Just to clarify, according to TFA some movies won't play:
At issue are some significant title-compatibility problems with the player. In his complaint, plaintiff Bob McGovern says that a number of movies he purchased after buying his BD-P1200 wouldn't play on the device. ... As one of our readers pointed out via e-mail, the P1200 has a checkered reputation when it comes to hardware reliability.
So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."
Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.
The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.
Justification / rationalizations may sound good when pitching the story to popular media, but aren't good for long-term stability. "Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" - at some we've got to stop poking eyes out, even if we can justify it.
Need some examples of US action that other countries could (have?) use for justification of military/terrorist action against the US? Check out this sobering list of CIA "secret mercenary armies".
Why was this marked as troll? I agree with Tridus -- I don't see why bandwidth caps get such negative press. Sure, they may be inconvenient (or expensive) for those top 5% users who sit on bittorrent all day (which I'm sure represents a fair number of/.'ers), but economically it makes sense - charge people for what they use. It's not that foreign of a system -- we've been doing it on phones for ever. Used to be you paid for long-distance, either per minute or for "packages". Now on cell-phones, you pay per minute, or for a package of minutes. We used to do that on dial-up -- you paid per minute, or for x # of minutes/hours per month. Then we went to "unlimited" (as in time), and the shift to always-on broadband sort of confused 'unlimited' (as in time) with 'unlimited' (as in throughput).
Thank Jeebus Cripes I don't live in such a world. Why, just yesterday I was affronted by the temerity of a fellow plane passenger, and I stood up immediately, shrilling "I have a bombastic style of poetry! And I am prepared quote at will!"
Quoting bombastic poetry at will, in a confined space, would definitely qualify as an act of terrorism.:)
Actually, they should have called the parents. It's not the Administrators place to parent other people's children.
Have you ever *been* in a public school?
Public schools do more "parenting" than teaching, because they have to. Because: 1. Kids are forced to be there (until they are 18) 2. Many parents don't seem to know how to raise children (speaking as a non-parent)
So you force undisciplined kids into a crowded space, and what do you expect to happen? Education??? There's an education going on alright, but its not about reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.
I think the school was in a lose-lose situation. As other posts have said, if the school didn't do anything about it, there'll be a PR firestorm. If they do something about it, it raises questions of privacy. There's no good solution for the school.
The good solution is for parents to actually raise their own children.
And how you might own a piece of land in Nevada? Stick a flag in the ground and call it "Arthur B's Land"? Don't think so... you purchase the deed to the property. The deed is organized and recognized by the various levels of government, and you paid for that deed with US legal tender, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
You simply can't "remove" yourself from the system, as long as you are within the US borders (unless you happen to be part of a Native American tribe; and even that's... complicated). Your choice to dwell here is your 'consent' to be governed.
Your post was modded funny, but I've been wanting to comment on something throughout reading these comments. Why is everyone so quick to discredit people's experiences? Based on the comments so far, it sounds like dowsing has been pretty thoroughly discredited in double-blind studies, but clearly the GP (or was it GGP?) had a positive experience with dowsing, something he (or she) had no previous experience with.
Instead of crying "fraud", perhaps it would be worth considering possible explanations for this strange behavior. Maybe dowsing "works" when a person's subconscious mind observes clues that the conscious mind does not? Or maybe there is some other mental or psychological phenomenon that occurs? Just because we can't explain it does not mean it should be so readily discounted...
After all, does using a simple tool to find buried pipes or wires really sound that much more extreme than "hear, listen to this magic black box that can play music from the sky! Look, turn this knob and you can hear hundreds of different voices & songs, all coming from outer space!" On the face of it, I'd be more inclined to believe in dowsing than satellite (or terrestial) radio. But we understand the phenomenon of EM propagation and carrying signals on EM waves, so radio is actually more believable than dowsing and we have the math to prove that. That doesn't mean dowsing is fraud, just that we don't understand that how it "works" yet (where "works" may not be as broadly defined as we think).
E.g., if you had cancer and I promised you a medicine that can cure you, how much is that worth to you? Quite a lot, I'd bet. People have been known to blow their life's savings on such a miracle medicine or cancer-curing gizmo, in that situation. But that was worth the price only assuming that it is what I assured you it is. If instead I give you coloured water or a box that displays random numbers, then it's just not the product for which that price was judged.
That's true -- but the problem is in health-care, nothing is assured. Chemotherapy or radiation treatment have a statistically higher probability of curing you than a miracle medicine or gizmo, but even those aren't assured. And to most people receiving the treatment, both solutions are still "magic" - they don't have the background to understand what the doctor says about chemo or radiation, and why that may be better than a miracle medicine or gizmo.
