Here is the worst part. In the article they say this:
Just see the bit in Watchmen when they correctly guess Ozymandias' password by finding a book on his desk.
This is the biggest movie myth: that most movie goers could actually stand to sit through this crap movie long enough to get to this part. Fuck I walked out long before that... or possibly just before it. Not sure. I walked out.
I think there is an important distinction here. Al Gore, whether you agree with him or not, pushed climate research (again whether you agree with the research's conclusions or not) into broader and more visible discussion. This is what should happen with academic research. In this case, the VAG is trying to censure the discussion by threatening the funding of academic research. Research should never be hindered this way. If he thinks the results of Mann's research is bad, he should prove it with research that has different and more valid results (can't think of a better way to put it, but I think you get the idea). If Mann's research was fudged, someone else ought to be able to prove it with their own research to rebutt it. Since no one has so far, maybe this is one far right conservative's only imaginable way of countering someone's theory.
If it is found that Mann did not do anything wrong, I hope someone charges the VAG with misappropriating the public's money. Especially as I see this as twisting a law to meet his ideological beliefs. Mind you, that is what lawyers do: make rules and then figure out ways to twist or break them. Similar to accountants and wall street types.
If they keep this up, the pope will be running Virginia soon (I didn't capitalize the title on purpose). Then they'll pass laws to mandate diddling kids.
1) tie some popular social phenomena to a fancy buzzword
2) sound really smart to those that are too lame to learn stuff without the aid of a fancy buzzword
3) ???
4) profit
My grandfather was in Baden Powell's first scout troop in Poole, Dorset. From what I can tell based on his stories, BP will be rolling in his grave over this. His idea was to get kids out of the house, getting fit and working together as a group since socialization/team building was as much a part of the experience as anything else. Sitting inside by yourself on a couch or in front of a computer for hours on end by yourself is completely anathema to the whole idea of Scouts (or was, anyway).
It always screws up my suspension of disbelief whenever I see someone fire a rocket launcher (like the M72) or recoilless rifle (like the Carl Gustav) from a helicopter or a window in a building. The backblast of the former will kill anyone within one or two hundred metres to the rear of the weapon, and up to 300 metres for the Carl G. Similar for similar weapons of similar size. They'd blow their own helicopter out of the sky if they did that. They'd incinerate themselves as the backblast blew back on them in the room if fired from a window. I remember standing up a hill about a half mile behind a Carl G being fired and feeling a stiff warm wind blowing my clothes tight to my body. The safety NCO's on ranges (who normally stand 10 or 20 feet to the side) need to rotate through every few firings to ensure they don't suffer damage just from watching due to the huge pressure wave generated when firing. I've seen guys get bleeding noses or their watch crystals pop off after watching half a dozen firings. At least with the Carl G., the gunner who stands directly under the weapon is in a 'quiet' zone and the most you feel is a solid thump on your chest (but it is still a good idea to open your throat so that there is an open pipe from the outside to your lungs so that you minimize the pressure differential if you make your lungs into a closed air sack by holding your breath). If you have a weapon that requires a loader (like the Carl G), he is just out of the quiet zone and gets a good wallop too. People watching movies, the news, or playing video games just don't have any idea of how powerful these things are (and they are the smaller of these weapons now-a-days). Understanding academically doesn't count. You have to experience it.
Trying explaining that to the families of the 104,000 Iraqi civilians that have died as a result of the US invasion since 2003.
Just as 'you must be a Nazi' is over-used, the tired mantra of blaming the Americans for the world's ills is getting very old. We need a new 'Godwin's Rule' to say the argument is over when people start jumping on this bandwagon.
There is no advantage to any oil company sitting on new cheaper fuel
We all know this is true in the long run. However due to the greed of stockbrokers and high bonus CEOs, companies no longer think in the long term. If it doesn't pay off right now they won't spend a dime on it. The most they will spend on the long term is to try to squash long term innovation by others since it is cheaper to do this right now than to spend money on research for the long term. More money out today, means lower bottom line today, means less bonus, means the CEO can't buy that fourth mansion in the Bahamas. Who cares if they will make a crapload of money in 10 or 20 years... I won't be the CEO in 10 or 20 years.
