If they could add something like that to the Tesla roadster I think you would have a winner. A plug in vehicle than can go 250 miles on a single charge. It takes 3 hours to charge but if its a sunny day the sun will charge the as you're out and about thus eliminating the 3 hours. You could then probably got cross country with the car if you wanted not depending on solar power because you have 250 miles of battery power available. It would at least be easy out here in the south west.
I've never run into any problems either, they are usually very high quality, but this is reasonably new and my latest experiences have been much worse. I had a new 9550 controller that would only start up properly half the time. A firmware upgrade later and it was stable but that seems like an odd product to release when it clearly had issues. That box was with Linux but the OS didn't matter as the bios wouldn't load.
The Tesla's range is 250 miles on a full charge which takes 3 hours. That's not that bad. It would suck for cross country going 250 miles then have to stop for 3 hours to charge up. Around the city though it would be more than sufficient, even enough to take it to the desert for some track racing.
Battery technology is definitely the limiting factor, I think at this point it's specifically the charging end of the equation though.
I wasn't aware that NTFS-G ran that fast in user-mode. Every-time I've seen an application go from kernel-mode to user-mode I've seen a performance hit.
I'm a fan of microkernels as well, sometimes you do need something all inclusive though.
You are right in that DRM checks will definitely slow it down, but they only slow it down when the media in question uses it. There is no inherent DRM that I am aware of. Memory management has always been an issue with Windows as well. Seems to be largely driver related which gets back to kernel-mode drivers taking down a system. My RAID drivers seem to be doing that to me right now on one of my file servers. Runs out of memory if I don't reboot the thing every other day. I've never run into that problem before, makes me think twice about 3ware RAID controllers.
I've been looking at deploying a similar setup here except with the Televantage PBX software instead of Asterisk. Is that a feature of the phone or a feature of your PBX or some combination of both?
I didn't appreciate the parent's tone on this as you've said, both methods can and do work for a lot of people.
This is why a lot of us do a hybrid approach, a cluster which is up to date and a cluster with the previous release. If the current release is working out then you update the previous release servers to current and the clusters switch roles. This ensures zero downtime as a new release causing a kernel panic will result in a the other cluster taking over duties. Not an inexpensive solution but it does indeed work and is not technology difficult or even complicated to implement.
For more cost conscious environments I've got a server or two public facing, when it's update time I have a third server with identical hardware, do my testing, do a load simulation and you have enough confidence to move forward upgrading one public server, then the next. Not a 100% solution but if you're cost conscious it's your best bet.
This is and was always one of the chief complaints about Windows as well, everything in the kernel so a malfunction can take the whole system down. Now the push to user-space makes everything more robust. Of course you also take a performance hit hence the slowness that is Vista.
Still, if ZFS under FUSE is half as fast as XFS in kernel-mode then you're not talking about an FS that is particularly slow, you would still gain the data protection from ZFS which in my mind at least is the whole point. It would work for a near-line type storage system where performance isn't as critical. When the speed gets up then it can move to online storage where it will utilize the lessons it learned from near-line storage giving it a track record which will make people more comfortable in adopting it.
Imagine a world where companies compete on service because all companies provide the same basic products. It would be amazing, exactly like the online bidding world, a thousand companies offering real-time streaming and basically the same product but they compete on quality of service and speed of delivery or some balance between to two. That sounds like a terrible place doesn't?
Course then you go and look at Apple copying the MP3 player which took lots and lots of R&D and then make tons in profit. Doesn't sound like patents are working anyway to me. Apple didn't get around it by innovating, the only thing different about an iPod versus a ton of other players that existed long before it was the interface and that word again, service. People could get the music for their players easily and without worrying about lawsuits.
I'm inclined to say innovation is spurred through the desire to get ahead, once you get ahead you hold the spotlight while the competition catches up giving you time to ramp up service to stay ahead of the competition. Sounds to me a like a system that makes a lot more sense.
People that want to do it for unethical reasons will do it regardless of the law. Think the recent HP scandals.
You are right that it is indeed a big gray area. As more case law expands that will change. I think we're well into the reasonable expectation of privacy though. When I send an email I'm pretty certain that only the recipient is actually going to read it. If I start cursing or sending porn and a content filter catches because it's against company policy then I don't feel my privacy as been violated because the policy was stated ahead of time. If the policy is too draconian then you don't communicate with that person through email or be very careful about what you say.
The same goes for a phone conversation, if I call someone up and start speaking inappropriately or unprofessionally then there is a chance the call could be recorded or monitored and consequences as a result. Not a violation of privacy because the policy is stated ahead of time.
