For example, if you have tough sentences for violent robbery, it won't change the attitude of the would-be robbers, just make them more afraid
We aren't talking about violent robbery, we're talking about copyright infringement. You can't equate a crime against intellectual property with violence. People who copy Content without paying for it are pretty far down the ladder of malfeasance, and spending a little effort to correct them might be worth it, compared to a violent felon. Most states don't deprive someone of their freedom forever after one violent offense, they, as a matter of fact, often have a three-strikes policy (excepting violence that is heinous, murderous, or pre-meditated). People who commit violent crimes often don't plan too, and thus aren't afraid of the punishment.
Let's not get start on the whole "copyright infringement is not a crime" stuff, OK?
I specifically tried to avoid addressing the merits of the "RIAA-Nazi blackmail" argument , but you seem to have read a conclusion into my statements that does not exist. FWIW, I doubt the school would have a zero-tolerance policy if not for the constant threat of lawsuits.
I am curious how this policy compares with their "Academic Integrity" (ie plagiarism) policy. Those generally are "one strike," though there is extensive student and faculty review and juridical proceedings before someone is expelled. I don't see any of that here.
Rules must be *fair* to be *respected*, but being *tough* is fine if all you care is about them being *effective*
You can't let "effectiveness" be the only metric. We could take every male between the age of 16 and 26 and keep them in prison, and it'd be EXTREMELY effective in reducing violent crime (something like 90%). Of course, such a solution punishes people who have no mens rea, who intend no ill to anyone or thing, and when you punish people who others can see are not guilty, the law suffers.
TFA mentions that Stanford and other schools charge high "Reconnection" fees after they block your MAC for sharing files. Why don't they just do something like that and make a load of money?
"Zero-tolerance" is all about moralism, and rarely about correcting behavior, or "teaching" people anything. It'll have a good effect statistically, but the people who get their privileges pulled won't have their attitude changed, they'll just conclude the "RIAA-Nazis" blackmailed his school into screwing with his education.
It doesn't matter how true it is, rules must give the appearance of fairness in order to be respected.
When reading the CS literature, one always must be careful they aren't talking about Project MAC. If you're using a program with"Mac" in its name, and you're using a TTY to do it, it's quite unlikely Apple was involved.
And enhanced QoS (primarily 10-20% discounts) at many businesses throughout the United States. However, they poll out of proportion for their total share of the medium.
I dunno, Dolby has done a lot to assert that THEY = surround, which though flawed is a bit more accurate, and when people walk into a movie theater, they simply expect that the speakers on the walls will emit sound giving the impression of sound in depth, without asking "who" or "how". When people ask me what kind of audio gear they should buy, I tell them to just get stereo speakers, maybe a center channel, and to buy movie tickets if they want to hear a film the way it was intended. Surround speakers without secondary acoustics (mainly room shape) are pretty worthless, particularly when your head is a meter away from one or the other surround. None of my friends have a 1000 sq. ft. screening room (yet).
So, go teach.
I think I can do better than the douche at Best Buy who's trying to push the Onkyo 920s over the 900s, on account of that damn sticker. If people ask me what THX is, I tell them it's history, which is basically true at this point. New rooms aren't getting certified half as fast as Georgie is cashing in the brand, and in the end the goal of THX, namely quality control of film sound in presentation, has become secondary in marketing terms to the endless hype over digital projection systems that never take off.
My teacher in school was the inventor of THX, the theatrical motion picture system. He was eventually forced out of Lucasfilm in the early 90s, and every now and then we would mention the newest "THX" product we saw, like around the time were in school, car audio systems were starting to get "THX" certifications. He'd just roll his eyes and laugh, and mutter "ridiculous."
The original tech, a THX movie theater, is still worth seeking out, since they still enforce the quality control standards in those (after all, this is the only thing George cared about in the first place). Everything else is a co-branding marketing gimmick.
An interesting factoid on this, though a little OT: iPhones do not appear to implement rendezvous/bonjour/zeroconf. I can't connect to any of my Mac zeroconf hosts by connecting through the *.local domain names that bonjour usually sets up, and I've read others are unable to do this as well.
Particularly since coagulation requires the presence of air in order to occur. Your wound wouldn't clot.