And if the person is depressed, contemplating suicide but not likely to, except you talk them into it, you have killed them. Mental illness as much as people try to rationalize it here, means the person is not rational. This case is like a con-man who likes money and will bilk people out of material wealth. Except this con-man talked people into killing themselves because he valued the experience of watching people die. This is a form of homicide. If I talk someone into killing another person, whether for pay or other incentive, I am just as guilty of the murder. In fact, being the instigator I could be considered more guilty. This guy talked people into killing someone. There is a difference between someone who say, has cancer, is rational, and understands all they have left is undignified pain, and someone who is suffering a mental illness. If you council someone with cancer on performing suicide, it is a rational person who is asking for directions. I don't agree with it, but in that case I don't believe I have the right to impose my beliefs even if I would advise against it. If you read any of the articles, this perp was actively trying to tip the balance of an undecided person's thinking so that they would kill themselves. He was talking someone into killing. Not counseling a rational person who HAS ALREADY DECIDED. More, he even tried hard to get them to kill themselves in a way that would allow him to be able to watch so he could get his jollies. Some places would actually charge him with a type of homicide. Now if you still think that what this guy did was OK, you need to check your moral compass. The kicker is, even the perp knows what he was doing was wrong in every way and has admitted this openly. Funny how he can admit it, and many people here on Slashdot can't.
So threatening to kill someone is covered? Wrong. How about slanderous speech? Nope. Nor is counseling to kill one's self. From the way you talk I suspect you are one of those phony Christians, or even a legalist. If so, here is something to set you straight:
Matthew 25
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
So what you are saying is that you support this guy's right to talk vulnerable people into killing themselves so that he can get his jollies? Do you pull the wings off of flies in your spare time too?
Maybe, but if we all move to an alternative form of energy than gasoline, raising the tax won't do anything. Whatever times zero is still zero. And if the increase the tax say 1000% for example, because so few people buy gas, then that will hasten people to stop buying gas. I tend to believe the economic aspect drives this more. The U.K. is very broke right now. The U.S. even more so. But... once the capability is there, I am not so naive to think that government will use it for other purposes. For now, I'm leaving my tin foil tea bagger^H^H^H^H^H^Hparty hat on the shelf.
It just seems like you wanted to blather on about how you have lots of money and don't need to buy cheaper ways to watch movies in your vehicles, nor have to fix your cars because you can pay someone to do that, and pay people to do all the other things. Why don't you post your bank account balance while your at it. My point is that just because you make a lot of money, who the fuck cares? If people want to buy an iPad as a cheaper means of entertaining their passengers than what you can afford to, it isn't an invitation to ask you to tell us all how you are so well off.
Britain is moving to road use billing, which will likely involve GPS based tracking of vehicles. I was involved in part of the pilot, and it makes sense that when this is finally implemented (after political hurtles etc.) that they will be able to do this; all vehicles will have tracking devices in them to figure out how far the vehicle drives. In fact, even if they don't use GPS (e.g. road side sensors, or inertial nav... but likely it will involve GPS) to track the distance, they will be able to determine the distances and which roads the users drove on at which time of day (there will be extra fees for driving in peak periods like rush hour). They will know the speed limits based on what roads they drove on (and which road segments) and times and distances, and be able to determine if speeding took place.
Governments around the world are examining the option to switch to road use/pay as you drive systems because the traditional revenue generator for road maintenance, gasoline taxes, are going down as engine efficiencies are going up. The less often you need to fill up means the less money flowing in from gas tax. The less money coming in means roads fall into disrepair or deficits go up as there is less funding available. Hence pay as you drive road charging. The more you drive, the more wear and tear you bring to the road, the more you pay. The same for bigger vehicles. If you want to control congestion or help fund public transport, charge more at peak road use times (morning and evening rush hour, Friday evenings on motorways leaving town on long weekends, whatever the district wants).
Once the government is able to track your driving 100% of the time you are in your vehicle, they will of course find other ways to intrude in your life. This is why I personally don't like these ideas. I would prefer an odometer check at your yearly vehicle safety and pollution check. Poor UK. The most intensely surveilled populace in the world. Makes China and the U.S.A. look like amateurs.
And here's the gotcha, they never disclosed how close to the volcano the finn planes were.
Do you think it is safe to say that they were about as far away as Finland is to the volcano? Say 2500km. Or do you think they said, "hey there's a volcano erupting 2500km away that we'd have to cross three sovereign nations airspace's with in our military jets (Finland doesn't belong to NATO or any common EU defense alliance), let's go fly our planes over there." Personally I would tend to believe that they flew over their own country and decided to do a 'post-mortem' on the engines when they found out how bad the ash cloud was.