I didn't know the vast majority of anime out there was illegal... That enjoys the same freedom of speech in the U.S. at least. Same with fictional stories depicting it. Hell, you only need to go to a site like literotica to see things that you wouldn't probably agree with but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Virtual murder and virtual kiddie porn isn't a crime. The real thing most definitely is on both counts as it should be. When there is a clear victim then you can call it a crime.
That said there is definitely a social stigma which might be why you thought it was illegal. I've no problem with this as there will always be guidelines a society follows that is different from the law. The law is supposed to protect those people that don't wish to follow those guidelines. As long as their freedom doesn't restrict the freedom of another then it's fair game.
Of course if a country wants to get together and decide that virtual kiddie porn is so bad that it should be illegal then that's cool. I'd personally be inclined to support it because I don't think there is any gain from such speech. As a citizen of the country I don't think I could support a law restricting free-speech though. I think I'm happy with it being a social stigma.
So in short, there is no hypocrisy in regards to this, at least in the U.S. The UK could definitely be different.
The problem is the larger majority of nuts jobs out there that spend their energy on the game instead of acting out in real life.
Sometimes when you get angry you just want to blow stuff up. Doom accomplished that back in the day and other games fill varying desires. That's the whole point of these games!
Personally this game may be too much for me to enjoy but I've no doubt others would like it and so it should be allowed in the marketplace, I won't buy it because I won't like what's in it. No harm no foul.
The tiny majority of nut jobs who get amped up enough playing a game to go out and commit real crimes would have committed them anyway. Think the Need for Speed franchise creating a generation of racers to follow the generation of racers before them which followed the previous generation. The game didn't make people want to race, they wanted to race anyways.
Of course not, that has always been accepted given that virus and content filtering are both unchallenged in court and they both require administrative personnel to be able to open email. As long as there is a valid reason for the intrusion it will be accepted. That is at least my take on what this release says. You can't go into someone else's mailbox without a good reason which has always been common corporate policy.
I had this very conversation with my company's lawyer a few months ago because a certain manager was making the life miserable for one of the people under her. She was forcing her the person under her to stand up from her desk every so often so that the manager could sit down and look through her email to make sure she wasn't emailing anyone she shouldn't. I'm the only one in the company authorized to do so it was a clear violation of her privacy sine there was no cause for this action as all the evidence was showing that she was model employee.
Now if a circumstance comes where we suspect someone is sending out sensitive information then it's time for me to go to work and investigate. Personally I hate that part of my job because I tend to learn a lot more about a person than I want to know. I think it's the right policy though and I'm glad the law seems to support it.
Expectation of privacy really matters when the police are involved. Beyond that, replacing a switch with a hub isn't going to do anything but cause an outage, ARP poisoning is impossible unless you've compromised a router and wireless networks are only locally vulnerable. Capturing the traffic is an extreme circumstance and cannot be done unintentionally. Furthermore, the only time it can lawfully be captured is by a representative of the owner of the network or by law enforcement.
Again, it is possible to snoop on someone's email, however, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to accomplish it, in the event that you can you have already committed other crimes which will land you in prison for much longer than credit card fraud.
The difference is that the casual observer can hear two people holding a conversation in a public place. You cannot casually observe email without explicitly trying. That is the big difference, it takes effort to look at email and that is why there is an expectation of privacy.
I've dealt with a few organizations where they've sent credit card info in an email. They are business cards with fraud protection so most people don't worry about it. Of course you must trust the recipient. Ultimately no one things their email will be intercepted in transit because that rarely happens due to the fact that you'd have to have a compromised DNS server to accomplish it or compromise a router in the path. In either circumstance an alternate crime has already been committed and will be dealt with. I'm not sure there has ever been a case of credit card fraud because someone sent and email with credit info and the message was intercepted. It's always the recipient of the information mishandling the data in some way.
Personally I don't care either, what I write in email I freely share with others because I use my corporate account. I'm the only one in the company authorized to go through email so I really don't have to worry, beyond that it just doesn't matter. If you speak ill of someone speak ill of them to their face. I've never been afraid of my emails being public but given that the execs often plan secretive meetings and the future of the company through email I can understand the expectation of privacy. Just because I can go through everyone's email doesn't mean that I do. I require a specific reason and only then will I move forward. I do this even when an exec asks me to pry into email accounts. If they don't have a reason then I don't do it. The company lawyer supports me in it all so I'm pretty safe.
I would agree that sending CC info in email isn't necessary the brightest thing to do but no more so than giving it over the phone to someone which also enjoys an expectation of privacy.