Though, the puncture they might be worried about would be pinpoint-sized, small enough to get through the suit but losing enough energy to be embedded in it. OTOH, if you're wearing an ultra-light pressure garment, you could wear a flak jacket and you would get your durability back while keeping a mass STILL smaller than that of current suits.
Besides the fact that the "fancy-schmancy" MS Surface looked a lot more functional than this MPX thing.
Except the most compelling feature of the Surface, the ability to recognize objects placed on it, was faked for the purpose of demonstration. All the objects placed on the surface had large barcode stickers (called "domioes") placed on the side facing toward the Surface (and conveniently away from the camera.)
One also hastens to add that the Surface ran no form of operating system Microsoft sells (or would ever), while the "MPX" project is built on X and you could install it on GNU/Linux or BSD tomorrow.
The Surface belongs with Nuveena in the Kitchen of Tomorrow.
MS-DOS 1.0 was Herbert Hoover, aloof to the problems of the common man but friend of the engineer in all of us. Also discovered Transformers.
Mac OS 7-8-9, all Franklin Roosevelt, very competent, lead us through difficult times, but left a legacy of programs which have become quite a mixed bag.
Windows 3.1, Dwight Eisenhower, amiable enough, competent, but leaving historians (and many contemporaries) very wanting.
Windows 95 thru ME, Lyndon Johnson, one of the boys, very able at getting things done, but in the end a disaster, rightfully ceding his throne.
Windows NT, Richard Nixon, the archetypal back-room politician, ruthless, and ultimately brought down by little faults, but many believe he was a great president and did much to modernize the Republican Party.
Windows XP, Ronald Reagan, everybody who hates him never met him, he could charm anyone, the Great Communicator. Bought Iranian weapons for contras with drug money.
Mac OS X, Bill Clinton, cheerful and smart, if not the most productive. Known for his speeches.
Joe Six pack who cannot presently afford a computer, or who would simply like to pay less, can instead get a machine with this installed and his hardware will be subsidized by ad revenue.
He'll certainly be able to aquire the a computer for less, but he won't really "own" it in any real sense. He'll also be renting his right to privacy out to whoever has bought the right to advertise to him that week.
What's the difference between buying a computer like this, and getting, say, free telephone service that will occasionally inject and add into the conversation occasionally, and that records all of your conversations so that the ads can be more targeted and "save you the time" of having to listen to ads that don't interest you?
Somebody implements this thing, and our expectation of privacy on our computers (even the stuff we never send over the internet) goes right out the window.
Well yes, but I guess it depends on your definition of "constraining the user." Setting up a SAN with remote home directories I wouldn't consider "constraining the user," because it doesn't require any action on their part, and the desktop experience is about the same. OTOH, just emailing everyone once a month to say "Everyone back up your drives! It's policy!" isn't really good IT; the idea is to provide as many services as possible while requiring the least possible interaction from them.
It's like a doctor treating a hypothetical disease. The two cures are (1) one surgery or (2) having the patient take a cheap pill every 12 hours for the rest of their life. The pill solution might be a lot less expensive, but you run into issues with patient compliance.
I thought we were talking about the backup images of the mobile device, not the mobile device itself. TFA criticizes security of backups on desktops of mobile devices, not to security of the mobile devices.
You still need someone's credentials to access their home directory, meaning you need their name, password and any third factor you might want. You might be thinking of something different.
Further, with local homes it's pretty easy to fake another user; if Alice wants to fake Bob, Alice simply sits at Bob's desk and turns his computer on. If you can touch a box, as long as the hard drive isn't encrypted, you'll be able to get what's on it (and large organizations would do well to forbid people from encrypting their information with personal passwords). When all the data's back in the server room you can impose much tighter physical security on it, since you just have to police the rack, instead of having to police the whole building, making sure keys don't get copied, people don't leave their doors open, etc.
Well, NFS / automount and an array works quite nicely if you don't want to shell out the dough for a full-on SAN.
It do, but it don't scale past more than a couple people. The nice thing about local homes is that when the machine at the desk crashes, only the guy at the desk can't work. If the machine with the exported NFS crashes, suddenly the whole company can't work, so for anything more than a few people you need the whole five-nines bullshit.
I agree perfectly that the article completely overlooks the abuse potentials (wot!? You're leaving us for XYZ phone company? Well, we're sorry, but your data stays here!)