So the reality is -- the free market theory cannot honestly be applied, because the informed consumer assumption is simply not feasible.
It means that future prisoners will be conditioned to how we get information from them and we might not know when the next attack that almost kills your mom and dad or some other loved one is going to be.
This assumes we get useful information from such techniques. John McCain says otherwise:
In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear-whether it is true or false-if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron... I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse.
The U.S. has never been in a position where staying out of the middle East would net us a win. If we don't get involved, people hate us because we won't get involved. If we do get involved, people hate us because we won't butt out. There is no way to win.
I don't know there's ever been a time in the 20th century when US has NOT been involved in the Middle East. I think if the US would stop interfering so much with the governments of the Middle East, that might go a long way towards some stability. Think about it -- we backed the Taliban in Afghanistan when we were worried about Russia. We supported Hussein when we were fighting with Iran. I've read of other "interferences" where the CIA or DOD supported de-stabilization and overthrowing of regimes not politically obedient to us (but I don't remember specifics / sources). We've been planting "bad seeds" there for a long time, and terrorism is one of the crops we now have to deal with.
Rather than trying to plant more bad seeds to cover up our past activities -- let's just leave that field alone and let the world stage (UN) deal with it.
I think trouble is...we all overestimated the intelligence and abilities of the American people. Most people, I guess, figured once they were rid of <president>, that they'd jump at the chance to unite, and form a rational, somewhat freedom enbracing government. I mean, considering the dictatorship they'd endured, you'd think, eh?
But, it turned out not to be the case. Apparently they are pretty much all fscked in the head over there....can't get past racial/religious differences (and for God's sake how can even they tell the difference between Democrat and Republican?, they really do all look like one people on tv)....so, they constantly bicker and have apparently NO leaders in the group that the country can rally around.
Given this, I really don't hold up much hope for them to get their act together no matter how long we stay and support them. I think at some point, we're gonna have to withdraw...step back, throw a couple of knives in the center....and then, after it is over with...we just have to deal with the 'winner'....
Alpha particles are atomically equivalent to a helium nucleus: He[2+] These (comparatively) huge particles that can be stopped by a sheet of paper.
Beta particles are an electron or positron: e[-]. More powerful than alpha particles, they can still be stopped by aluminum foil. Wikipedia doesn't say anything about skin blocking beta particles.
Gamma rays are perhaps what you were thinking of? These are more in-line with "dangerous" radiation - these release a photon with a lot of energy.
Mod parent up... Too many posters on slashdot are out for blood, forgetting that there are real people in these corporations, and that they are not all cold-blooded super-villains intent on world destruction.
Yes, but nothing's stopping these people from forming a new company and doing the same thing again.
1. Assuming the new company needs capital investment, they have to convince someone to invest. If investors don't do their homework, then they have only themselves to blame if the investment goes south (as presumably this one did).
2. If you contract with that new company without doing a little bit of background research, and your data gets exposed next time -- well, I guess that means selecting a vendor wasn't important enough to take the time to do it right, correct?
3. The IT mistake was not intentional / malicious, it was a mistake. While that should be a black mark on the reputation of former employees / owners, it shouldn't prevent them from ever working again; they just have to convince investors / clients that they have learned from that mistake and have policies / procedures in place to prevent it from happening again (assuming said investors / clients actually do their homework & check the vendor's reputation).
I'm guess that means your corporate reputation goes out the window, for not doing sufficient research on vendors for critical services.
n other words, no one should be forced to foot the bill for anyone else's treatment, period.
This is a very macho, individualistic statement, but it is simply not how the system works in the US, much less anywhere else.
Do you have any insurance at all? Car, health, life, property? If so, you are footing the bill for someone else, or someone else is footing the bill for you. It's about risk mitigation -- the risk that you will encounter a situation you do not have the financial resources to resolve, vs the risk that you will pay into a system and not receive optimal "returns" on it.
Our entire society is structured like that -- if you ever used a credit card, or took out a loan, or have a mortgage, someone else is footing the bill for your purchase, until you pay it back. You can argue that you will pay those things back, but you may get into a situation where you can't (lose your job, have unplanned expenses, etc), and so someone is going to have to cover you.
You (most likely) don't pay for your own private security and fire protection and ambulance service, because these are things that are better managed through collectivism. Health care is the same way, particularly for urgent / expensive treatments. Some things you can prevent (ie not getting drunk and falling on a fence), but some you can't (someone crashes into your car, or you get cancer, etc).
I find it astounding that you guys can suggest with a straight face that it "cost you nothing"........