Most people will start to snore or as others have mentioned, switch to videos with cute cats when that fellow first says the word 'matrix', and it doesn't refer to anything with Keanu Reeves. The math is necessary, but they need to find a way to brush quickly over it and only touch on the fact that general formulas are patented when someone assigns specific variable names to them... in a non-nerdy way. And doing this makes it difficult for others to create new programs to do the same thing but differently. We see postings on Slashdot all the time about how Americans are becoming mathematically and technologically (in general) more dumb. Now we try to win them over with a video showing math concepts that most in America can't understand in the first couple minutes. This ensures that most won't watch it longer than the first couple of minutes. I like the idea though.
Not all the OSS that Sun created was enterprise/server side software. I am curious as to what will happen to Open Office and NetBeans. Both are open source, and I would be surprised if anyone pays for support for either of them. Ergo, there is a lot of money going into developing them and no monetary return back to Oracle. Given the question in the original post, it makes me wonder if these two products are not long for this world. The only caveat is that if Oracle used Open Office rather than MS Office, the cost to maintain and improve on OO might be balanced by not having to pay out to MS. But Oracle may still not want to run their business using OO (depends on their needs, and whether OO can fulfill them all).
I think the greatest benefit from OSS is that it provides a creative outlet for programmers. Right now, we see a lot of 'programming' in server side Java using frameworks. This means that there is little creativity or novel solutions to programming in the enterprise. Everyone uses the same code everywhere, and the only things that really are different is each specific company's business logic. And often, even these differences can be minimal. For example, most billing systems operate the same way, from web stores to phone companies. And within markets, the differences can be even more minimal. e.g. Most telecom companies operate the same way using the same switches, usage, accounts, subscriptions, etc. i.e. the same basic business requirements. The only difference being in the idiosyncratic ways they do business. So programming is pretty stagnant on the business front.
OSS allows programmers an outlet to try to solve problems in new ways. Or to find new problems to solve. From this we get a cook pot of new ideas that both OSS and 'for profit' companies can riff off of to come up with new products or solutions to things we didn't know we needed yet.:) In this respect, I think OSS is very, very valuable. Unfortunately, bean counters and stock analysts will pressure companies like Oracle to get rid of these esoteric programs since they don't turn an immediate profit. The down side to capitalism seems to be the same as the downside to socialism: when driven to the extreme, creativity takes a back seat to the whatever the priority of the dogma is on any given day.
But the moon is the easiest, and since we haven't gone anywhere in nearly 40 years, we need to go to the easiest place first. And saying easiest doesn't mean it is easy either. The point of the quote is that we need to do a simple exercise/practice/prototype before going full scale. Even going to an asteroid is orders of magnitude more difficult than a moon landing since most if not all asteroids in a stable orbit are between Mars and Jupiter. We need to work out the bugs with respect to landers etc. closer to home before we go all the way to Mars orbit or beyond.
There is a quote on the java ranch site that is very applicable here: "[Thompson's Rule for first-time telescope makers] It is faster to make a four-inch mirror then a six-inch mirror than to make a six-inch mirror." If they shoot for Mars first, it will never happen.
I agree, and am really pissed off that they stopped me from allowing 4 year old kids who just want to earn an honest 15 hours a day seven day a week pay check from greasing the underside of my looms. -- ghost of a 19th century English textile mill owner.
Unfortunately this is what happens when a group of people come together in a team/group think putting the corporation first. I think that in this case, corporations behave like their individual members and tend to lie first. Just like a kid who you know just broke a plate: 'did you do this?' 'no, it wasn't me.' Why else would the most trusted auto company in the world continue to lie about the fact that they produced a shitty car, and continue to lie about it until they had their collective noses rubbed in the pile of crap they built. For some reason, companies care more about themselves and their shareholders than their customers. So in the end, and based on these empirical pieces of evidence, it is not surprising that the OP company did not want to fix their security hole. I think until this type of thinking is fixed, we'll be screwed in North America. It is the reason why companies are using virtual slave labour, sweat shops, and other Metropolis-like work forces in other countries, and why I don't believe we will see the North American work force recover for a long time at least.
This is from the Missouri Driver's Guide from the MoDot web site:
A RED LIGHT tells you to stop at the stop line, crosswalk or before
the intersection. Unless you are making a right turn, you must wait
for the signal to turn green before you proceed. After making a
complete stop, you may turn right on a red light if the way is clear of
pedestrians and traffic. However, you must not turn right on a red light when
there is a "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" sign posted.