The article might be pointed at very big businesses, though the really salient point is "USB syncing will die". TFA regards mobile backup data a lot like inventory, and the carrier's servers like a warehouse. A big company can switch warehouses if the warehouse gets to expensive or does things the big company doesn't like, and so it may go for their mobile carriers. For SOHO and human beings, however, the economics are such that you can't just "switch," and large businesses are able to throw their weight around with carriers when the carriers try to pull crap with contact-data-lockin.
Crackberries already have facilities to sync email and contact/calendar/etc info wirelessly [...]
As does Windows Mobile (whatever that exactly is), and we may (just may) see something OSS when the a few people starting developing for OpenMoko, if we ever start seeing phones that support it. My Treo allegedly offered this OTA thru the GPRS, but you had to have some special server at the other end. Does anyone know if Nokia's do OTA syncing, or do you need Good or something? iPhones don't OTA sync as yet, but Apple is rolling out new server software later this year, which will offer most Exchange features using IMAP, LDAP and CalDAV.
Pointing that out isn't "blame the user", it's "point out how user behavior constrains how IT can solve the problem".
If the user's home directories are kept on a share, then it's relatively easy to back up their stuff on a daily basis, but it costs money to build the SAN and network infrastructure. Even easier, put scripts on their systems to rsync their home directories to a repository at night; there are several commercial programs that will do this, but again you do have to spend money (on Macs, Retrospect was pretty good for this).
Maybe the Iron Triangle of IT is GoodCheapConstrain the User.
With regard to the article, it's solution is no better, it proposes several carrier-based backup plans that lock all your data up on Sprint's servers-- \sarcastic{which I'm sure are SO much safer than the average corporate desktop, nobody would ever think of cracking a box with a 10 million business names, tel numbers and addresses on it.}
I had to exchange my iPhone yesterday for a new one (the touch screen had become numb in a section after a week, a very painless process BTW). When I brought the new one back from the store, iTunes restored it UTTERLY: when the phone came up, the application I had up before I synced was in focus, all of my applications were in even the same modes they had been in when I synced it, down to the route I had showing in Google Maps, plus my history. My old Treo, though not this detailed, would still have my photos, call logs, and applications all restored, and with the associated preferences and settings restored. I just don't see a cell carrier providing that level of support for individual devices.
Slashdot Mirror
We aren't talking about violent robbery, we're talking about copyright infringement. You can't equate a crime against intellectual property with violence. People who copy Content without paying for it are pretty far down the ladder of malfeasance, and spending a little effort to correct them might be worth it, compared to a violent felon. Most states don't deprive someone of their freedom forever after one violent offense, they, as a matter of fact, often have a three-strikes policy (excepting violence that is heinous, murderous, or pre-meditated). People who commit violent crimes often don't plan too, and thus aren't afraid of the punishment.
I specifically tried to avoid addressing the merits of the "RIAA-Nazi blackmail" argument , but you seem to have read a conclusion into my statements that does not exist. FWIW, I doubt the school would have a zero-tolerance policy if not for the constant threat of lawsuits.
I am curious how this policy compares with their "Academic Integrity" (ie plagiarism) policy. Those generally are "one strike," though there is extensive student and faculty review and juridical proceedings before someone is expelled. I don't see any of that here.
You can't let "effectiveness" be the only metric. We could take every male between the age of 16 and 26 and keep them in prison, and it'd be EXTREMELY effective in reducing violent crime (something like 90%). Of course, such a solution punishes people who have no mens rea, who intend no ill to anyone or thing, and when you punish people who others can see are not guilty, the law suffers.
TFA mentions that Stanford and other schools charge high "Reconnection" fees after they block your MAC for sharing files. Why don't they just do something like that and make a load of money?
"Zero-tolerance" is all about moralism, and rarely about correcting behavior, or "teaching" people anything. It'll have a good effect statistically, but the people who get their privileges pulled won't have their attitude changed, they'll just conclude the "RIAA-Nazis" blackmailed his school into screwing with his education.
It doesn't matter how true it is, rules must give the appearance of fairness in order to be respected.
When reading the CS literature, one always must be careful they aren't talking about Project MAC. If you're using a program with"Mac" in its name, and you're using a TTY to do it, it's quite unlikely Apple was involved.