Don't know how email works in your organization but here it's encrypted until it hits the first MTA. An ethernet sniffer won't get you anywhere. A postcard also cannot be removed from the mailbox by anyone other than the recipient, a representative, or through a court order. That sounds about right for email.
Just because it's realistic to say that a few people might read the postcard while handling your mail doesn't mean that the police should be able to just grab all your mail and rifle through it without a warrant.
I'll add one more reply since you seem to think deception works in corporate culture although we're talking about the consumer end of things. In the corporate side of things I had a certain online auction company pitching to me about their product and the things that were unique about their product. Nothing they mentioned was actually unique. Upon asking questions they started describing implementation details but they never got into anything that I would consider unique and even remotely superior to my current solution.
Of course the worst part about it was that they gave me a presentation which showed clear lag and then proceeded to tell me the "real" product was sub-second delay. They didn't have anyway to show me this of course in the demonstration they setup for me. They also had the audacity to tell us how to run our business despite us being in it for 30 years and them being in it for four years. They might have had some interesting insights but their poor demonstration resulted in me deciding they were not worth my time. They didn't even follow up the next day like they said they would which wasn't surprising.
Compare that with the company we currently use, they gave us a real demonstration giving us access to an auction they were putting on for someone else. You could hear it over the phone and hear it over the company with proper sub-second delay. They were open an honest telling us that everyone does has distributed data-centers because you'd be stupid not to. Honesty is far more valuable as you base it on service and the willingness of the company to work with you rather than against you.
There is most definitely room for corporate ethics in the modern world. It's a shame more companies don't practice it. Let's hope the company we went with which is growing like crazy and the trend Ben and Jerry's started continues. It's shame Ben and Jerry's sold off but they became successful because of a great product and great ethics. The ethics separated them from everyone else and as a result during the history of private ownership the company only saw a loss in its first year.
Yes you would let your customers know that next door has better tomato sauce but you have a better meat selection. Deception only works in the short term, in the long term you get repeat business through honesty. Apple may not care about repeat business although given that the vast majority of their buyers are repeat buyers I wouldn't think that would make sense to them.
This kind of advertising is too transparent. Any customer doing any research into these products will see through it and think negatively of Apple for playing their customers as fools.
They should instead focus on things that make it unique and explain how this product will do for phones what the iPod did for MP3 players. That would be far more effective.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. Even the TomTom commercials show a driver in a city using it to navigate the freeways. That's the biggest use of GPS. Of course I do my wifi site surveys with GPS as well but I wouldn't expect a phone to let me do that.
The fact that is works flawlessly in most parts of Vermont says a lot too given the rural nature of the majority of state. The parts where you don't get cell coverage are usually deep in the woods and mountains where you wouldn't want to rely on a cell phone for anything. There you use a GPS unit more suited to the rough nature of hiking. Even then I don't think GPS is necessary because you would have been studying your route before hand and it wouldn't be a big deal to pull out a small map and compass. When you're driving taking your eyes off the road to look at a map just seems like a bad idea.
That's funny because you obviously don't get around much. My parents traveled to Arizona, when I needed to meet them somewhere I just give them the address and off they go using their cellphone GPS with no problems.
I did the exact same thing when I went to San Diego getting around the city I'm completely unfamiliar with. I was never once lost and since I was in the city I had perfectly fine reception. Of course I also have Pandora on my phone which I love. Of course when I'm driving cross country it's always XM radio instead because coverage can be spotty. Although with Sprint I was good all for the entire length of the i40. i10 is well covered as well.
Also, I find I have very little need for GPS on long trips since the route is planned ahead of time. For running around a city it is most definitely very useful despite you thinking me delusional. I've used it in Vegas, LA, SF, SD, NYC, Palm Beach, Burlington VT! And countless other cities without any issue whatsoever.
Actually yes, honesty is a much more effective sales tool. I ran into this when we selected our camera management software. When the pros and cons that the sales guy gives you match what you have researched on your own you're much more inclined to buy from them with all else being equal.
Of course when all else isn't equal then you have to resort to other tactics. Not a statement about this particular case since the product in question hasn't been released yet so a lot could still change.
So leave out the taxation and the artists will continue to do art. How many bands out there have day jobs? 99.999999% you say? The vast vast majority of them aren't in it for the money, they are in it for the girls and the art of it. I'm not sure I understand why the popular people need to make millions? Perhaps because in modern society it's not about making enough money to be comfortable but about making the most money possible.