What is equally astounding are the US citizen's who think the they aren't paying for the poor/.'er who cut his hand and had to go to the ER. Now maybe he could scrape enough together to pay the $3000 bill. Most poor people can't. And the hospital will either send them to collections, or just write it off. And guess who pays for that ER time? You do (assuming you are an American citizen paying taxes and have private health insurance).
The poor AC gp is exactly the kind of person for why we need socialized health care. He (assuming its a he) can't go do a doctor to get basic preventative care. If he develops some kind of disease or illness, he won't go to the doctor to get treatment at the early stage, where treatment is cheaper & more effective. He has to wait until it becomes an urgent situation, and then he goes to the expensive ER where they have to address the immediate concern, but don't have the time / staff to do any long-term care. And more often than not, he won't be able to afford the ER visit, which means the hospital eats those costs & passes them on to all of those who can afford to pay (via insurance or government subsidies).
So just like socialized health care, the people who are working are the ones paying. The only variable is how effectively your working dollar is used to subsidize care for those who can't afford it.
This is the one argument that really bothers me -- just because our economy is perhaps the closest thing the world has seen (on a large scale) to a "free market" economy, it is nothing of the sort. If the "free market" really was in effect, none of the national airlines would even exist anymore, because they've all filed (at one point or another) for government bankruptcy protection (ie protection from the free market). In addition, the FAA imposes so much government regulation that to appeal to "free market economics" is laughable.
In a true free market, there would be no FAA, the price of aviation fuel would include the cost of environmental damage, and airline businesses would compete based upon their safety record, timeliness, and price. And *then* we would see innovation in the airline market.
Continually breaking the DRM schemes costs the studios a lot of money. It ensures that DRM is never "fire and forget;" and it turns DRM from being a one-time cost into a continual cost center, a black hole that they need to keep pouring money into. If you can make the cost of maintaining an effective DRM system higher than the cost of the piracy that it allegedly prevents, then it will eventually go away -- either the companies will see the light, or they'll be run out of business by other companies who do, and who are more profitable as a result.
You are missing some key alternatives. I agree DRM will be a continual cost center, but for companies, the real issue is how much does it cost, *to them*? If hackers keep breaking DRM, the companies won't continue to burn millions of dollars into generating new DRM if there is a cheaper alternative -- and likely alternatives are:
1. Lobby Congress to pass additional laws (such as the DMCA) protecting their "intellectual property rights", as well as their business model.
2. Lobby Congress/FBI/enforcement agencies to crack down on those who crack the DRM, making it much more risky & costly to for hackers.
With option 1, they could effectively remove any threat of competition by a company distributing non-DRM material by lobbying Congress to pass laws that effectively require DRM on any commercial content distribution. And I have faith they'd be able to find ways to be able to do this and sell it to Congress in a palatable manner.
With option 2, we've already seen some of this with the RIAA. While there will always be hackers to break the codes, it won't mean much to the movie companies if those codes only remain broken in some foreign lab or parent's basement. It's not until such utilities or methods become more widespread that it causes harm to the movie companies, and for that to happen there have to be people out there looking for it. If you put enough fear into people, they won't go looking for it, and generating fear is comparatively cheap. Of course they have to be careful to not take it too far and generate a backlash, but a few rounds of DRM cracking and they'll have a good enough history.
Think about this scenario -- Movie industry introduces new DRM (probably knowing it'd be broken eventually) Hackers break it Movie industry introduces fix to DRM Hackers break it... (maybe repeat a couple of more times) Movie industry goes to Congress -- "Look, we tried to put in strong technological protections, but these hackers just keep breaking it! We've tried multiple times, and they are relentless. We need your help tracking these people down and persecuting them, to make an example to dissuade others" Movie industry pours a couple of million into re-election campaigns Congress passes laws / supports resolutions to "crack down" on hackers FBI busts a few people and prosecutes them very publicly, which generates a "chilling effect" on the general public related to "hacking" movies.
They CAN charge for OOo and they DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT IT.
I agree this will probably not happen, but if it did, can you imagine the sh!tstorm it would raise here on/.??
"OMG Dell is CHARGING for OOo! And not providing any support!?!?!"
As much as I would like to see OOo in more widespread use, I don't think Dell or any other big OEM has a business case for supplying it, so long as they get discounts or bundling deals from Microsoft.
Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.
Line item veto is NOT the answer! I used to think it was, until I heard a great argument -- namely, in a well-functioning democracy (let's suspend disbelief here for a minute), laws are passed that are the result of debate & compromise by both sides. A line-item veto would be a tool for the executive (whose job it is to implement & enforce said laws), to *change* law & potentially cut out whatever comprises have been made to get the law passed.