And enhanced QoS (primarily 10-20% discounts) at many businesses throughout the United States. However, they poll out of proportion for their total share of the medium.
I dunno, Dolby has done a lot to assert that THEY = surround, which though flawed is a bit more accurate, and when people walk into a movie theater, they simply expect that the speakers on the walls will emit sound giving the impression of sound in depth, without asking "who" or "how". When people ask me what kind of audio gear they should buy, I tell them to just get stereo speakers, maybe a center channel, and to buy movie tickets if they want to hear a film the way it was intended. Surround speakers without secondary acoustics (mainly room shape) are pretty worthless, particularly when your head is a meter away from one or the other surround. None of my friends have a 1000 sq. ft. screening room (yet).
I think I can do better than the douche at Best Buy who's trying to push the Onkyo 920s over the 900s, on account of that damn sticker. If people ask me what THX is, I tell them it's history, which is basically true at this point. New rooms aren't getting certified half as fast as Georgie is cashing in the brand, and in the end the goal of THX, namely quality control of film sound in presentation, has become secondary in marketing terms to the endless hype over digital projection systems that never take off.
This has been your show business minute.
My teacher in school was the inventor of THX, the theatrical motion picture system. He was eventually forced out of Lucasfilm in the early 90s, and every now and then we would mention the newest "THX" product we saw, like around the time were in school, car audio systems were starting to get "THX" certifications. He'd just roll his eyes and laugh, and mutter "ridiculous."
The original tech, a THX movie theater, is still worth seeking out, since they still enforce the quality control standards in those (after all, this is the only thing George cared about in the first place). Everything else is a co-branding marketing gimmick.
"NO!!!!! NO!!!!!"
(it was a lot sillier when Hayden Christianson said it)
An interesting factoid on this, though a little OT: iPhones do not appear to implement rendezvous/bonjour/zeroconf. I can't connect to any of my Mac zeroconf hosts by connecting through the *.local domain names that bonjour usually sets up, and I've read others are unable to do this as well.
Particularly since coagulation requires the presence of air in order to occur. Your wound wouldn't clot.
Though, the puncture they might be worried about would be pinpoint-sized, small enough to get through the suit but losing enough energy to be embedded in it. OTOH, if you're wearing an ultra-light pressure garment, you could wear a flak jacket and you would get your durability back while keeping a mass STILL smaller than that of current suits.
Masses 300lbs, weighs nothing, but still no friend of mobility.
Ooo it runs Vista, sorry.
Except the most compelling feature of the Surface, the ability to recognize objects placed on it, was faked for the purpose of demonstration. All the objects placed on the surface had large barcode stickers (called "domioes") placed on the side facing toward the Surface (and conveniently away from the camera.)
One also hastens to add that the Surface ran no form of operating system Microsoft sells (or would ever), while the "MPX" project is built on X and you could install it on GNU/Linux or BSD tomorrow.
The Surface belongs with Nuveena in the Kitchen of Tomorrow.
This is good, I like this political stuff:
MS-DOS 1.0 was Herbert Hoover, aloof to the problems of the common man but friend of the engineer in all of us. Also discovered Transformers.
Mac OS 7-8-9, all Franklin Roosevelt, very competent, lead us through difficult times, but left a legacy of programs which have become quite a mixed bag.
Windows 3.1, Dwight Eisenhower, amiable enough, competent, but leaving historians (and many contemporaries) very wanting.
Windows 95 thru ME, Lyndon Johnson, one of the boys, very able at getting things done, but in the end a disaster, rightfully ceding his throne.
Windows NT, Richard Nixon, the archetypal back-room politician, ruthless, and ultimately brought down by little faults, but many believe he was a great president and did much to modernize the Republican Party.
Windows XP, Ronald Reagan, everybody who hates him never met him, he could charm anyone, the Great Communicator. Bought Iranian weapons for contras with drug money.
Mac OS X, Bill Clinton, cheerful and smart, if not the most productive. Known for his speeches.
....
... Get off my lawn?
He'll certainly be able to aquire the a computer for less, but he won't really "own" it in any real sense. He'll also be renting his right to privacy out to whoever has bought the right to advertise to him that week.
