The stock market numbers are not the same as the economy. However, a large part of the stock market's going downhill is directly attributable to Clinton's policies, as are the current corporate scandals.
Clinton policies put unnatural and pointless restrictions on the payment of corporate officials, who then came up with other, more creative ways to attract officers, removing a large amount of their accountability to the boards of directors.
It's simple: force the situation so that they're judged on things that would be easily influenced by deceptive behavior, and they will behave deceptively.
I don't see this as a problem. I mean, it's a VERY obvious concern and nobody would release such a thing if the problems weren't solved. Think of the lawsuits!
In any case, this seems like a very simple matter to solve cryptographically. Just give a public key to the lock on your house and keep a private key on your person. Perhaps some bioidentification built in to the device would help matters further.
Yes, I believe he IS referring to the American economy, which has been speeding up.
Go read the raw data, not the newspapers. The popular press cannot STAND to report the good news and good fundamentals. The American economy's slowdown during the Clinton years has ended and we've been accelerating for a couple of years now.
Without some protection of IP there would be no desire to create IP.
One of the biggest falsehoods brandished about today. Just go look at history before these laws. Things still got done!
Now it's arguable that not as much IP would be created, but it's certainly wrong to say "no IP would be created".
After all, if nobody makes IP then nobody will profit from it. If someone makes IP and everyone gets to share it, then at least people will still profit from it, though not as much.
Perhaps it wuold be more correct to say that with looser IP laws there would be more incremental improvement as companies rely on "first to market" sales for their biggest profit margins, while stronger laws lead to more jumps in developent. Eh, there's a balance there somewhere, I'm sure.
Just because you put resources into making something does not mean it has value.
I think you have some of your reasoning backwards. If a company creates something that ends up being more valuable than the resources that went into it then they will go far. If not they won't. The value of the product is independent of the amount of resources that went into it.
In the end I say that since the industry's business model relies on artificial scarcities brought about through the IP laws, they business model is simply flawed. Since this neabs kess governmental interference into non-essential matters it's an arguably "more" libertarian POV.
Yeah, I really disagree with some of his basic premises.... he has a mistaken idea of where the country is right now, assuming it's failing at where it is right now and therefore fails in other areas.
The structures are already in place to protect the commons, people just need to enforce them.
But it has nothing to do with GPS, tracking, or privacy, then. It has to do with deceptive business practices. And yet, everyone on Slashdot is up in arms about "privacy violations".
>>> That quest for protection ends where my privacy begins. >>>
And your privacy begins at some arbitrary point set by you. What utter nonsense it would be for the line above to be considered a benchmark.
Your analogy is invalid because #1, it's their cars but your house #2, in tracking their cars they don't interfere with you, while barging into your house would quite probably interfere with your living.
So hush. Let them do what they want with their own property.
Might as well, as objective as the thread is, but...
In my personal and therefore insignificant experience, RedHat is more targeted at places with GUIs for configuration and people who want to install huge chunks of desktop software, etc.
Other distros, such as Debian, don't make these sacrifices.
I didn't read the unitedlinux thread, but in my experience I'd say Redhat has always been desktop focused. It seemed to me that they often made decisions that went in this direction.
Honestly, is there somewhere I could write and express my opinion of blocking this plate because of oversensitivity? I think this plate sounds great, and perhaps with enough people from and not from Nevada writing in criticizing the PR considerations would move the other way...
Argh. Every time I hear someone refer to 1984 I have to cringe. Then I go and look for any real content in the mention and 98% of the time there is none. This is one of those times.
You say look at 1984 to see reasons not to use smart cards... I could probably cite 100 books that have profound reasons FOR smart cards. What's your point? The book also does not provide any summary of arguments against their useage as the person you replied to requested. Mod this 1984 reply down.
1984 is an incredibly overly paranoid and entirely unrealistic book that has probably done more to slow our advancement as a society than any other book in recent memory. I really wish schools would stop teaching this thin in high school.