For an extreme example, see this outrageous use of letter-by-letter veto power that Gov. Doyle has in Wisconsin. He partially vetoed words & numbers in the budget bill to redirect $400 million from transportation to schools. Link to PDF of Frankenstein Veto
Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.
IDs are like DRM -- it only hurts the people who are innocent, and its no guarantee of protection. In fact, having a national ID would be *worse* -- why is ID theft such a big problem now? Because you are name & a number -- your Social Security Number. Two things that are very easily compiled into lists & transmitted electronically. If your entire financial history (& future) wasn't tied to your SSN, there would have to be some effort involved in proving your identity to a bank or credit card company. I don't see that as a bad thing; especially if that credit card company couldn't instantly access my ENTIRE FINANCIAL HISTORY and decide to jack up my rates because I'm late on a different card that is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Having a national ID will only make ID theft easier. And no, biometrics are not the solution -- they are not reliable, and they are immutable. Once your ID has been stolen, its kind of hard to change your retinas, isn't it?
Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
No, we already have laws that states have to respect other states' official documents, such as driver's licenses & marriage certificates. That's why you don't get pulled over in Nebraska and arrested for having a California driver's license. Businesses who won't accept out-of-state IDs - well, that's their right, and if you believe in the free market then you take your business elsewhere. But in my experience, I've never been denied for cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job, *OR* buying a beer because I had an out of state license. Maybe you are just unlucky?
If you are going to go to that trouble, take it the next step & put those icons in your Start Menu somewhere, and assign short cut keys for them. Even fewer keystrokes to launch -- first thing I do on any new/rebuilt XP computer is assign the Notepad icon to CTRL+SHIFT+N & Calculator to CTRL+SHIFT+C.
Second thing I do is replace Notepad with Crimson Editor:-)
Third thing is replace Calc with Powertoy Calculator:-)
The caveat to this method is a limited number of letters that make sense for a given app (is CTRL+SHIFT+I for IRC or IE?), and no central location to view all of your hotkeys. But it's damned fast (unless Explorer bogs down & takes 30 seconds to do anything, which happens from time to time).
So if 25 companies use the services of www.imasecuritypro.com (fake URL) and imasecuritypro hires someone who lacks competency or worse yet lacks scruples 25 companies are suddenly in peril.
I agree that monoculture is bad, which is what you are saying here. But setting aside the monoculture bit, what is the alternative? 25 companies all trying to run IT shops securely, when that is not a core competency for them. I would argue that you still have 25 companies in peril. And worse, they may not know or realize the extent of their security situation, meaning they could in peril for far longer -- until something catastrophic happens.
Take your Cisco example -- we have a Cisco IOS hole. If the 25 companies are using imasecuritypro, then imasecuritypro patches IOS and those 25 companies are now more secure. If they don't patch it, and one of the companies gets hacked, the lawyers get involved and imasecuritypro pays for their incompetence. But what if the 25 companies are on there own? Now each company needs a competent security manager, one that is paying attention to security listservs and recognizes if the IOS flaw affects any of his (or her!) kit. Then he (she) needs to take time away from preventing Windows malware & spam-fighting & rebuilding the CEO's infested laptop to test & apply the fix. The net result will be some of those companies (very few, I'd guess) will have the fix in place quickly, some will do it eventually, and some aren't even paying attention.
As a sole proprietor, shouldn't you have enough control over your business to guard against this? And shouldn't you be moral enough to *want* to actually pay your liabilities when you do something wrong?
It's just a legal framework -- and no, you can never have "enough control" to guard against this. In a sole proprietorship, you are not legally distinct from your business, so any liabilities against the business can be taken out of your personal accounts. Assuming you are a legitimate business owner trying to make a profit (not just a shell corporation trying to avoid taxes), your biggest risk (I'm guessing) is from frivolous lawsuits. Somebody slips on the sidewalk in front of your storefront and sues your business for gajillion dollars. Assuming they win & your business can't pay up, it comes out of your personal savings account (or other assets). It's the same reason people carry umbrella liability insurance -- because we can't guard against the stupidity & greed of other people.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to clarify, according to TFA some movies won't play:
At issue are some significant title-compatibility problems with the player. In his complaint, plaintiff Bob McGovern says that a number of movies he purchased after buying his BD-P1200 wouldn't play on the device.
...
As one of our readers pointed out via e-mail, the P1200 has a checkered reputation when it comes to hardware reliability.
So it may not be as simple of an issue as "profile 1.0 can't use spiffy new 1.1 features". It may be more an issue of "Samsung rushed buggy new product to market and now won't support it."
Justifications may have needed some work in some cases but there is nothing random about US invasions, no lack of reasons. Popular reasons in reason history consisted of the spread of communism and shooting at us.
