This is a naive and vastly trivialized point of view. Religion - and its rules - are created by man.
Yes, the various religions are constructs of men. his is true. It is, however, the middle eastern religions that seem to have a problem with sex. Most of the others, seem not to care.
Yes, religion is quite frequently corrupted into little more than a power struggle, but, that doesn't invalidate all the moral codes that the religion is based upon.
Yes, I'll consult the christian bible for the "moral" value on which I will place on my daughter when I sell her to slavery.
The "moral codes" the bible professes have been around long before J'esus.
The history of people is inexorably intertwined with religion
Which people?
Prostitution is not just "paying for sex". It's not no-strings-attached sexual intercourse. Then almost every young person is a prostitute. I've had plenty of NSA sex in my life. At 46 years old, I look back to my 20s and it was a lot of fun.
There is no such thing. This is simply not how humans (or any animal for that matter) behave. Obviously you are not a serious study of anthropology. In fact, did you know that, in human beings, there are sperm who's job it is to destroy other sperm? It seems we have a biological history of group sex.
The act of copulation is never done without risk for any living being. Again, if you refuse to believe this, you are delusional.
Life is risk. What's your point. man kind has been seeking to mitigate the risk of disease and reproduction for the acts of sex since we figured out that sex produces screaming children. It is just at this day and age we've gotten a little better at it.
any how, it begs the question, does this relate to prostitution being illegal. There are plenty of things that around which you could get a vague majority to think is immoral, but that does not mean it should be illegal.
For instance, I bet most people would think that knowingly lying on TV news casts is immoral, but in a Florida case a few years back, FOX News won a court battle against a production team who breached a contract with FOX because what FOX wanted was known to be false. Their defense was it was not the truth. FOX countered that it had no responsibility to tell the truth, and won.
I think publicly misrepresenting facts has a far more damaging effect on society than two adults have sex for money in a private venue.
It's a great way to spread STDs (at rates far higher than would occur 'naturally')
You have to prove that assertion.
Typically the prostitue is a woman who is at the mercy of a typically stronger man - with the inevitable results.
This is the case in life. Assault is still against the law.
It 'encourages' human trafficing, pimping, etc. all of which are disruptive to a orderly society.
So does the mere act of a young pretty girl walking door to door selling girl scout cookies.
It is difficult to tax (I'm sure loads of people will jump on this one)
So are a lot of things. A "handy man" is difficult to tax as well.
Aside from these reasons, it's degrading.
To whom? Being a school janitor can be pretty degrading, but it is not illegal.
Face it, prostitution is not the sort of thing that a civilized society *wishes* to tolerate.
Bull shit.
This last reason might not sit too well with your sense of morality, or freedom, but mankind has struggled for millenia trying to better the human condition, and prostitution was singled out pretty quickly as a type of behaviour with a negative contribution coefficient. Not much has changed.
Prostitution, like all moral codes about sex, spring from oppressive religions.
I don't see a difference between a girl who sleeps with men because they *have* money and a girl who sleeps with men *for* money. It is just one is more honest about it.
Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell. I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that. Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
That paragraph absolutely tries to say that Windows does not have a shell. If it did have a shell, which you claim to know that it did, why would you say: "it would be nice on the server side, I guess."
Now I understand the rest of your post... you hate MS and hate Windows,
Ad homionem attack. What I think or what you think I think has absolutely nothing to do with the facts stated or the argument presented.
You don't know anything about me, let me give you a hint: I am on the authors list for "Tricks of the Windows 3.1 Masters." from Sams Books.
Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell
Umm, except for XP, all versions of Windows in your list had "command.com." All DOS versions of Windows executed "autoexec.bat" at start up with the DOS shell command.com. XP has "cmd.exe"
I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that.
*you* may not have needed it.
but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
Yes, but because *you* don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there and not used.
Besides. If they included a shell, [they did ] everyone would just complain how they're copying UNIX and thus are even more useless.:)
Windows on its own is useless. The only things that make it non-useless have more to do with 3rd party support than anything Microsoft does. That's why monopolies are bad, because, even though Windows sucks, users have little practical choice.
Gates (and Allen) developed MBASIC, and DISK BASIC. DISK BASIC used the "FAT" system to control free space.
Gates and company copied basic from other sources.
The FAT system is nothing more than a fixed size array allocation system, in use in many systems of the time.
CP/M did NOT use the same scheme. Instead, CP/M built up free space maps by scanning the directory. It also did not use a linked list. Personally, I thought FAT was weak then, and still is....
CP/M was better, yes.
But the "industry" adopted it.
One has to wonder about the anti-trust issues of patent usage. Yes the industry adopted it, but could it have, in any practical sense, adopted anything else?
Then, Microsoft designed a long filename system on top of it, that was back-compatible with the old method. THAT was patented. And, no, it wasn't even the "obvious" solution -- that would have been a mapping file.
The word "obvious" is subjective. LFN in FAT is implemented simply using the existing directory mechanisms. Is the only way to do something "non obvious?"
Microsoft was creative with the MS FAT longname solution. Either deal with it, or get the patent overturned.
"Creative" is not what makes something worth a patent. Was it obvious? The only answer to that is yes, as someone skilled in the art (someone with file system experience, particularly FAT) their method was the only way to do it.
maybe they are just trying to protect their intellectual property
I'm not saying that "intellectual property" is a pointless concept, but what is currently implemented is frighteningly Philip K. Dick.
Software is particularly problematic. An invention does not always come from the intellect and work of the inventor. More often than not it is merely an observation and augmentation of the work and intellect of others.