When you have that trend resulting in corporations giving out millions to CEOs while laying off profitable divisions just because the stock will go up a point. Think IBM Global Services which posted a profit but it undergoing layoffs. When you have that kind of culture you will always end up with people pushing against the status quo because it is unfair to them. My dad got laid off in the recent round of layoffs but now he'll be going into business for himself and ultimately I think he'll be happier so I don't harbor ill will. The fact remains there was zero reason for the massive layoffs as the company was indeed making money and showing no signs that things were going to change. When greed is the driving force expect people who have been slighted by the greed to fight back anyway they can. This means downloading content which has priced itself out of the market. Think $700 for Photoshop which has gone down considerably in quality over the years. Think Autocad which is the same story. The products are expensive and the quality is going down so people have less of an incentive to want to purchase them. Look at movies these days, pretty much all sequels and instead of costing less they are costing more. Think about the Toy Story franchise, do you think the second movie cost near as much to make as the first movie? Did they remake all the models from scratch? How about Shrek? Each release comes out and it doesn't cost any less despite costing less to produce. Why would people continue to pay the high price when they know this?
I don't agree with funding entertainment through taxation except perhaps for public events like the 4th of July. I'm of the mind that people will pay what they think the product is worth. Considering the level of piracy I would say that the products are worth considerably less these days than they were in the past. This makes sense as it's easier to experience these days. Perhaps Hollywood should produce fewer movies of higher quality if they plan on justifying higher prices. Saving Private Ryan for instance I was perfectly willing to pay for because the movie was well done. Serenity is another example. Now Starship Troopers? All of the Scream movies? What is the real value of these movies? Clearly the producers of these movies are pricing the product out of reach. Furthermore, the people I know that download the most movies are considered to be the movie buffs. They would spend a lot of money on movies if they didn't download them. Instead all their friends and family come to them for recommendations and based on what they've downloaded they will recommend a movie through word of mouth instead of direct advertising. This has been the case for music as well. Remember Napster being taken down and CD sales taking a huge dive?
It's a tough time we live in right now as scarcity of the past is no longer a problem, diamonds used to be hard to come by, now we can make in the lab better quality diamonds, why then are the lower quality diamonds more expensive? The problem exists all over our society right now. The right course of action is probably going to be painful for a lot of people on top but ultimately when you bring everyone up then everyone benefits. Think people getting educated and not being addicted to cigarettes reducing the cost of health-care for everyone. It's going to sound a lot like communism but a system will need to be devised that doesn't contain the inherent problems. A free-market has it's uses and it has it's problems. We're going to need to decide how to deal with these issues probably sooner rather than later. Or we'll make more and more laws and try to keep the status quo. That is sadly what will probably happen in the foreseeable future.
I should have been more specific, I can see why you would link the two. I was answering the parents notion that humans don't have the ability to effect the atmosphere on a large scale. Smog has been dramatically reduced in California as the state got tough on emissions. Texas around the same time Bush became governor had no such restrictions and over the course of the 90's became the largest smog producer. You're right that smog is less of a problem these days but the damage was done.
Of course it's the CO2 in the air that has produced acid rain for the north east. Another example of humans effecting the atmosphere on a large scale. Unfortunately I don't know my world history as well, it would be nice to have a few examples outside the U.S.
All the federal regulations were lifted when Bush went into office so information about clean air standards needs to have a context. Clinton had imposed some tough regulations on emissions but all that was rather quickly undone. This is of course will confuse the issue as such changes don't immediately cause wide spread harm. We probably won't see the full effects of the air pollution that is allowed today for another five to ten years.
So let me get this straight, you think all the ice that is melting is floating? You probably think all the ice in is the north and south poles as well. Besides the fact that the ice of the antarctic is receeding rapidly, Greenland is experience the exact same melting as well. Not all of it is floating and as the stuff that does float melts the faster the the ice that doesn't float will melt.
It's shortsighted views on the math of the problem that scare me as they paralyze people that don't understand it. I'm sorry, but I do in fact understand displacement and you don't seem to understand the nature of what is happening.
As for what we know, we do know what is going on, we can measure the increase in temperature, we can measure in the increase in CO2 which has been linked with an explosion in biodiversity so it's not entirely a bad thing. The only problem is the cycle of the past was indeed violent and will in fact kill a lot of people before society as a whole can adapt. It makes more sense to slow the problem down so that we can give ourselves more time to adapt. This is the root of the debate, global warming is happening, there are a number of contributing factors and we cannot stop it. We can however, slow it down. That is simply fact.
The pace at which we need to do it is up for debate but we need to stop debating the need to do it and start debating the best ways to do it.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Why would we continue on this path knowing the harm it is causing? Why is it that I have to watch which fish I eat again because of mercury poisoning? The problem is pervasive.