You have to stop at a red light even when you are going to turn right. I lived there for a number of years starting in 2000, and this was the rule when I had to write my driver's test to get my MO driver's license. It is also the rule in just about every jurisdiction where I have cared to look. No place allows a rolling stop for stop lights or stop signs, just because you are making a right turn. Get over it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the biggest movie myth: that most movie goers could actually stand to sit through this crap movie long enough to get to this part. Fuck I walked out long before that... or possibly just before it. Not sure. I walked out.
Yeah yeah, you probably yell 'enhance' whenever you take off your PANTS! [ducks]
I think there is an important distinction here. Al Gore, whether you agree with him or not, pushed climate research (again whether you agree with the research's conclusions or not) into broader and more visible discussion. This is what should happen with academic research. In this case, the VAG is trying to censure the discussion by threatening the funding of academic research. Research should never be hindered this way. If he thinks the results of Mann's research is bad, he should prove it with research that has different and more valid results (can't think of a better way to put it, but I think you get the idea). If Mann's research was fudged, someone else ought to be able to prove it with their own research to rebutt it. Since no one has so far, maybe this is one far right conservative's only imaginable way of countering someone's theory.
If it is found that Mann did not do anything wrong, I hope someone charges the VAG with misappropriating the public's money. Especially as I see this as twisting a law to meet his ideological beliefs. Mind you, that is what lawyers do: make rules and then figure out ways to twist or break them. Similar to accountants and wall street types.
If they keep this up, the pope will be running Virginia soon (I didn't capitalize the title on purpose). Then they'll pass laws to mandate diddling kids.
1) tie some popular social phenomena to a fancy buzzword
2) sound really smart to those that are too lame to learn stuff without the aid of a fancy buzzword
3) ???
4) profit
My grandfather was in Baden Powell's first scout troop in Poole, Dorset. From what I can tell based on his stories, BP will be rolling in his grave over this. His idea was to get kids out of the house, getting fit and working together as a group since socialization/team building was as much a part of the experience as anything else. Sitting inside by yourself on a couch or in front of a computer for hours on end by yourself is completely anathema to the whole idea of Scouts (or was, anyway).
It always screws up my suspension of disbelief whenever I see someone fire a rocket launcher (like the M72) or recoilless rifle (like the Carl Gustav) from a helicopter or a window in a building. The backblast of the former will kill anyone within one or two hundred metres to the rear of the weapon, and up to 300 metres for the Carl G. Similar for similar weapons of similar size. They'd blow their own helicopter out of the sky if they did that. They'd incinerate themselves as the backblast blew back on them in the room if fired from a window. I remember standing up a hill about a half mile behind a Carl G being fired and feeling a stiff warm wind blowing my clothes tight to my body. The safety NCO's on ranges (who normally stand 10 or 20 feet to the side) need to rotate through every few firings to ensure they don't suffer damage just from watching due to the huge pressure wave generated when firing. I've seen guys get bleeding noses or their watch crystals pop off after watching half a dozen firings. At least with the Carl G., the gunner who stands directly under the weapon is in a 'quiet' zone and the most you feel is a solid thump on your chest (but it is still a good idea to open your throat so that there is an open pipe from the outside to your lungs so that you minimize the pressure differential if you make your lungs into a closed air sack by holding your breath). If you have a weapon that requires a loader (like the Carl G), he is just out of the quiet zone and gets a good wallop too. People watching movies, the news, or playing video games just don't have any idea of how powerful these things are (and they are the smaller of these weapons now-a-days). Understanding academically doesn't count. You have to experience it.
Just as 'you must be a Nazi' is over-used, the tired mantra of blaming the Americans for the world's ills is getting very old. We need a new 'Godwin's Rule' to say the argument is over when people start jumping on this bandwagon.
We all know this is true in the long run. However due to the greed of stockbrokers and high bonus CEOs, companies no longer think in the long term. If it doesn't pay off right now they won't spend a dime on it. The most they will spend on the long term is to try to squash long term innovation by others since it is cheaper to do this right now than to spend money on research for the long term. More money out today, means lower bottom line today, means less bonus, means the CEO can't buy that fourth mansion in the Bahamas. Who cares if they will make a crapload of money in 10 or 20 years... I won't be the CEO in 10 or 20 years.
