Fingerprint scanners (if used) should only be one part of the login/data access. It should always be followed up with a PIN/Password. Now you have two factor, what you have and what you know. So if what you have is compromised, you still cannot get in. AND you put tighter restrictions on what you know. Mistype password twice, account locked out..
The problem with terrorism and what freaked everyone out is that there is a sense of no personal control. If I kill myself by putting on my socks, everyone says "that's a shame but he shouldn't have been trying to balance himself at the edge of the tub, what nonsense." It's that 'you can be dead at any time through absolutely no fault of your own' thing that gets people going. That idea spills over to research in many areas (preventable diseases like AIDS have historically received less funding than non-preventable like Cancer - although recently that is changing.)
For some reason, that line of thinking doesn't carry forward to other areas. We all understand implicitly that you can be sitting at home and a single engine plane crashes into your house (seems to happen every so often here in the states) and you're gone. Or a bridge can collapse underneath you. We say it's terrible but it doesn't stop our lives like terrorism. My only guess is that we know that the random death is not preventable, so we don't dwell on it. Like winning a morbid lottery.
Our leaders are trying to convince us that 'random deaths from terrorism' are both not preventable (so spend lots of money on it) and preventable (let us intrude into every aspect of your lives) to push their agendas. To keep that contradiction going they have to remind us that we are alive through their efforts (with random busts which later turn out to be nothing at all) thus making them the 'daily medication for our disease' and they constantly warn us that something will happen again and it's not stoppable (be prepared for side effects.)
Forbes: "Look at all these places that will provide you with content. This site has movies, this one has music, this one has tv shows."
TPB: "Look at all these places that will provide you with content. These torrents are sharing movies, this one has music, this one has tv."
Neither one is providing the actual content directly. Both are making their money off of adverts. Forbes may be worst since they are providing a metadirectory of several sites under the guise of "information" whereas TPB are at least honest about their operation.
"Educational purposes" doesn't hold water. Imagine a news publication posting an article like "don't go to the corner of 9th and mission, don't ask for steve, and don't ask for his special which he will provide for free because it's wrong." If Forbes believes this behavior is wrong, they really shouldn't be giving you the URL to the sites. Perhaps they did it on purpose because the author really doesn't consider it to be wrong.
I'd like to see the same "protections" that are apparently extended to Forbes for publishing an article like this extended to TPB since they are essentially the same things (in this very specific instance.)
Okay, TPB doesn't host any pirated content, it merely points to pirated content. The *AA contends that's still bad. Whatever....
But what about Forbes? They just told me about all these other sites I didn't know about. Forbes just provided me a directory to illegal content. Doesn't that open them up to lawsuits? Journalistic freedoms don't apply when aiding a "crime?"
A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car -- in 1997...
May, as well, have "Real ID"...
This is actually a interesting thing. States have treaties with other states to get this kind of information. Chances are Massachusetts has an information sharing treaty with New Hampshire, but Georgia may not have a treaty with California. So a ticket there wouldn't necessarily show up on your CA license, but your insurance company may still see it if they have offices in both states.
But, as states negotiate treaties, the information becomes available and they match it up and send you letters for collection and/or suspension (sometimes many, many years later.) How do they negotiate these things? No idea. More than likely a chance to get at the other's dabase for revenue collection....
Like most of the comments here, I really don't care if the movie has gone through a bit of a digital touchup as long as it's not obvious.
But the deeper question many studios will soon be asking is why should I pay for a Cruise or a Connelly? If I can get someone off the street that does a 'pretty good job' and touch it up in post, that's a potential cost savings of millions of dollars. As actors demand more money, studios may have the ultimate rebuff. It may take a decade or two, but the day of the big name actor may be on the way out.
Also, what impact does this have on awards? Should an actor that's gone through this digital touchup be allowed to compete against those that haven't? Is this the movie version of steroids?
I received the same punishment, straight to the room, programming the rest of the day.
Years later I was talking to my mother about it. In her wisdom she pointed out the goal was not to make my life miserable but to redirect some of my wasted energy into something more productive like programming. So I was in my bedroom programming. Fun for me, kept me out of trouble and trained me for my job today. Exactly what a proper punishment should do.
Simply copyright the next logical progression of the stats. Player X hit 10 home runs this season, copyright number 11 and license it back to the player and the league for one million dollars (insert evil laugh.)
Just think, the next time Bonds hits a home run, he could owe you....
Securing the Windows PC isn't as hard as it sounds.
1. Turn on Internet Connection Firewall, close all ports (duh!) 2. Turn on Windows Auto Update 3. Change the Administrator user name 4. Change the Administrator password (don't give it to mom and dad.) 5. Create a user for mom and dad. DO NOT make that user an administrator or power user. That alone will ensure that they can't install software. 6. Use a Local Policy to disable ActiveX/Java/Flash (you can leave flash alone if you like.) 7. Install a virus scanner.