Slashdot Mirror
If they could add something like that to the Tesla roadster I think you would have a winner. A plug in vehicle than can go 250 miles on a single charge. It takes 3 hours to charge but if its a sunny day the sun will charge the as you're out and about thus eliminating the 3 hours. You could then probably got cross country with the car if you wanted not depending on solar power because you have 250 miles of battery power available. It would at least be easy out here in the south west.
I've never run into any problems either, they are usually very high quality, but this is reasonably new and my latest experiences have been much worse. I had a new 9550 controller that would only start up properly half the time. A firmware upgrade later and it was stable but that seems like an odd product to release when it clearly had issues. That box was with Linux but the OS didn't matter as the bios wouldn't load.
The Tesla's range is 250 miles on a full charge which takes 3 hours. That's not that bad. It would suck for cross country going 250 miles then have to stop for 3 hours to charge up. Around the city though it would be more than sufficient, even enough to take it to the desert for some track racing.
Battery technology is definitely the limiting factor, I think at this point it's specifically the charging end of the equation though.
I wasn't aware that NTFS-G ran that fast in user-mode. Every-time I've seen an application go from kernel-mode to user-mode I've seen a performance hit.
I'm a fan of microkernels as well, sometimes you do need something all inclusive though.
You are right in that DRM checks will definitely slow it down, but they only slow it down when the media in question uses it. There is no inherent DRM that I am aware of. Memory management has always been an issue with Windows as well. Seems to be largely driver related which gets back to kernel-mode drivers taking down a system. My RAID drivers seem to be doing that to me right now on one of my file servers. Runs out of memory if I don't reboot the thing every other day. I've never run into that problem before, makes me think twice about 3ware RAID controllers.
I've been looking at deploying a similar setup here except with the Televantage PBX software instead of Asterisk. Is that a feature of the phone or a feature of your PBX or some combination of both?
I didn't appreciate the parent's tone on this as you've said, both methods can and do work for a lot of people.
This is why a lot of us do a hybrid approach, a cluster which is up to date and a cluster with the previous release. If the current release is working out then you update the previous release servers to current and the clusters switch roles. This ensures zero downtime as a new release causing a kernel panic will result in a the other cluster taking over duties. Not an inexpensive solution but it does indeed work and is not technology difficult or even complicated to implement.
For more cost conscious environments I've got a server or two public facing, when it's update time I have a third server with identical hardware, do my testing, do a load simulation and you have enough confidence to move forward upgrading one public server, then the next. Not a 100% solution but if you're cost conscious it's your best bet.
This is and was always one of the chief complaints about Windows as well, everything in the kernel so a malfunction can take the whole system down. Now the push to user-space makes everything more robust. Of course you also take a performance hit hence the slowness that is Vista.
Still, if ZFS under FUSE is half as fast as XFS in kernel-mode then you're not talking about an FS that is particularly slow, you would still gain the data protection from ZFS which in my mind at least is the whole point. It would work for a near-line type storage system where performance isn't as critical. When the speed gets up then it can move to online storage where it will utilize the lessons it learned from near-line storage giving it a track record which will make people more comfortable in adopting it.
Imagine a world where companies compete on service because all companies provide the same basic products. It would be amazing, exactly like the online bidding world, a thousand companies offering real-time streaming and basically the same product but they compete on quality of service and speed of delivery or some balance between to two. That sounds like a terrible place doesn't?
Course then you go and look at Apple copying the MP3 player which took lots and lots of R&D and then make tons in profit. Doesn't sound like patents are working anyway to me. Apple didn't get around it by innovating, the only thing different about an iPod versus a ton of other players that existed long before it was the interface and that word again, service. People could get the music for their players easily and without worrying about lawsuits.
I'm inclined to say innovation is spurred through the desire to get ahead, once you get ahead you hold the spotlight while the competition catches up giving you time to ramp up service to stay ahead of the competition. Sounds to me a like a system that makes a lot more sense.
People that want to do it for unethical reasons will do it regardless of the law. Think the recent HP scandals.
You are right that it is indeed a big gray area. As more case law expands that will change. I think we're well into the reasonable expectation of privacy though. When I send an email I'm pretty certain that only the recipient is actually going to read it. If I start cursing or sending porn and a content filter catches because it's against company policy then I don't feel my privacy as been violated because the policy was stated ahead of time. If the policy is too draconian then you don't communicate with that person through email or be very careful about what you say.
The same goes for a phone conversation, if I call someone up and start speaking inappropriately or unprofessionally then there is a chance the call could be recorded or monitored and consequences as a result. Not a violation of privacy because the policy is stated ahead of time.
