shotgun and then you'll have nothing to keep the IRS man away with. Cut me a fucking break (yes, I know this isn't an appropriate level of discourse, and I apologize--I'm tired, both physically and metaphorically). All "fundamental freedoms" crucial to our freedom, even the very essence of our freedom, our right to individuality, free thought, and free expression, takes its limits. Such is the nature of living in a society; we are not anarchists, and the rights of the individual to do whatever the fuck he wants do not always take precedence over what is best for society as a whole.
Hell, the government has the right to send me off to war to kill people I don't have anything against or to die for some rich old man to get a little richer. So what if you can't buy the biggest, baddest gun you want? (Seriously, why do people get angry at laws restricting them to three guns per month? Is that not enough around Christmass? And should we really allow people to buy anti-aircraft guns or shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles?)
"If you can't keep crack and heroin away from people, what makes you think you can keep ammunition off the black market?"
It's a lot harder to mass-produce reliable ammunition than it is heroin. Or so I'd suspect. No being a drug dealer or gun-nut, I wouldn't precisely know.
Whether or not I want to get involvd in such a debate I am not sure. That said, I do have a couple of questions for you.
First, to address your sarcastic comment that "I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally". Aside from the obvious comment, vis-a-vis your coke dealing cousin, which is "get that boy off the streets," I'm a tad curious why you and those like you assocaite gun ownership with explicit safety. Statistically, you are far more likely to be shot by your own gun, or to shoot someone accidentally or in a heated argument, than you are to use it successfully to defend yourself against a thief, rapist, or ego-maniacal tyrant (I don't think the Secret Service would let you get close enough to Bush for that last one, anyway). I'm sure you think those statistics are about untrained amateurs who don't know how to use their guns, or perhaps you think they're about redneck drunks who come home and beat their wives, but they're not. Gun ownership leads to elevated risk.
Second, in regards to your commends on the Constitution, it never ceases to amaze me that many groups--and it's hardly fair for me to assume that your politics are such a way just because you are pro-gun--insist on a literalist interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to gun ownership, but on other issues are perfectly willin to compromise. The moral of the story is that literalist interpretations of the Constitution of the sort Justice Scalia is an advocate of don't make sense. By a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, wiretaps without a search warrant are legal, as is remote electronic surveillance or satellite tracking. Are you a fan of those activities? I certainly am not.
In comparison, an attempt at "translation," to quote Lawrence Lessig, in order to apply the goals and intentions of the authors of the Constitution effectively to changing circumstances, allows us more than just a dead piece of paper, instead, we can follow the living and applied ideals. Nobody benefits from trying to follow laws to the letter as they were written centuries ago. Our "founding fathers," no matter how wise or intelligent, did not always predict the ways in which society may change. But the answer is not to pretend society is not changed and insist on applying laws the way they were written. Instead, we must preserve the ideals by changing the application, for it is the ideals, not the phrasing, which are truly important.
Re:Why are they running Windows then?
on
Can .NET Really Scale?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think you're missing the point. First, nobody said he wasn't smart enough. He was
just comparing options. My point was that the comparison is worth making; there is no
valid way to say, "OSS is always better and cheaper."
Furthermore, and I don't know much about.NET, he was also looking for an SQL
backend. You mention "Linux, apache, PHP, whatever" and "some servlet engine, jsp,
etc" without seeming to really understand a couple of crucial points: the "Java one"
would still need an OS and webserver, and all three still need a database server.
Really fancy, high-volume DB servers such as Oracle cost a lot. So then we end up
comparing, say, MySQL, MSSQL, mSQL, and PostgreSQL? Or Perl, PHP, ASP, and
JSP/servelets? I'm sure I'll get flamed by zealots, but those aren't always easy
comparisons.
Write it off as ignorance if you like. It doesn't sound like you're a professional in
this field. But so what if he is ignorant? That was my point; if he is best with MS,
it's not going to be profitable for him or his client for him to be mucking about
with Unix instead.
As for the amount of money you'd save, well, I already commented on that. Sometimes
the figures aren't necessarily what they may appear to be; the initial layout is
certainly greater with commercialware, but support, time spent on maintainance and
deployment, and so forth, is sometimes a lot less.
Re:Why are they running Windows then?
on
Can .NET Really Scale?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Based on what?
A) This consultant, it sounds like, is largely or exclusively MS. He's not going to suggest Open Source software to his client because that will mean a loss in business. You can hardly blame him; you gotta go with what you know.