The problem with this argument / logic is that the United States (via its administrations & intelligence agencies) is guilty of even worse transgressions, so other countries have more than adequate justification for attacking us.
Justification / rationalizations may sound good when pitching the story to popular media, but aren't good for long-term stability. "Eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind" - at some we've got to stop poking eyes out, even if we can justify it.
Need some examples of US action that other countries could (have?) use for justification of military/terrorist action against the US? Check out this sobering list of CIA "secret mercenary armies".
Why was this marked as troll? I agree with Tridus -- I don't see why bandwidth caps get such negative press. Sure, they may be inconvenient (or expensive) for those top 5% users who sit on bittorrent all day (which I'm sure represents a fair number of /.'ers), but economically it makes sense - charge people for what they use. It's not that foreign of a system -- we've been doing it on phones for ever. Used to be you paid for long-distance, either per minute or for "packages". Now on cell-phones, you pay per minute, or for a package of minutes. We used to do that on dial-up -- you paid per minute, or for x # of minutes/hours per month. Then we went to "unlimited" (as in time), and the shift to always-on broadband sort of confused 'unlimited' (as in time) with 'unlimited' (as in throughput).
Thank Jeebus Cripes I don't live in such a world. Why, just yesterday I was affronted by the temerity of a fellow plane passenger, and I stood up immediately, shrilling "I have a bombastic style of poetry! And I am prepared quote at will!"
:)
Quoting bombastic poetry at will, in a confined space, would definitely qualify as an act of terrorism.
Actually, they should have called the parents. It's not the Administrators place to parent other people's children.
Have you ever *been* in a public school?
Public schools do more "parenting" than teaching, because they have to. Because:
1. Kids are forced to be there (until they are 18)
2. Many parents don't seem to know how to raise children (speaking as a non-parent)
So you force undisciplined kids into a crowded space, and what do you expect to happen? Education??? There's an education going on alright, but its not about reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic.
I think the school was in a lose-lose situation. As other posts have said, if the school didn't do anything about it, there'll be a PR firestorm. If they do something about it, it raises questions of privacy. There's no good solution for the school.
The good solution is for parents to actually raise their own children.
If I own a piece of land in Nevada
And how you might own a piece of land in Nevada? Stick a flag in the ground and call it "Arthur B's Land"? Don't think so... you purchase the deed to the property. The deed is organized and recognized by the various levels of government, and you paid for that deed with US legal tender, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.
You simply can't "remove" yourself from the system, as long as you are within the US borders (unless you happen to be part of a Native American tribe; and even that's... complicated). Your choice to dwell here is your 'consent' to be governed.
Your post was modded funny, but I've been wanting to comment on something throughout reading these comments. Why is everyone so quick to discredit people's experiences? Based on the comments so far, it sounds like dowsing has been pretty thoroughly discredited in double-blind studies, but clearly the GP (or was it GGP?) had a positive experience with dowsing, something he (or she) had no previous experience with.
Instead of crying "fraud", perhaps it would be worth considering possible explanations for this strange behavior. Maybe dowsing "works" when a person's subconscious mind observes clues that the conscious mind does not? Or maybe there is some other mental or psychological phenomenon that occurs? Just because we can't explain it does not mean it should be so readily discounted...
After all, does using a simple tool to find buried pipes or wires really sound that much more extreme than "hear, listen to this magic black box that can play music from the sky! Look, turn this knob and you can hear hundreds of different voices & songs, all coming from outer space!" On the face of it, I'd be more inclined to believe in dowsing than satellite (or terrestial) radio. But we understand the phenomenon of EM propagation and carrying signals on EM waves, so radio is actually more believable than dowsing and we have the math to prove that. That doesn't mean dowsing is fraud, just that we don't understand that how it "works" yet (where "works" may not be as broadly defined as we think).
E.g., if you had cancer and I promised you a medicine that can cure you, how much is that worth to you? Quite a lot, I'd bet. People have been known to blow their life's savings on such a miracle medicine or cancer-curing gizmo, in that situation. But that was worth the price only assuming that it is what I assured you it is. If instead I give you coloured water or a box that displays random numbers, then it's just not the product for which that price was judged.
That's true -- but the problem is in health-care, nothing is assured. Chemotherapy or radiation treatment have a statistically higher probability of curing you than a miracle medicine or gizmo, but even those aren't assured. And to most people receiving the treatment, both solutions are still "magic" - they don't have the background to understand what the doctor says about chemo or radiation, and why that may be better than a miracle medicine or gizmo.
So the reality is -- the free market theory cannot honestly be applied, because the informed consumer assumption is simply not feasible.