Unfortunately it looks to be a "slap you in the face here's what's happening" kind of thing instead of the "look back and say oh yeah, why didn't I catch that then" kind of that that I would generally like better.
Oh well, I guess he feels the need to tone it down a bit.
No, it's between your web browser and google's server. In this case the redirect is part of the browser's functionality.
There is nothing wrong with it. Mozilla/Netscape/Konq does a lot that it doesn't tell you about.
The RESULTS of what it does are where the problem lies. If AOL collected every bit of your information and never did one bad thing with it, then who cares?
Aggrigate number of people. They have to count the individuals.
Assuming they're doing what they claim they would just increase the counter for that search site (or whatever) if that ip hasn't visited that day (or whatever) and then immediately throw away the ip.
Yeah. I've never heard of the See ID thing before, you're in the US right? From what I've ever seen cards simply aren't valid without an actual signature on the box.
I agree, of course, that verification by picture is a much better deal than verification by signature, especially these days.
Eh, if this case was caused by "hackers" or a glitch in the system it doesn't matter if anyone entered a number. Entering a 16 digit number is no more of an indication than typing "y" to make the purchase.
Having a confirmation window is of course always good design, and people will be more likely to continue to shop at a place that has one. For this reason it is in the companys' best intrests to get confirmation.
No, not like that. That has nothing to do with ease of purchasing, because the people didn't purchase anything. In fact, they explicitly refused the purchase.
This isn't that stupid of a thing. I often hear the story of the moron who makes you sign in front of them...
The thing is that if you're the owner of the card and you sign in front of them then you've still signed and the problem is ended. If you're not the owner and you sign in front of them then no harm done.
In any case, the card isn't valid unless signed and so by them making you sign itthey're really only making the card work.
Slashdot Mirror
The stock market numbers are not the same as the economy. However, a large part of the stock market's going downhill is directly attributable to Clinton's policies, as are the current corporate scandals.
Clinton policies put unnatural and pointless restrictions on the payment of corporate officials, who then came up with other, more creative ways to attract officers, removing a large amount of their accountability to the boards of directors.
It's simple: force the situation so that they're judged on things that would be easily influenced by deceptive behavior, and they will behave deceptively.
I don't see this as a problem.
I mean, it's a VERY obvious concern and nobody would release such a thing if the problems weren't solved. Think of the lawsuits!
In any case, this seems like a very simple matter to solve cryptographically. Just give a public key to the lock on your house and keep a private key on your person. Perhaps some bioidentification built in to the device would help matters further.
Yes, I believe he IS referring to the American economy, which has been speeding up.
Go read the raw data, not the newspapers. The popular press cannot STAND to report the good news and good fundamentals. The American economy's slowdown during the Clinton years has ended and we've been accelerating for a couple of years now.
Without some protection of IP there would be no desire to create IP.
One of the biggest falsehoods brandished about today. Just go look at history before these laws. Things still got done!
Now it's arguable that not as much IP would be created, but it's certainly wrong to say "no IP would be created".
After all, if nobody makes IP then nobody will profit from it. If someone makes IP and everyone gets to share it, then at least people will still profit from it, though not as much.
Perhaps it wuold be more correct to say that with looser IP laws there would be more incremental improvement as companies rely on "first to market" sales for their biggest profit margins, while stronger laws lead to more jumps in developent. Eh, there's a balance there somewhere, I'm sure.
Just because you put resources into making something does not mean it has value.
I think you have some of your reasoning backwards. If a company creates something that ends up being more valuable than the resources that went into it then they will go far. If not they won't. The value of the product is independent of the amount of resources that went into it.
In the end I say that since the industry's business model relies on artificial scarcities brought about through the IP laws, they business model is simply flawed. Since this neabs kess governmental interference into non-essential matters it's an arguably "more" libertarian POV.
Yeah, I really disagree with some of his basic premises.... he has a mistaken idea of where the country is right now, assuming it's failing at where it is right now and therefore fails in other areas.
The structures are already in place to protect the commons, people just need to enforce them.