B) Oftentimes a commercial solution to some problems exists where a free one does not. The cost of development and maintanance means that the balance is not strictly in terms of free and non-free; after all, your developers' time costs quite a bit as well and home-grown or open source solutions may need more time taken in administration.
This is a pretty complex issue; different analyses have been done with different results. I myself am partial to Open Source, but this does not mean that the obvious answer is, "Hey, go Open Source! It's free!" Get real.
I recently configured Samhain (a Tripwire-esque host-based IDS) and one of the suggestions, which I found pretty cool, was create a file such as/etc/safe_passwd. Set Samhain to log any access attempts, and see what happens.
Sure it is. The example he should have used was hashed passwords, shadow password files, etc. Obviously, you would hope that malicious users don't get on your system. Assuming it's a single-user system, password hashing, in theory, would be unnecessary if you were sure you'd never be intruded. The point behind the hashing is that if someone downloads the passwd file, he does not immediately get your password.
In newer machines, there is even a shadow file so that even if he gets user-level access, he cannot access the hashed passwords. Just another layer.
Security is often--indeed, type "man security" on a FreeBSD box for this very analogy--referred to as "onion skin" layers of protection upon protection, defense upon defense. This does not seem to be much of a new idea.
I don't think so. The benefits of logging (detecting unauthorized or illegal use such as spam, computer vandalism, abuse, or trespass, and preventing other more heinous activity) far outweigh, for most ISPs, the minor inconvenience of dealing with a few occasional subpeonas, I would think. Hundreds or thousands of letters are sent, certainly, but not nearly as many cases of user information requests happen.
Granted that Verizon was willing to spend quite a lot in a protracted legal battle, but I think they'd be more willing to do that then stop logging. There really is a huge incentive for ISPs to log, even if they no longer charge by the hour.
Actually, the monopolies exist on cable but not on telephone lines. The laws in regards to telephone lines, as I understand it, actually require the line owners to share the lines with other companies--originally with the purpose of enhancing telephone network inter-call-ability. Since these laws apply to DSL providors and the like, you can get, say, Earthlink DSL through Verizon lines.
In comparison, the cable TV companies were granted regional monopolies, which still apply to cable ISPs, so there is very little competition in that arena. Which is why DSL is more socially responsible than cable.
Presumably it wouldn't be a big leap for a spammer to put a few banner ads or popups on the site. Then he'd be making money off of you, and wouldn't mind at all.
Contrary to what you say--and you at least have the honesty to say it largely without needless rhetoric--the need for multi-billion-dollar aircraft carriers is almost purely political, not military.
Post-Cold-War, there simply aren't any enemies which require that kind of firepower. The need--as Dukakis, of all people, contended during the 1992 Presidential campaign (which resulted in him being labeled "weak on defense" by Bush, Sr.)--is not for newer, bigger, more powerful weapons, but for more smaller, faster, easier to deploy weapons. The wars we are likely--all too likely, it seems, if certain people in power stay in power--to be fighting are not wars against similarly armed and equipped opponents, but rather smaller, shorter surgical strikes.
Dukakis was in fact right; he called for more tanks and fewer expensive defense projects, and it turned out later that we were, in fact, relatively short on tanks. Perhaps an aircraft carrier does have some greater use than, say, nuclear submarines (I remember reading not so long ago about a new defense contract granted in, oh, maybe Virginia to build a new something-or-other-very-large-class nuclear sub despite the Pentagon saying they don't need it, because the Honorable Senator in question felt his constituency would benefit from the contract), but I doubt the current ones are insufficient.
Not to mention where else defense money in general could be spent--10% of the US's defense budget could provide fresh drinking water for everyone in the world who doesn't have it, according to the UN. I'm sure that'd do a lot to ease anti-American sentiment. Or we could spend it domestically, and give that money directly to social programs to help the poor who supposedly benefit from the increased jobs defense contracts bring, instead of giving it to rich industrialists with close ties to those in power and hoping they spread it around a bit.
As for losing the skills that go into producing an aircraft carrier, well, I don't erally see why you think this is going to happen. We have books. We have other means of recording information for posterity. And the current carriers aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But, if we eventually loose the need to produce billion-dollar machines of war and destruction, I don't really see that as a bad thing. That, not more efficient means of killing, is human progress.
Plus, they needed a motive for the murder. I'm totally willing to accept certain things as given for the sake of the plot. I was being a tad facetious, but I really did think that was a particularly silly comment, and I strongly dislike Steven Spielberg.
"[Minority Report] is highly regarded for its accuracy in projecting what life will be like in 2054 as all objects and gadgets featured in the film have very real foundations in existing technologies."