I didn't know the vast majority of anime out there was illegal... That enjoys the same freedom of speech in the U.S. at least. Same with fictional stories depicting it. Hell, you only need to go to a site like literotica to see things that you wouldn't probably agree with but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Virtual murder and virtual kiddie porn isn't a crime. The real thing most definitely is on both counts as it should be. When there is a clear victim then you can call it a crime.
That said there is definitely a social stigma which might be why you thought it was illegal. I've no problem with this as there will always be guidelines a society follows that is different from the law. The law is supposed to protect those people that don't wish to follow those guidelines. As long as their freedom doesn't restrict the freedom of another then it's fair game.
Of course if a country wants to get together and decide that virtual kiddie porn is so bad that it should be illegal then that's cool. I'd personally be inclined to support it because I don't think there is any gain from such speech. As a citizen of the country I don't think I could support a law restricting free-speech though. I think I'm happy with it being a social stigma.
So in short, there is no hypocrisy in regards to this, at least in the U.S. The UK could definitely be different.
The problem is the larger majority of nuts jobs out there that spend their energy on the game instead of acting out in real life.
Sometimes when you get angry you just want to blow stuff up. Doom accomplished that back in the day and other games fill varying desires. That's the whole point of these games!
Personally this game may be too much for me to enjoy but I've no doubt others would like it and so it should be allowed in the marketplace, I won't buy it because I won't like what's in it. No harm no foul.
The tiny majority of nut jobs who get amped up enough playing a game to go out and commit real crimes would have committed them anyway. Think the Need for Speed franchise creating a generation of racers to follow the generation of racers before them which followed the previous generation. The game didn't make people want to race, they wanted to race anyways.
Of course not, that has always been accepted given that virus and content filtering are both unchallenged in court and they both require administrative personnel to be able to open email. As long as there is a valid reason for the intrusion it will be accepted. That is at least my take on what this release says. You can't go into someone else's mailbox without a good reason which has always been common corporate policy.
I had this very conversation with my company's lawyer a few months ago because a certain manager was making the life miserable for one of the people under her. She was forcing her the person under her to stand up from her desk every so often so that the manager could sit down and look through her email to make sure she wasn't emailing anyone she shouldn't. I'm the only one in the company authorized to do so it was a clear violation of her privacy sine there was no cause for this action as all the evidence was showing that she was model employee.
Now if a circumstance comes where we suspect someone is sending out sensitive information then it's time for me to go to work and investigate. Personally I hate that part of my job because I tend to learn a lot more about a person than I want to know. I think it's the right policy though and I'm glad the law seems to support it.
Expectation of privacy != secure
Expectation of privacy really matters when the police are involved. Beyond that, replacing a switch with a hub isn't going to do anything but cause an outage, ARP poisoning is impossible unless you've compromised a router and wireless networks are only locally vulnerable. Capturing the traffic is an extreme circumstance and cannot be done unintentionally. Furthermore, the only time it can lawfully be captured is by a representative of the owner of the network or by law enforcement.
Again, it is possible to snoop on someone's email, however, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to accomplish it, in the event that you can you have already committed other crimes which will land you in prison for much longer than credit card fraud.
The difference is that the casual observer can hear two people holding a conversation in a public place. You cannot casually observe email without explicitly trying. That is the big difference, it takes effort to look at email and that is why there is an expectation of privacy.
I've dealt with a few organizations where they've sent credit card info in an email. They are business cards with fraud protection so most people don't worry about it. Of course you must trust the recipient. Ultimately no one things their email will be intercepted in transit because that rarely happens due to the fact that you'd have to have a compromised DNS server to accomplish it or compromise a router in the path. In either circumstance an alternate crime has already been committed and will be dealt with. I'm not sure there has ever been a case of credit card fraud because someone sent and email with credit info and the message was intercepted. It's always the recipient of the information mishandling the data in some way.
Personally I don't care either, what I write in email I freely share with others because I use my corporate account. I'm the only one in the company authorized to go through email so I really don't have to worry, beyond that it just doesn't matter. If you speak ill of someone speak ill of them to their face. I've never been afraid of my emails being public but given that the execs often plan secretive meetings and the future of the company through email I can understand the expectation of privacy. Just because I can go through everyone's email doesn't mean that I do. I require a specific reason and only then will I move forward. I do this even when an exec asks me to pry into email accounts. If they don't have a reason then I don't do it. The company lawyer supports me in it all so I'm pretty safe.
I would agree that sending CC info in email isn't necessary the brightest thing to do but no more so than giving it over the phone to someone which also enjoys an expectation of privacy.
Don't know how email works in your organization but here it's encrypted until it hits the first MTA. An ethernet sniffer won't get you anywhere. A postcard also cannot be removed from the mailbox by anyone other than the recipient, a representative, or through a court order. That sounds about right for email.