And if the person is depressed, contemplating suicide but not likely to, except you talk them into it, you have killed them. Mental illness as much as people try to rationalize it here, means the person is not rational. This case is like a con-man who likes money and will bilk people out of material wealth. Except this con-man talked people into killing themselves because he valued the experience of watching people die. This is a form of homicide. If I talk someone into killing another person, whether for pay or other incentive, I am just as guilty of the murder. In fact, being the instigator I could be considered more guilty. This guy talked people into killing someone. There is a difference between someone who say, has cancer, is rational, and understands all they have left is undignified pain, and someone who is suffering a mental illness. If you council someone with cancer on performing suicide, it is a rational person who is asking for directions. I don't agree with it, but in that case I don't believe I have the right to impose my beliefs even if I would advise against it. If you read any of the articles, this perp was actively trying to tip the balance of an undecided person's thinking so that they would kill themselves. He was talking someone into killing. Not counseling a rational person who HAS ALREADY DECIDED. More, he even tried hard to get them to kill themselves in a way that would allow him to be able to watch so he could get his jollies. Some places would actually charge him with a type of homicide. Now if you still think that what this guy did was OK, you need to check your moral compass. The kicker is, even the perp knows what he was doing was wrong in every way and has admitted this openly. Funny how he can admit it, and many people here on Slashdot can't.
So what you are saying is that you support this guy's right to talk vulnerable people into killing themselves so that he can get his jollies? Do you pull the wings off of flies in your spare time too?
Maybe, but if we all move to an alternative form of energy than gasoline, raising the tax won't do anything. Whatever times zero is still zero. And if the increase the tax say 1000% for example, because so few people buy gas, then that will hasten people to stop buying gas. I tend to believe the economic aspect drives this more. The U.K. is very broke right now. The U.S. even more so. But... once the capability is there, I am not so naive to think that government will use it for other purposes. For now, I'm leaving my tin foil tea bagger^H^H^H^H^H^Hparty hat on the shelf.
It just seems like you wanted to blather on about how you have lots of money and don't need to buy cheaper ways to watch movies in your vehicles, nor have to fix your cars because you can pay someone to do that, and pay people to do all the other things. Why don't you post your bank account balance while your at it. My point is that just because you make a lot of money, who the fuck cares? If people want to buy an iPad as a cheaper means of entertaining their passengers than what you can afford to, it isn't an invitation to ask you to tell us all how you are so well off.
Not everyone makes six figures. In fact, most don't.
Britain is moving to road use billing, which will likely involve GPS based tracking of vehicles. I was involved in part of the pilot, and it makes sense that when this is finally implemented (after political hurtles etc.) that they will be able to do this; all vehicles will have tracking devices in them to figure out how far the vehicle drives. In fact, even if they don't use GPS (e.g. road side sensors, or inertial nav... but likely it will involve GPS) to track the distance, they will be able to determine the distances and which roads the users drove on at which time of day (there will be extra fees for driving in peak periods like rush hour). They will know the speed limits based on what roads they drove on (and which road segments) and times and distances, and be able to determine if speeding took place.
Governments around the world are examining the option to switch to road use/pay as you drive systems because the traditional revenue generator for road maintenance, gasoline taxes, are going down as engine efficiencies are going up. The less often you need to fill up means the less money flowing in from gas tax. The less money coming in means roads fall into disrepair or deficits go up as there is less funding available. Hence pay as you drive road charging. The more you drive, the more wear and tear you bring to the road, the more you pay. The same for bigger vehicles. If you want to control congestion or help fund public transport, charge more at peak road use times (morning and evening rush hour, Friday evenings on motorways leaving town on long weekends, whatever the district wants).
Once the government is able to track your driving 100% of the time you are in your vehicle, they will of course find other ways to intrude in your life. This is why I personally don't like these ideas. I would prefer an odometer check at your yearly vehicle safety and pollution check. Poor UK. The most intensely surveilled populace in the world. Makes China and the U.S.A. look like amateurs.
Iceland is west of Finland.
Do you think it is safe to say that they were about as far away as Finland is to the volcano? Say 2500km. Or do you think they said, "hey there's a volcano erupting 2500km away that we'd have to cross three sovereign nations airspace's with in our military jets (Finland doesn't belong to NATO or any common EU defense alliance), let's go fly our planes over there." Personally I would tend to believe that they flew over their own country and decided to do a 'post-mortem' on the engines when they found out how bad the ash cloud was.