Yeah. Existing technologies. Especially the part about the coked-out siblings who see the future through disturbances created by murders in the metaphysical plane. I bet Spielberg really researched that one, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Did the article mention tatooing?
I'm sure it's a bureaucrats wet dream to know everything about everyone
I doub't it. Imagine the forms he'd have to fill out!
Anywho, though, I'm not sure I see any real evidence to show this is impossible, either. Certainly it is theoretically quite possible; such a scale of data management is no big feat compared to some, and there are indeed government programs which approximate this close enough to make it somewhat more believable than the claims of those who say we never landed on the moon (or that there is no moon).
Bear in mind programs like Total Information Awareness (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness to try and dispell some of the fear raised by the notion of a program led by John Poindexter of Iran-contra fame designed to gather as much information on as many American's activities as possible), CAPS (the airline flight risk profiler which is, admittedly, fairly ineffectual), and so forth. Are all of these bad? No, probably not. Is there a great potential for misuse? Absolutely.
I don't think the analogy to private fire services is fair; it is not a monetary donation being requested. Sure, ideally we could help everybody, regardless of their own desire to help others or their own hypocrisy in regards to donations, but that just isn't the case.
I personally am afraid of needles, and have never given blood. On the other hand, were I to need it, it would be fairly hypocritical of me to think I deserve preference. If the ability to get preference can be used as incentive to promote donation (and it certainly does motivate me to want to give), I see no harm.
This is much closer, then, to an anlogy of a volunteer fire service which goes first to the homes of volunteer members. First, but not only.
And of course there are plenty of people who choose not to send the crash report to MS, or, even more likely, do not (*gasp*) have always-on-connections and cannot send the report to MS. The vast majority, for all we know, go unreported. This is, after all, hardly an accurate means of statistical sampling.
So, if they really wanted to mix it up, they'd order the browsers to have them off by default (or ask the user on their first run) and make sure websites don't need them to function. But requiring them to get consent is silly. Cookies are an essential part of web design, misused, for sure, but I can misuse images or session headers or the REFERER field in HTTP/1.1 to track someone as well. Government should not be legislating technology, when possible, be it for corporate gain or perceived consumer safety.
I hope you read this. Because I'd just love find out what possible connection Tom Ridge has with corrupt police officers selling drugs and weapons.
And forcing the ISP to give out information is what this and the Verizon cases are about. But the parent post appeared to hink logging the IP address was a violation of privacy, that there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when conducting communication on the Internet.
Alas, if you check out the MP3.com case, I don't think the courts will accept that.
Since the nature of "sharing" on Kazaa is one of offering your files to anyone who may care to download them, including the RIAA and their agents, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is not breaking and entering to find out your identity. This is logging the IP address of a computer, at the behest of its owner, offering up files to anyone and everyone.
This is the digital equivalent of them marking down the license plate number of someone with a bumper sticker that says, "THUG FOR HIRE." Or something like that.
Statistically, you or your family members are far more likely to be shot with your own gun than with that of a crack addled burglar. But no one ever said the NRA cared about logic.
If guns are merely tools, what makes them a basic human right and not hammers or screw drivers? And if they're so fundamental, why are we just about the only, if not the only, industrialized nation to approve their widespread use? Are we the only haven of liberty left in the world? Or have we gone astray?
As for registration with the FBI; my car has a unique VIN number on all parts of it. Suggest fingerprinting guns and the NRA nuts get upset over--what? The possibility that if they shoot someone, the bullets will be tracked to them? I thought they only defended legitimate usage anyway, that shooting a burglar in the act was an act of courage and heroism! So why would you not want the shooting tracked to you? How else will you claim your medal?
My photo, height, weight, address, prior criminal record, prior driving record, birth, social security number, residence, and so forth, are all available with the swipe of my driver's license. Does a gun license even have a bar code?
Many cars contain GPS systems, electronic locks, "black box" data recorders, and the like, to prevent unauthorized use and to track legitimate use. Suggest mandatory trigger locks and NRA nuts say it will prevent them from being able to quick-draw and shoot burglars on sight.
If I screw up with my car, it goes on my record; if I do something serious enough (or often enough), I have to go through retraining and risk losing my license. Now, I know you are going to say, "well, with a gun, if I shoot someone, I face risks, too." That's correct, but, in fact, there are regulations concerning non-criminal misuse of a car. If you accidentally discharge your gun into your foot--something the NRA are quite good at doing metaphorically, at least--are there repurcussions?