Doing these simple things will ensure the PC stays spyware/virus free. It's easy and the whole thing should take less than 20 minutes.
Optionally:
8. If you want to give your family the ability to install software, you can create a superuser icon that they would have to click to start the install. 9. Use TweakUI to provide an auto-login - since the user can't do anything anymore, that shouldn't hurt (make sure remote desktop is disabled for that user.) 10. Remove Run from the start menu. Remove Control Panel from the start menu. 11. Grant the user read-only rights to Program Files (this may break some apps that store temp files in their directory.) 12. Turn off Auto-CD insert (apps won't install anyway, but no reason to have an error reported.) 13. You could remove Outlook/Outlook Express and replace it with some other mail client. (At the very least, run the latest versions of Outlook XP/2003.) 13. Sit back and listen to the phone not ring. ---
Yep. Additionally read the Terms of Service for your provider.
I hated Sprint. It stopped working in my apartment which was most problematic as I was using it as my primary phone. They were most understanding (Gee, that sucks...)
I was able to use the Terms of Service against them b/c they changed it within the previous month and there was a non-acceptance clause which gave me an out without a cancellation fee.
Taken from the Sprint ToS page: ...
Terms and Conditions of Services
Effective as of November 24, 2003 until replaced ...
If we change a material term of the Agreement and that change has a material adverse effect on you, you may terminate the Agreement without an early termination fee by calling 1-888-211-4727 within 30 days after the invoice date of the first invoice your receive after the changes go into effect. ...
Now I don't know what constitutes a material adverse effect, but I bet if you holler loud enough you can get out. It worked for me.
Exactly. The games do not create violent people, but one can see how an already violent person may be attracted to violent games.
The question that must be answered is, Do violent games cause violent people to behave more violently, or does it actually calm them down?
IMHO, I think that the games could be therapeutic for the majority of people, it's just that last.01% that's already soo screwed up they're just waitin' to go off.
Slashdot Mirror
Fingerprint scanners (if used) should only be one part of the login/data access. It should always be followed up with a PIN/Password. Now you have two factor, what you have and what you know. So if what you have is compromised, you still cannot get in. AND you put tighter restrictions on what you know. Mistype password twice, account locked out..
Bet the damn thing is wiped down every night. A slow sanding by terrycloth...
Let me start off by saying I do agree with you.
The problem with terrorism and what freaked everyone out is that there is a sense of no personal control. If I kill myself by putting on my socks, everyone says "that's a shame but he shouldn't have been trying to balance himself at the edge of the tub, what nonsense." It's that 'you can be dead at any time through absolutely no fault of your own' thing that gets people going. That idea spills over to research in many areas (preventable diseases like AIDS have historically received less funding than non-preventable like Cancer - although recently that is changing.)
For some reason, that line of thinking doesn't carry forward to other areas. We all understand implicitly that you can be sitting at home and a single engine plane crashes into your house (seems to happen every so often here in the states) and you're gone. Or a bridge can collapse underneath you. We say it's terrible but it doesn't stop our lives like terrorism. My only guess is that we know that the random death is not preventable, so we don't dwell on it. Like winning a morbid lottery.
Our leaders are trying to convince us that 'random deaths from terrorism' are both not preventable (so spend lots of money on it) and preventable (let us intrude into every aspect of your lives) to push their agendas. To keep that contradiction going they have to remind us that we are alive through their efforts (with random busts which later turn out to be nothing at all) thus making them the 'daily medication for our disease' and they constantly warn us that something will happen again and it's not stoppable (be prepared for side effects.)
Business Process:
Suing companies for violating patents.
"Oh I'm sorry, your suing of company x violates our patent, we will now sue you."
Forbes: "Look at all these places that will provide you with content. This site has movies, this one has music, this one has tv shows."
TPB: "Look at all these places that will provide you with content. These torrents are sharing movies, this one has music, this one has tv."
Neither one is providing the actual content directly. Both are making their money off of adverts. Forbes may be worst since they are providing a metadirectory of several sites under the guise of "information" whereas TPB are at least honest about their operation.
"Educational purposes" doesn't hold water. Imagine a news publication posting an article like "don't go to the corner of 9th and mission, don't ask for steve, and don't ask for his special which he will provide for free because it's wrong." If Forbes believes this behavior is wrong, they really shouldn't be giving you the URL to the sites. Perhaps they did it on purpose because the author really doesn't consider it to be wrong.
I'd like to see the same "protections" that are apparently extended to Forbes for publishing an article like this extended to TPB since they are essentially the same things (in this very specific instance.)