Most people will start to snore or as others have mentioned, switch to videos with cute cats when that fellow first says the word 'matrix', and it doesn't refer to anything with Keanu Reeves. The math is necessary, but they need to find a way to brush quickly over it and only touch on the fact that general formulas are patented when someone assigns specific variable names to them... in a non-nerdy way. And doing this makes it difficult for others to create new programs to do the same thing but differently. We see postings on Slashdot all the time about how Americans are becoming mathematically and technologically (in general) more dumb. Now we try to win them over with a video showing math concepts that most in America can't understand in the first couple minutes. This ensures that most won't watch it longer than the first couple of minutes. I like the idea though.
Not all the OSS that Sun created was enterprise/server side software. I am curious as to what will happen to Open Office and NetBeans. Both are open source, and I would be surprised if anyone pays for support for either of them. Ergo, there is a lot of money going into developing them and no monetary return back to Oracle. Given the question in the original post, it makes me wonder if these two products are not long for this world. The only caveat is that if Oracle used Open Office rather than MS Office, the cost to maintain and improve on OO might be balanced by not having to pay out to MS. But Oracle may still not want to run their business using OO (depends on their needs, and whether OO can fulfill them all).
I think the greatest benefit from OSS is that it provides a creative outlet for programmers. Right now, we see a lot of 'programming' in server side Java using frameworks. This means that there is little creativity or novel solutions to programming in the enterprise. Everyone uses the same code everywhere, and the only things that really are different is each specific company's business logic. And often, even these differences can be minimal. For example, most billing systems operate the same way, from web stores to phone companies. And within markets, the differences can be even more minimal. e.g. Most telecom companies operate the same way using the same switches, usage, accounts, subscriptions, etc. i.e. the same basic business requirements. The only difference being in the idiosyncratic ways they do business. So programming is pretty stagnant on the business front.
OSS allows programmers an outlet to try to solve problems in new ways. Or to find new problems to solve. From this we get a cook pot of new ideas that both OSS and 'for profit' companies can riff off of to come up with new products or solutions to things we didn't know we needed yet. :) In this respect, I think OSS is very, very valuable. Unfortunately, bean counters and stock analysts will pressure companies like Oracle to get rid of these esoteric programs since they don't turn an immediate profit. The down side to capitalism seems to be the same as the downside to socialism: when driven to the extreme, creativity takes a back seat to the whatever the priority of the dogma is on any given day.
But the moon is the easiest, and since we haven't gone anywhere in nearly 40 years, we need to go to the easiest place first. And saying easiest doesn't mean it is easy either. The point of the quote is that we need to do a simple exercise/practice/prototype before going full scale. Even going to an asteroid is orders of magnitude more difficult than a moon landing since most if not all asteroids in a stable orbit are between Mars and Jupiter. We need to work out the bugs with respect to landers etc. closer to home before we go all the way to Mars orbit or beyond.
There is a quote on the java ranch site that is very applicable here: "[Thompson's Rule for first-time telescope makers] It is faster to make a four-inch mirror then a six-inch mirror than to make a six-inch mirror." If they shoot for Mars first, it will never happen.
I agree, and am really pissed off that they stopped me from allowing 4 year old kids who just want to earn an honest 15 hours a day seven day a week pay check from greasing the underside of my looms. -- ghost of a 19th century English textile mill owner.
Unfortunately this is what happens when a group of people come together in a team/group think putting the corporation first. I think that in this case, corporations behave like their individual members and tend to lie first. Just like a kid who you know just broke a plate: 'did you do this?' 'no, it wasn't me.' Why else would the most trusted auto company in the world continue to lie about the fact that they produced a shitty car, and continue to lie about it until they had their collective noses rubbed in the pile of crap they built. For some reason, companies care more about themselves and their shareholders than their customers. So in the end, and based on these empirical pieces of evidence, it is not surprising that the OP company did not want to fix their security hole. I think until this type of thinking is fixed, we'll be screwed in North America. It is the reason why companies are using virtual slave labour, sweat shops, and other Metropolis-like work forces in other countries, and why I don't believe we will see the North American work force recover for a long time at least.
You have to stop at a red light even when you are going to turn right. I lived there for a number of years starting in 2000, and this was the rule when I had to write my driver's test to get my MO driver's license. It is also the rule in just about every jurisdiction where I have cared to look. No place allows a rolling stop for stop lights or stop signs, just because you are making a right turn. Get over it.