With a car, if I use it drunk, I then may face having an electronic breath-tester installed. If I have a history of using a gun drunk--non-criminally, mind you--do I face the same consequences? In other words, is the crime misuse of a gun itself, even if I was lucky enough not to hurt anyone?
With a care, I must have insurance to cover any injuries I may accidentally inflict. Do I need to have insurance for my gun use?
With a car, use is strictly regulated. I am told where I can operate, how I can operate, how much training I must have before I can operate. I am strictly liable for anything stupid I do while operating my car. Information is retained and collected; with EZPass, closed-circuit camers, GPS, license data, and so forth, my driving patters, past criminal behavior, medical history, family history, and whether I am a good citizen are all immediately evailable. Guns are, despite your claim, far, far more laisse fair.
Let's look at this from a standpoint just a tad more grounded in facts. You say that only the majority vote of the people have the right to take away the individual liberties of the people. Two problems with that argument: first, this is not a democracy; it's a republic. There are specific safeguards in place to avoid what Jefferson, if I'm not mistaken, referred to as the tyranny of the majority. You yourself would probably cite those safeguards, including the Second Amendment, as specific inalienable rights which are unaffected by all but the most overwhelming of majorities modifying the Constitution. Second, if you do want to go by the majority, tough break for you. The majority of American's favor tougher gun control; believe it or not, despite their loud voices, the NRA are actually in the minority.
You don't seem to realize that there is a middle ground between anarchism and totalitarianism; the mere fact that I am not a Libertarian does not lable me a fascist. We make compromises on all issues of government to balance the multiple interests, both personal and societal, at stake. That does not lable us sellouts who are incapable of taking up the challenge of liberty.
All of you gun-nuts think the gob'mint is going to come grab your precious shotgun and then you'll have nothing to keep the IRS man away with. Cut me a fucking break (yes, I know this isn't an appropriate level of discourse, and I apologize--I'm tired, both physically and metaphorically). All "fundamental freedoms" crucial to our freedom, even the very essence of our freedom, our right to individuality, free thought, and free expression, takes its limits. Such is the nature of living in a society; we are not anarchists, and the rights of the individual to do whatever the fuck he wants do not always take precedence over what is best for society as a whole.
Hell, the government has the right to send me off to war to kill people I don't have anything against or to die for some rich old man to get a little richer. So what if you can't buy the biggest, baddest gun you want? (Seriously, why do people get angry at laws restricting them to three guns per month? Is that not enough around Christmass? And should we really allow people to buy anti-aircraft guns or shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles?)
It's a lot harder to mass-produce reliable ammunition than it is heroin. Or so I'd suspect. No being a drug dealer or gun-nut, I wouldn't precisely know.
First, to address your sarcastic comment that "I'm glad to know that I can't buy the same kind of firearms that my coke dealing cousin can illegally". Aside from the obvious comment, vis-a-vis your coke dealing cousin, which is "get that boy off the streets," I'm a tad curious why you and those like you assocaite gun ownership with explicit safety. Statistically, you are far more likely to be shot by your own gun, or to shoot someone accidentally or in a heated argument, than you are to use it successfully to defend yourself against a thief, rapist, or ego-maniacal tyrant (I don't think the Secret Service would let you get close enough to Bush for that last one, anyway). I'm sure you think those statistics are about untrained amateurs who don't know how to use their guns, or perhaps you think they're about redneck drunks who come home and beat their wives, but they're not. Gun ownership leads to elevated risk.
Second, in regards to your commends on the Constitution, it never ceases to amaze me that many groups--and it's hardly fair for me to assume that your politics are such a way just because you are pro-gun--insist on a literalist interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to gun ownership, but on other issues are perfectly willin to compromise. The moral of the story is that literalist interpretations of the Constitution of the sort Justice Scalia is an advocate of don't make sense. By a literalist interpretation of the Constitution, wiretaps without a search warrant are legal, as is remote electronic surveillance or satellite tracking. Are you a fan of those activities? I certainly am not.
In comparison, an attempt at "translation," to quote Lawrence Lessig, in order to apply the goals and intentions of the authors of the Constitution effectively to changing circumstances, allows us more than just a dead piece of paper, instead, we can follow the living and applied ideals. Nobody benefits from trying to follow laws to the letter as they were written centuries ago. Our "founding fathers," no matter how wise or intelligent, did not always predict the ways in which society may change. But the answer is not to pretend society is not changed and insist on applying laws the way they were written. Instead, we must preserve the ideals by changing the application, for it is the ideals, not the phrasing, which are truly important.