This assumes we get useful information from such techniques. John McCain says otherwise:
(link)
The U.S. has never been in a position where staying out of the middle East would net us a win. If we don't get involved, people hate us because we won't get involved. If we do get involved, people hate us because we won't butt out. There is no way to win.
I don't know there's ever been a time in the 20th century when US has NOT been involved in the Middle East. I think if the US would stop interfering so much with the governments of the Middle East, that might go a long way towards some stability. Think about it -- we backed the Taliban in Afghanistan when we were worried about Russia. We supported Hussein when we were fighting with Iran. I've read of other "interferences" where the CIA or DOD supported de-stabilization and overthrowing of regimes not politically obedient to us (but I don't remember specifics / sources). We've been planting "bad seeds" there for a long time, and terrorism is one of the crops we now have to deal with.
Rather than trying to plant more bad seeds to cover up our past activities -- let's just leave that field alone and let the world stage (UN) deal with it.
Eerie....
I think trouble is...we all overestimated the intelligence and abilities of the American people. Most people, I guess, figured once they were rid of <president>, that they'd jump at the chance to unite, and form a rational, somewhat freedom enbracing government. I mean, considering the dictatorship they'd endured, you'd think, eh?
But, it turned out not to be the case. Apparently they are pretty much all fscked in the head over there....can't get past racial/religious differences (and for God's sake how can even they tell the difference between Democrat and Republican?, they really do all look like one people on tv)....so, they constantly bicker and have apparently NO leaders in the group that the country can rally around.
Given this, I really don't hold up much hope for them to get their act together no matter how long we stay and support them. I think at some point, we're gonna have to withdraw...step back, throw a couple of knives in the center....and then, after it is over with...we just have to deal with the 'winner'....
Um, yikes. -1, Wrong.
Alpha particles are atomically equivalent to a helium nucleus: He[2+] These (comparatively) huge particles that can be stopped by a sheet of paper.
Beta particles are an electron or positron: e[-]. More powerful than alpha particles, they can still be stopped by aluminum foil. Wikipedia doesn't say anything about skin blocking beta particles.
Gamma rays are perhaps what you were thinking of? These are more in-line with "dangerous" radiation - these release a photon with a lot of energy.
Mod parent up... Too many posters on slashdot are out for blood, forgetting that there are real people in these corporations, and that they are not all cold-blooded super-villains intent on world destruction.
Yes, but nothing's stopping these people from forming a new company and doing the same thing again.
1. Assuming the new company needs capital investment, they have to convince someone to invest. If investors don't do their homework, then they have only themselves to blame if the investment goes south (as presumably this one did).
2. If you contract with that new company without doing a little bit of background research, and your data gets exposed next time -- well, I guess that means selecting a vendor wasn't important enough to take the time to do it right, correct?
3. The IT mistake was not intentional / malicious, it was a mistake. While that should be a black mark on the reputation of former employees / owners, it shouldn't prevent them from ever working again; they just have to convince investors / clients that they have learned from that mistake and have policies / procedures in place to prevent it from happening again (assuming said investors / clients actually do their homework & check the vendor's reputation).
I'm guess that means your corporate reputation goes out the window, for not doing sufficient research on vendors for critical services.
n other words, no one should be forced to foot the bill for anyone else's treatment, period.
This is a very macho, individualistic statement, but it is simply not how the system works in the US, much less anywhere else.
Do you have any insurance at all? Car, health, life, property? If so, you are footing the bill for someone else, or someone else is footing the bill for you. It's about risk mitigation -- the risk that you will encounter a situation you do not have the financial resources to resolve, vs the risk that you will pay into a system and not receive optimal "returns" on it.
Our entire society is structured like that -- if you ever used a credit card, or took out a loan, or have a mortgage, someone else is footing the bill for your purchase, until you pay it back. You can argue that you will pay those things back, but you may get into a situation where you can't (lose your job, have unplanned expenses, etc), and so someone is going to have to cover you.
You (most likely) don't pay for your own private security and fire protection and ambulance service, because these are things that are better managed through collectivism. Health care is the same way, particularly for urgent / expensive treatments. Some things you can prevent (ie not getting drunk and falling on a fence), but some you can't (someone crashes into your car, or you get cancer, etc).
I find it astounding that you guys can suggest with a straight face that it "cost you nothing"........
/.'er who cut his hand and had to go to the ER. Now maybe he could scrape enough together to pay the $3000 bill. Most poor people can't. And the hospital will either send them to collections, or just write it off. And guess who pays for that ER time? You do (assuming you are an American citizen paying taxes and have private health insurance).