What's the difference between buying a computer like this, and getting, say, free telephone service that will occasionally inject and add into the conversation occasionally, and that records all of your conversations so that the ads can be more targeted and "save you the time" of having to listen to ads that don't interest you?
Somebody implements this thing, and our expectation of privacy on our computers (even the stuff we never send over the internet) goes right out the window.
Only if there's no Marshalling.
The mantle, which is to say the body is two meters long. The other 6 is tentacles.
s/Die/Doe/
I will refrain from responding from my iPhone in the future ;)
Well yes, but I guess it depends on your definition of "constraining the user." Setting up a SAN with remote home directories I wouldn't consider "constraining the user," because it doesn't require any action on their part, and the desktop experience is about the same. OTOH, just emailing everyone once a month to say "Everyone back up your drives! It's policy!" isn't really good IT; the idea is to provide as many services as possible while requiring the least possible interaction from them.
It's like a doctor treating a hypothetical disease. The two cures are (1) one surgery or (2) having the patient take a cheap pill every 12 hours for the rest of their life. The pill solution might be a lot less expensive, but you run into issues with patient compliance.
I thought we were talking about the backup images of the mobile device, not the mobile device itself. TFA criticizes security of backups on desktops of mobile devices, not to security of the mobile devices.
You still need someone's credentials to access their home directory, meaning you need their name, password and any third factor you might want. You might be thinking of something different.
Further, with local homes it's pretty easy to fake another user; if Alice wants to fake Bob, Alice simply sits at Bob's desk and turns his computer on. If you can touch a box, as long as the hard drive isn't encrypted, you'll be able to get what's on it (and large organizations would do well to forbid people from encrypting their information with personal passwords). When all the data's back in the server room you can impose much tighter physical security on it, since you just have to police the rack, instead of having to police the whole building, making sure keys don't get copied, people don't leave their doors open, etc.
It do, but it don't scale past more than a couple people. The nice thing about local homes is that when the machine at the desk crashes, only the guy at the desk can't work. If the machine with the exported NFS crashes, suddenly the whole company can't work, so for anything more than a few people you need the whole five-nines bullshit.
The article might be pointed at very big businesses, though the really salient point is "USB syncing will die". TFA regards mobile backup data a lot like inventory, and the carrier's servers like a warehouse. A big company can switch warehouses if the warehouse gets to expensive or does things the big company doesn't like, and so it may go for their mobile carriers. For SOHO and human beings, however, the economics are such that you can't just "switch," and large businesses are able to throw their weight around with carriers when the carriers try to pull crap with contact-data-lockin.
As does Windows Mobile (whatever that exactly is), and we may (just may) see something OSS when the a few people starting developing for OpenMoko, if we ever start seeing phones that support it. My Treo allegedly offered this OTA thru the GPRS, but you had to have some special server at the other end. Does anyone know if Nokia's do OTA syncing, or do you need Good or something? iPhones don't OTA sync as yet, but Apple is rolling out new server software later this year, which will offer most Exchange features using IMAP, LDAP and CalDAV.
If the user's home directories are kept on a share, then it's relatively easy to back up their stuff on a daily basis, but it costs money to build the SAN and network infrastructure. Even easier, put scripts on their systems to rsync their home directories to a repository at night; there are several commercial programs that will do this, but again you do have to spend money (on Macs, Retrospect was pretty good for this).
Maybe the Iron Triangle of IT is GoodCheapConstrain the User.
With regard to the article, it's solution is no better, it proposes several carrier-based backup plans that lock all your data up on Sprint's servers-- \sarcastic{which I'm sure are SO much safer than the average corporate desktop, nobody would ever think of cracking a box with a 10 million business names, tel numbers and addresses on it.}
I had to exchange my iPhone yesterday for a new one (the touch screen had become numb in a section after a week, a very painless process BTW). When I brought the new one back from the store, iTunes restored it UTTERLY: when the phone came up, the application I had up before I synced was in focus, all of my applications were in even the same modes they had been in when I synced it, down to the route I had showing in Google Maps, plus my history. My old Treo, though not this detailed, would still have my photos, call logs, and applications all restored, and with the associated preferences and settings restored. I just don't see a cell carrier providing that level of support for individual devices.
His name was Frank, and Meet John Die was the greatest film ever made. ;)
In other words, misspent youth.