Okay, TPB doesn't host any pirated content, it merely points to pirated content. The *AA contends that's still bad. Whatever.... But what about Forbes? They just told me about all these other sites I didn't know about. Forbes just provided me a directory to illegal content. Doesn't that open them up to lawsuits? Journalistic freedoms don't apply when aiding a "crime?"
A New Hampshire state trooper was able to get my driving record from Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicle from his car -- in 1997...
May, as well, have "Real ID"...
This is actually a interesting thing. States have treaties with other states to get this kind of information. Chances are Massachusetts has an information sharing treaty with New Hampshire, but Georgia may not have a treaty with California. So a ticket there wouldn't necessarily show up on your CA license, but your insurance company may still see it if they have offices in both states.
But, as states negotiate treaties, the information becomes available and they match it up and send you letters for collection and/or suspension (sometimes many, many years later.) How do they negotiate these things? No idea. More than likely a chance to get at the other's dabase for revenue collection....
Really really absurd.
I personally love the message on their homepage "Software should be freetm"
TM?!
Like most of the comments here, I really don't care if the movie has gone through a bit of a digital touchup as long as it's not obvious. But the deeper question many studios will soon be asking is why should I pay for a Cruise or a Connelly? If I can get someone off the street that does a 'pretty good job' and touch it up in post, that's a potential cost savings of millions of dollars. As actors demand more money, studios may have the ultimate rebuff. It may take a decade or two, but the day of the big name actor may be on the way out. Also, what impact does this have on awards? Should an actor that's gone through this digital touchup be allowed to compete against those that haven't? Is this the movie version of steroids?
I received the same punishment, straight to the room, programming the rest of the day.
Years later I was talking to my mother about it. In her wisdom she pointed out the goal was not to make my life miserable but to redirect some of my wasted energy into something more productive like programming. So I was in my bedroom programming. Fun for me, kept me out of trouble and trained me for my job today. Exactly what a proper punishment should do.
Simply copyright the next logical progression of the stats. Player X hit 10 home runs this season, copyright number 11 and license it back to the player and the league for one million dollars (insert evil laugh.)
Just think, the next time Bonds hits a home run, he could owe you....
Is that 60% mischievous and 40% malicious, or the other way around?
Securing the Windows PC isn't as hard as it sounds.
1. Turn on Internet Connection Firewall, close all ports (duh!)
2. Turn on Windows Auto Update
3. Change the Administrator user name
4. Change the Administrator password (don't give it to mom and dad.)
5. Create a user for mom and dad. DO NOT make that user an administrator or power user. That alone will ensure that they can't install software.
6. Use a Local Policy to disable ActiveX/Java/Flash (you can leave flash alone if you like.)
7. Install a virus scanner.
Doing these simple things will ensure the PC stays spyware/virus free. It's easy and the whole thing should take less than 20 minutes.
Optionally:
8. If you want to give your family the ability to install software, you can create a superuser icon that they would have to click to start the install.
9. Use TweakUI to provide an auto-login - since the user can't do anything anymore, that shouldn't hurt (make sure remote desktop is disabled for that user.)
10. Remove Run from the start menu. Remove Control Panel from the start menu.
11. Grant the user read-only rights to Program Files (this may break some apps that store temp files in their directory.)
12. Turn off Auto-CD insert (apps won't install anyway, but no reason to have an error reported.)
13. You could remove Outlook/Outlook Express and replace it with some other mail client. (At the very least, run the latest versions of Outlook XP/2003.)
13. Sit back and listen to the phone not ring.
---
Yep. Additionally read the Terms of Service for your provider.
...
...
...
I hated Sprint. It stopped working in my apartment which was most problematic as I was using it as my primary phone. They were most understanding (Gee, that sucks...)
I was able to use the Terms of Service against them b/c they changed it within the previous month and there was a non-acceptance clause which gave me an out without a cancellation fee.
Taken from the Sprint ToS page:
Terms and Conditions of Services
Effective as of November 24, 2003 until replaced
If we change a material term of the Agreement and that change has a material adverse effect on you, you may terminate the Agreement without an early termination fee by calling 1-888-211-4727 within 30 days after the invoice date of the first invoice your receive after the changes go into effect.
Now I don't know what constitutes a material adverse effect, but I bet if you holler loud enough you can get out. It worked for me.
As always do your own research.
Exactly. The games do not create violent people, but one can see how an already violent person may be attracted to violent games. The question that must be answered is, Do violent games cause violent people to behave more violently, or does it actually calm them down? IMHO, I think that the games could be therapeutic for the majority of people, it's just that last .01% that's already soo screwed up they're just waitin' to go off.