What is equally astounding are the US citizen's who think the they aren't paying for the poor
The poor AC gp is exactly the kind of person for why we need socialized health care. He (assuming its a he) can't go do a doctor to get basic preventative care. If he develops some kind of disease or illness, he won't go to the doctor to get treatment at the early stage, where treatment is cheaper & more effective. He has to wait until it becomes an urgent situation, and then he goes to the expensive ER where they have to address the immediate concern, but don't have the time / staff to do any long-term care. And more often than not, he won't be able to afford the ER visit, which means the hospital eats those costs & passes them on to all of those who can afford to pay (via insurance or government subsidies).
So just like socialized health care, the people who are working are the ones paying. The only variable is how effectively your working dollar is used to subsidize care for those who can't afford it.
We live in a (sort of) free market country
This is the one argument that really bothers me -- just because our economy is perhaps the closest thing the world has seen (on a large scale) to a "free market" economy, it is nothing of the sort. If the "free market" really was in effect, none of the national airlines would even exist anymore, because they've all filed (at one point or another) for government bankruptcy protection (ie protection from the free market). In addition, the FAA imposes so much government regulation that to appeal to "free market economics" is laughable.
In a true free market, there would be no FAA, the price of aviation fuel would include the cost of environmental damage, and airline businesses would compete based upon their safety record, timeliness, and price. And *then* we would see innovation in the airline market.
Continually breaking the DRM schemes costs the studios a lot of money. It ensures that DRM is never "fire and forget;" and it turns DRM from being a one-time cost into a continual cost center, a black hole that they need to keep pouring money into. If you can make the cost of maintaining an effective DRM system higher than the cost of the piracy that it allegedly prevents, then it will eventually go away -- either the companies will see the light, or they'll be run out of business by other companies who do, and who are more profitable as a result.
... (maybe repeat a couple of more times)
You are missing some key alternatives. I agree DRM will be a continual cost center, but for companies, the real issue is how much does it cost, *to them*? If hackers keep breaking DRM, the companies won't continue to burn millions of dollars into generating new DRM if there is a cheaper alternative -- and likely alternatives are:
1. Lobby Congress to pass additional laws (such as the DMCA) protecting their "intellectual property rights", as well as their business model.
2. Lobby Congress/FBI/enforcement agencies to crack down on those who crack the DRM, making it much more risky & costly to for hackers.
With option 1, they could effectively remove any threat of competition by a company distributing non-DRM material by lobbying Congress to pass laws that effectively require DRM on any commercial content distribution. And I have faith they'd be able to find ways to be able to do this and sell it to Congress in a palatable manner.
With option 2, we've already seen some of this with the RIAA. While there will always be hackers to break the codes, it won't mean much to the movie companies if those codes only remain broken in some foreign lab or parent's basement. It's not until such utilities or methods become more widespread that it causes harm to the movie companies, and for that to happen there have to be people out there looking for it. If you put enough fear into people, they won't go looking for it, and generating fear is comparatively cheap. Of course they have to be careful to not take it too far and generate a backlash, but a few rounds of DRM cracking and they'll have a good enough history.
Think about this scenario --
Movie industry introduces new DRM (probably knowing it'd be broken eventually)
Hackers break it
Movie industry introduces fix to DRM
Hackers break it
Movie industry goes to Congress -- "Look, we tried to put in strong technological protections, but these hackers just keep breaking it! We've tried multiple times, and they are relentless. We need your help tracking these people down and persecuting them, to make an example to dissuade others"
Movie industry pours a couple of million into re-election campaigns
Congress passes laws / supports resolutions to "crack down" on hackers
FBI busts a few people and prosecutes them very publicly, which generates a "chilling effect" on the general public related to "hacking" movies.
They CAN charge for OOo and they DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT IT.
/.??
I agree this will probably not happen, but if it did, can you imagine the sh!tstorm it would raise here on
"OMG Dell is CHARGING for OOo! And not providing any support!?!?!"
As much as I would like to see OOo in more widespread use, I don't think Dell or any other big OEM has a business case for supplying it, so long as they get discounts or bundling deals from Microsoft.
Line item veto would allow the president (who ultimately signs the bill into law based on the recommendation of congress) to say "WTF is this crap doing in here!?!" so he scratches that paragraph out and signs the rest.
Line item veto is NOT the answer! I used to think it was, until I heard a great argument -- namely, in a well-functioning democracy (let's suspend disbelief here for a minute), laws are passed that are the result of debate & compromise by both sides. A line-item veto would be a tool for the executive (whose job it is to implement & enforce said laws), to *change* law & potentially cut out whatever comprises have been made to get the law passed.