Furthermore, and I don't know much about .NET, he was also looking for an SQL
backend. You mention "Linux, apache, PHP, whatever" and "some servlet engine, jsp,
etc" without seeming to really understand a couple of crucial points: the "Java one"
would still need an OS and webserver, and all three still need a database server.
Really fancy, high-volume DB servers such as Oracle cost a lot. So then we end up
comparing, say, MySQL, MSSQL, mSQL, and PostgreSQL? Or Perl, PHP, ASP, and
JSP/servelets? I'm sure I'll get flamed by zealots, but those aren't always easy
comparisons.
Write it off as ignorance if you like. It doesn't sound like you're a professional in this field. But so what if he is ignorant? That was my point; if he is best with MS, it's not going to be profitable for him or his client for him to be mucking about with Unix instead.
As for the amount of money you'd save, well, I already commented on that. Sometimes the figures aren't necessarily what they may appear to be; the initial layout is certainly greater with commercialware, but support, time spent on maintainance and deployment, and so forth, is sometimes a lot less.
A) This consultant, it sounds like, is largely or exclusively MS. He's not going to suggest Open Source software to his client because that will mean a loss in business. You can hardly blame him; you gotta go with what you know.
B) Oftentimes a commercial solution to some problems exists where a free one does not. The cost of development and maintanance means that the balance is not strictly in terms of free and non-free; after all, your developers' time costs quite a bit as well and home-grown or open source solutions may need more time taken in administration.
This is a pretty complex issue; different analyses have been done with different results. I myself am partial to Open Source, but this does not mean that the obvious answer is, "Hey, go Open Source! It's free!" Get real.
Nothing new under the sun.
In newer machines, there is even a shadow file so that even if he gets user-level access, he cannot access the hashed passwords. Just another layer.
Security is often--indeed, type "man security" on a FreeBSD box for this very analogy--referred to as "onion skin" layers of protection upon protection, defense upon defense. This does not seem to be much of a new idea.
Granted that Verizon was willing to spend quite a lot in a protracted legal battle, but I think they'd be more willing to do that then stop logging. There really is a huge incentive for ISPs to log, even if they no longer charge by the hour.
In comparison, the cable TV companies were granted regional monopolies, which still apply to cable ISPs, so there is very little competition in that arena. Which is why DSL is more socially responsible than cable.
Presumably it wouldn't be a big leap for a spammer to put a few banner ads or popups on the site. Then he'd be making money off of you, and wouldn't mind at all.
Post-Cold-War, there simply aren't any enemies which require that kind of firepower. The need--as Dukakis, of all people, contended during the 1992 Presidential campaign (which resulted in him being labeled "weak on defense" by Bush, Sr.)--is not for newer, bigger, more powerful weapons, but for more smaller, faster, easier to deploy weapons. The wars we are likely--all too likely, it seems, if certain people in power stay in power--to be fighting are not wars against similarly armed and equipped opponents, but rather smaller, shorter surgical strikes.
Dukakis was in fact right; he called for more tanks and fewer expensive defense projects, and it turned out later that we were, in fact, relatively short on tanks. Perhaps an aircraft carrier does have some greater use than, say, nuclear submarines (I remember reading not so long ago about a new defense contract granted in, oh, maybe Virginia to build a new something-or-other-very-large-class nuclear sub despite the Pentagon saying they don't need it, because the Honorable Senator in question felt his constituency would benefit from the contract), but I doubt the current ones are insufficient.
Not to mention where else defense money in general could be spent--10% of the US's defense budget could provide fresh drinking water for everyone in the world who doesn't have it, according to the UN. I'm sure that'd do a lot to ease anti-American sentiment. Or we could spend it domestically, and give that money directly to social programs to help the poor who supposedly benefit from the increased jobs defense contracts bring, instead of giving it to rich industrialists with close ties to those in power and hoping they spread it around a bit.
As for losing the skills that go into producing an aircraft carrier, well, I don't erally see why you think this is going to happen. We have books. We have other means of recording information for posterity. And the current carriers aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But, if we eventually loose the need to produce billion-dollar machines of war and destruction, I don't really see that as a bad thing. That, not more efficient means of killing, is human progress.
Plus, they needed a motive for the murder. I'm totally willing to accept certain things as given for the sake of the plot. I was being a tad facetious, but I really did think that was a particularly silly comment, and I strongly dislike Steven Spielberg.
Yeah. Existing technologies. Especially the part about the coked-out siblings who see the future through disturbances created by murders in the metaphysical plane. I bet Spielberg really researched that one, too.