Just because it's realistic to say that a few people might read the postcard while handling your mail doesn't mean that the police should be able to just grab all your mail and rifle through it without a warrant.
I'll add one more reply since you seem to think deception works in corporate culture although we're talking about the consumer end of things. In the corporate side of things I had a certain online auction company pitching to me about their product and the things that were unique about their product. Nothing they mentioned was actually unique. Upon asking questions they started describing implementation details but they never got into anything that I would consider unique and even remotely superior to my current solution.
Of course the worst part about it was that they gave me a presentation which showed clear lag and then proceeded to tell me the "real" product was sub-second delay. They didn't have anyway to show me this of course in the demonstration they setup for me. They also had the audacity to tell us how to run our business despite us being in it for 30 years and them being in it for four years. They might have had some interesting insights but their poor demonstration resulted in me deciding they were not worth my time. They didn't even follow up the next day like they said they would which wasn't surprising.
Compare that with the company we currently use, they gave us a real demonstration giving us access to an auction they were putting on for someone else. You could hear it over the phone and hear it over the company with proper sub-second delay. They were open an honest telling us that everyone does has distributed data-centers because you'd be stupid not to. Honesty is far more valuable as you base it on service and the willingness of the company to work with you rather than against you.
There is most definitely room for corporate ethics in the modern world. It's a shame more companies don't practice it. Let's hope the company we went with which is growing like crazy and the trend Ben and Jerry's started continues. It's shame Ben and Jerry's sold off but they became successful because of a great product and great ethics. The ethics separated them from everyone else and as a result during the history of private ownership the company only saw a loss in its first year.
Yes you would let your customers know that next door has better tomato sauce but you have a better meat selection. Deception only works in the short term, in the long term you get repeat business through honesty. Apple may not care about repeat business although given that the vast majority of their buyers are repeat buyers I wouldn't think that would make sense to them.
This kind of advertising is too transparent. Any customer doing any research into these products will see through it and think negatively of Apple for playing their customers as fools.
They should instead focus on things that make it unique and explain how this product will do for phones what the iPod did for MP3 players. That would be far more effective.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. Even the TomTom commercials show a driver in a city using it to navigate the freeways. That's the biggest use of GPS. Of course I do my wifi site surveys with GPS as well but I wouldn't expect a phone to let me do that.
The fact that is works flawlessly in most parts of Vermont says a lot too given the rural nature of the majority of state. The parts where you don't get cell coverage are usually deep in the woods and mountains where you wouldn't want to rely on a cell phone for anything. There you use a GPS unit more suited to the rough nature of hiking. Even then I don't think GPS is necessary because you would have been studying your route before hand and it wouldn't be a big deal to pull out a small map and compass. When you're driving taking your eyes off the road to look at a map just seems like a bad idea.
That's funny because you obviously don't get around much. My parents traveled to Arizona, when I needed to meet them somewhere I just give them the address and off they go using their cellphone GPS with no problems.
I did the exact same thing when I went to San Diego getting around the city I'm completely unfamiliar with. I was never once lost and since I was in the city I had perfectly fine reception. Of course I also have Pandora on my phone which I love. Of course when I'm driving cross country it's always XM radio instead because coverage can be spotty. Although with Sprint I was good all for the entire length of the i40. i10 is well covered as well.
Also, I find I have very little need for GPS on long trips since the route is planned ahead of time. For running around a city it is most definitely very useful despite you thinking me delusional. I've used it in Vegas, LA, SF, SD, NYC, Palm Beach, Burlington VT! And countless other cities without any issue whatsoever.
Actually yes, honesty is a much more effective sales tool. I ran into this when we selected our camera management software. When the pros and cons that the sales guy gives you match what you have researched on your own you're much more inclined to buy from them with all else being equal.
Of course when all else isn't equal then you have to resort to other tactics. Not a statement about this particular case since the product in question hasn't been released yet so a lot could still change.
Well hey, they could just be playing the same 30 seconds of porn over and over for seven hours.
So leave out the taxation and the artists will continue to do art. How many bands out there have day jobs? 99.999999% you say? The vast vast majority of them aren't in it for the money, they are in it for the girls and the art of it. I'm not sure I understand why the popular people need to make millions? Perhaps because in modern society it's not about making enough money to be comfortable but about making the most money possible.