But it has nothing to do with GPS, tracking, or privacy, then. It has to do with deceptive business practices. And yet, everyone on Slashdot is up in arms about "privacy violations".
His post was absolutely called for.
>>>
That quest for protection ends where my privacy begins.
>>>
And your privacy begins at some arbitrary point set by you. What utter nonsense it would be for the line above to be considered a benchmark.
Your analogy is invalid because
#1, it's their cars but your house
#2, in tracking their cars they don't interfere with you, while barging into your house would quite probably interfere with your living.
So hush. Let them do what they want with their own property.
Might as well, as objective as the thread is, but...
In my personal and therefore insignificant experience, RedHat is more targeted at places with GUIs for configuration and people who want to install huge chunks of desktop software, etc.
Other distros, such as Debian, don't make these sacrifices.
I didn't read the unitedlinux thread, but in my experience I'd say Redhat has always been desktop focused. It seemed to me that they often made decisions that went in this direction.
Honestly, is there somewhere I could write and express my opinion of blocking this plate because of oversensitivity? I think this plate sounds great, and perhaps with enough people from and not from Nevada writing in criticizing the PR considerations would move the other way...
Grumble grumble, privacy impact statements are a waste of effort and taxpayers' money, grumble grumble....
President Bush was elected.
Read the news occasionally. There's more to the world than what appears on slashdot.
Idiots with money... the best kind.
Argh.
Every time I hear someone refer to 1984 I have to cringe. Then I go and look for any real content in the mention and 98% of the time there is none. This is one of those times.
You say look at 1984 to see reasons not to use smart cards... I could probably cite 100 books that have profound reasons FOR smart cards. What's your point? The book also does not provide any summary of arguments against their useage as the person you replied to requested. Mod this 1984 reply down.
1984 is an incredibly overly paranoid and entirely unrealistic book that has probably done more to slow our advancement as a society than any other book in recent memory. I really wish schools would stop teaching this thin in high school.
Unfortunately it looks to be a "slap you in the face here's what's happening" kind of thing instead of the "look back and say oh yeah, why didn't I catch that then" kind of that that I would generally like better.
Oh well, I guess he feels the need to tone it down a bit.
No, it's between your web browser and google's server. In this case the redirect is part of the browser's functionality.
There is nothing wrong with it. Mozilla/Netscape/Konq does a lot that it doesn't tell you about.
The RESULTS of what it does are where the problem lies. If AOL collected every bit of your information and never did one bad thing with it, then who cares?
Aggrigate number of people.
They have to count the individuals.
Assuming they're doing what they claim they would just increase the counter for that search site (or whatever) if that ip hasn't visited that day (or whatever) and then immediately throw away the ip.
Google doesn't have anything to do with the methods used by the browsers. They get exactly what they would get through any other browser.
It just happens that Netscape basically forwards the same request to Netscape too.
Yeah. I've never heard of the See ID thing before, you're in the US right? From what I've ever seen cards simply aren't valid without an actual signature on the box.
I agree, of course, that verification by picture is a much better deal than verification by signature, especially these days.
Eh, if this case was caused by "hackers" or a glitch in the system it doesn't matter if anyone entered a number. Entering a 16 digit number is no more of an indication than typing "y" to make the purchase.
Having a confirmation window is of course always good design, and people will be more likely to continue to shop at a place that has one. For this reason it is in the companys' best intrests to get confirmation.
No, not like that.
That has nothing to do with ease of purchasing, because the people didn't purchase anything. In fact, they explicitly refused the purchase.
Your example is a completely different issue.
If the card isn't signed it isn't valid. Very simple.
This isn't that stupid of a thing. I often hear the story of the moron who makes you sign in front of them...
The thing is that if you're the owner of the card and you sign in front of them then you've still signed and the problem is ended. If you're not the owner and you sign in front of them then no harm done.
In any case, the card isn't valid unless signed and so by them making you sign itthey're really only making the card work.
I agree absolutely that Bluetooth (or another standard) would be a better way of doing this.
I simply don't agree with all of the people on here who make it sound like this is the downfall of society.