For an extreme example, see this outrageous use of letter-by-letter veto power that Gov. Doyle has in Wisconsin. He partially vetoed words & numbers in the budget bill to redirect $400 million from transportation to schools. Link to PDF of Frankenstein Veto
Besides, I was 16 and working at Burger King and I had a fake ID. I don't think I could have pulled it off if it required a retinal scan. Also, a national ID card could help in preventing ID theft.
IDs are like DRM -- it only hurts the people who are innocent, and its no guarantee of protection. In fact, having a national ID would be *worse* -- why is ID theft such a big problem now? Because you are name & a number -- your Social Security Number. Two things that are very easily compiled into lists & transmitted electronically. If your entire financial history (& future) wasn't tied to your SSN, there would have to be some effort involved in proving your identity to a bank or credit card company. I don't see that as a bad thing; especially if that credit card company couldn't instantly access my ENTIRE FINANCIAL HISTORY and decide to jack up my rates because I'm late on a different card that is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. Having a national ID will only make ID theft easier. And no, biometrics are not the solution -- they are not reliable, and they are immutable. Once your ID has been stolen, its kind of hard to change your retinas, isn't it?
Currently, we have 50 different standards for ID cards. Once you leave California, your ID is invalid. You could be prevented from cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job or even buying a friggin beer! The way I see it, with this standard, my state ID works in 50 states rather than just one. It actually INCREASES my rights and what I can do, and I don't have to change a thing since I have to carry a driver's license anyway.
No, we already have laws that states have to respect other states' official documents, such as driver's licenses & marriage certificates. That's why you don't get pulled over in Nebraska and arrested for having a California driver's license. Businesses who won't accept out-of-state IDs - well, that's their right, and if you believe in the free market then you take your business elsewhere. But in my experience, I've never been denied for cashing a check, opening a bank account, getting a job, *OR* buying a beer because I had an out of state license. Maybe you are just unlucky?
If you are going to go to that trouble, take it the next step & put those icons in your Start Menu somewhere, and assign short cut keys for them. Even fewer keystrokes to launch -- first thing I do on any new/rebuilt XP computer is assign the Notepad icon to CTRL+SHIFT+N & Calculator to CTRL+SHIFT+C.
:-)
:-)
Second thing I do is replace Notepad with Crimson Editor
Third thing is replace Calc with Powertoy Calculator
The caveat to this method is a limited number of letters that make sense for a given app (is CTRL+SHIFT+I for IRC or IE?), and no central location to view all of your hotkeys. But it's damned fast (unless Explorer bogs down & takes 30 seconds to do anything, which happens from time to time).
So if 25 companies use the services of www.imasecuritypro.com (fake URL) and imasecuritypro hires someone who lacks competency or worse yet lacks scruples 25 companies are suddenly in peril.
I agree that monoculture is bad, which is what you are saying here. But setting aside the monoculture bit, what is the alternative? 25 companies all trying to run IT shops securely, when that is not a core competency for them. I would argue that you still have 25 companies in peril. And worse, they may not know or realize the extent of their security situation, meaning they could in peril for far longer -- until something catastrophic happens.
Take your Cisco example -- we have a Cisco IOS hole. If the 25 companies are using imasecuritypro, then imasecuritypro patches IOS and those 25 companies are now more secure. If they don't patch it, and one of the companies gets hacked, the lawyers get involved and imasecuritypro pays for their incompetence. But what if the 25 companies are on there own? Now each company needs a competent security manager, one that is paying attention to security listservs and recognizes if the IOS flaw affects any of his (or her!) kit. Then he (she) needs to take time away from preventing Windows malware & spam-fighting & rebuilding the CEO's infested laptop to test & apply the fix. The net result will be some of those companies (very few, I'd guess) will have the fix in place quickly, some will do it eventually, and some aren't even paying attention.
So "Windows power users" think using the online help is futile, as is Googleing for information on how to use a computer.
Hey - cut us some slack! Using Windows' online help IS futile, so we've just been trained to ignore it!
=)
As a sole proprietor, shouldn't you have enough control over your business to guard against this? And shouldn't you be moral enough to *want* to actually pay your liabilities when you do something wrong?
It's just a legal framework -- and no, you can never have "enough control" to guard against this. In a sole proprietorship, you are not legally distinct from your business, so any liabilities against the business can be taken out of your personal accounts. Assuming you are a legitimate business owner trying to make a profit (not just a shell corporation trying to avoid taxes), your biggest risk (I'm guessing) is from frivolous lawsuits. Somebody slips on the sidewalk in front of your storefront and sues your business for gajillion dollars. Assuming they win & your business can't pay up, it comes out of your personal savings account (or other assets). It's the same reason people carry umbrella liability insurance -- because we can't guard against the stupidity & greed of other people.