When you have that trend resulting in corporations giving out millions to CEOs while laying off profitable divisions just because the stock will go up a point. Think IBM Global Services which posted a profit but it undergoing layoffs. When you have that kind of culture you will always end up with people pushing against the status quo because it is unfair to them. My dad got laid off in the recent round of layoffs but now he'll be going into business for himself and ultimately I think he'll be happier so I don't harbor ill will. The fact remains there was zero reason for the massive layoffs as the company was indeed making money and showing no signs that things were going to change. When greed is the driving force expect people who have been slighted by the greed to fight back anyway they can. This means downloading content which has priced itself out of the market. Think $700 for Photoshop which has gone down considerably in quality over the years. Think Autocad which is the same story. The products are expensive and the quality is going down so people have less of an incentive to want to purchase them. Look at movies these days, pretty much all sequels and instead of costing less they are costing more. Think about the Toy Story franchise, do you think the second movie cost near as much to make as the first movie? Did they remake all the models from scratch? How about Shrek? Each release comes out and it doesn't cost any less despite costing less to produce. Why would people continue to pay the high price when they know this?
I don't agree with funding entertainment through taxation except perhaps for public events like the 4th of July. I'm of the mind that people will pay what they think the product is worth. Considering the level of piracy I would say that the products are worth considerably less these days than they were in the past. This makes sense as it's easier to experience these days. Perhaps Hollywood should produce fewer movies of higher quality if they plan on justifying higher prices. Saving Private Ryan for instance I was perfectly willing to pay for because the movie was well done. Serenity is another example. Now Starship Troopers? All of the Scream movies? What is the real value of these movies? Clearly the producers of these movies are pricing the product out of reach. Furthermore, the people I know that download the most movies are considered to be the movie buffs. They would spend a lot of money on movies if they didn't download them. Instead all their friends and family come to them for recommendations and based on what they've downloaded they will recommend a movie through word of mouth instead of direct advertising. This has been the case for music as well. Remember Napster being taken down and CD sales taking a huge dive?
It's a tough time we live in right now as scarcity of the past is no longer a problem, diamonds used to be hard to come by, now we can make in the lab better quality diamonds, why then are the lower quality diamonds more expensive? The problem exists all over our society right now. The right course of action is probably going to be painful for a lot of people on top but ultimately when you bring everyone up then everyone benefits. Think people getting educated and not being addicted to cigarettes reducing the cost of health-care for everyone. It's going to sound a lot like communism but a system will need to be devised that doesn't contain the inherent problems. A free-market has it's uses and it has it's problems. We're going to need to decide how to deal with these issues probably sooner rather than later. Or we'll make more and more laws and try to keep the status quo. That is sadly what will probably happen in the foreseeable future.
I'm not blaming pollution on any one place. It's a combination of contributing factors which was my whole damned point.
I should have been more specific, I can see why you would link the two. I was answering the parents notion that humans don't have the ability to effect the atmosphere on a large scale. Smog has been dramatically reduced in California as the state got tough on emissions. Texas around the same time Bush became governor had no such restrictions and over the course of the 90's became the largest smog producer. You're right that smog is less of a problem these days but the damage was done.
Of course it's the CO2 in the air that has produced acid rain for the north east. Another example of humans effecting the atmosphere on a large scale. Unfortunately I don't know my world history as well, it would be nice to have a few examples outside the U.S.
All the federal regulations were lifted when Bush went into office so information about clean air standards needs to have a context. Clinton had imposed some tough regulations on emissions but all that was rather quickly undone. This is of course will confuse the issue as such changes don't immediately cause wide spread harm. We probably won't see the full effects of the air pollution that is allowed today for another five to ten years.
So let me get this straight, you think all the ice that is melting is floating? You probably think all the ice in is the north and south poles as well. Besides the fact that the ice of the antarctic is receeding rapidly, Greenland is experience the exact same melting as well. Not all of it is floating and as the stuff that does float melts the faster the the ice that doesn't float will melt.
It's shortsighted views on the math of the problem that scare me as they paralyze people that don't understand it. I'm sorry, but I do in fact understand displacement and you don't seem to understand the nature of what is happening.
As for what we know, we do know what is going on, we can measure the increase in temperature, we can measure in the increase in CO2 which has been linked with an explosion in biodiversity so it's not entirely a bad thing. The only problem is the cycle of the past was indeed violent and will in fact kill a lot of people before society as a whole can adapt. It makes more sense to slow the problem down so that we can give ourselves more time to adapt. This is the root of the debate, global warming is happening, there are a number of contributing factors and we cannot stop it. We can however, slow it down. That is simply fact.
The pace at which we need to do it is up for debate but we need to stop debating the need to do it and start debating the best ways to do it.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Why would we continue on this path knowing the harm it is causing? Why is it that I have to watch which fish I eat again because of mercury poisoning? The problem is pervasive.