Software is nothing more than building on that which was built by others, which was built on the work of people before that, and before that, ad infinitem. Even the implementor of a statistical analysis system owes credit to the creators of the programming language used to write it, the creators of the math system, etc.
Intellectual property my ass, it is a land-grab of an environment created by two generations of engineers that worked and published without patent protection. Now college drop-out Bill Gates, sues for trivial implementations of theoretical models created by men far better than him.
A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government.
Not exactly. The term "Windows" is trademarked, should Microsoft be the only entity to be able to purchase "windows?" of course not.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
Neither of these arguments are correct.
Trademarks are names and logos under which businesses trade. The reason why they are protected is to protect the reputation of the institution that holds them. Believe it or not, there is "fair use" of trade marks. It is perfectly legal to use someone else's trademark if you using only enough of it to identify the business.
For instance. A car dealership named "Planet Subaru" has the trademark "Planet Subaru." As a dissatisfied customer, I can create a website named "www.planetsubarusucks.com." I can even use the trademarked name "Planet Subaru" on this site as long as there is no confusion that I am associated with them, only as much of the trademark as necessary to identify the business, and that I do not intend to trade on their mark.
It is perfectly legitimate for a ford dealer to buy "toyota" to get business from a competitor. Trademarks are not for censorship.
I get alternately frustrated and paranoid about these sorts of things. How on earth can a DOCUMENT format have an exploitable code problem. How stupid do you have to be to create this monster.
Then the paranoia sinks in. People can't be this stupid. Really, seriously?
There are a lot of positives for "corporate amerika" (read anti-consumer) if we are all paranoid about our systems. if nothing is safe, you can bet someone will be trying to sell safety. In my best "tin foil hat" thinking, the people who perpetrate the insecurity in the first place and sell you additional safety, are not to be trusted.
There are lots of examples of "corporate amerika" teaming up to get you. RIAA and MPIAA are the more slashdot recognizable. A little paranoia may be just good thinking.
We need to remember that the computer is a revolutionary platform that continues to introduce disruptive innovations. "Corporate amerika" really really dislikes that which disturbs the status quo. The computer is too much of a money maker to destroy like they did DAT recorders. They are teaming up to make the computer more like a VCR or DVD player and less a platform of innovation.
Linux and free software is a problem for them because they can't control it. All they can control are the avenues through which we use our computers. The media formats, the services, etc. are all ways to leverage "corporate amerika's" assets against everyone.
I know this is all paranoia, but I don't think there needs to be an actual conspiracy for it to be true. "Corporate amerika" is anti-freedom, I think we can all agree that this is most always case. They don't have to intentionally work together, but a group entities with basically the same objectives may behave in concert toward an objective without conscienceless knowing it like a thousand ants from a single ant hill.
This was magnified by an unwillingness by the banks to re-negotiate the raise in rates on adjustable rate loans.
Just a nit, but the stupidity is even worse than that!!!
What "banks" did, was take a lot of "similar" mortgages (rate,maturity, etc.) and bundle them into a financial instrument. The mortgage itself is no longer something that can be negotiated, it is part of a larger financial formula and changing it requires *all* the share holders of the instrument to be informed and consent.
Its just stupid, but it is also helpful. If a bank wants to foreclose on your house, you simply ask to see the paper work and note. More often than not, the mortgage was sold to a holding company and the foreclosing bank does not have the note and thus you buy yourself potentially months.
I guess we need to require our citizens to pass a minimum proficiency test to screen out the ones that can't use such a device as well. Ah, it will be just like the old Jim Crowe days.
I am not opposed to a proficiency test for the participation of voting. The problem I have with it is *who* creates the questions and defines the standards?
Should a belief in a supreme being be a requirement to vote as it was a couple hundred years ago?
Should it be necessary to be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide? How about trig? How about geometry? algebra? Statistics?
How about reading? How well? What books?
Proper education is, unfortunately, a political issue. Facts are "facts" but what they are tough to mean is political. The books on a curriculum are politically chosen. Look what's happening with ID vs evolution.
If, say, I could not provide an acceptable definition of "irreducible complexity" (bullshit) in Kansas, should I not be allowed to vote?
Americans can't be blamed. They can't even use the metric system, let alone an ATM.
If you've never done physics using fractions, you'd know the metric system is easier.
I think we should level everything from the bottom as you sugested.
I suggested no such thing.
of course, if banks halved the number of tellers, many people would have to LEARN how to use an ATM. That's a nice tought... learning.
I am a techie. I built my first computer in 1977. "learning" is a life long thing for me. I can proudly say that, at a minimum, I know the basics of how everything I own and use works. On average, I know a great deal about everything I own and use.
That's me. *WHY* is learning to use an ATM a useful skill? Why should it be? It is, at best, a transient technology. in 30 years, it will all be vocal with no buttons.
I know lawyers who learn and study every day, but can't comfortably use their computers. Should they learn? Take time from learning their profession and focus on a peripheral interest? Sure, they need to learn to use a computer well enough to serve their interests, but why any more?
ATMs suck. People get confused. People who don't know computers intimately are afraid of them. Even the people who use ATMs have a little fear of them. Even practiced computer users STILL have fear when doing things they are not used to doing.
Since voting is usually no more often than once a year, most of the population will not be comfortable with it.
make no mistake, this is an assault on "fair use" of work.
The logos and art in question are not representing Google or Microsoft, they are mere representations of what was found on the external sites which are assumed to be displaying lawfully acquired content.
Google and Microsoft are not the police or the courts. If you have a valid issue with their display of an image, issue a take down notice.
Electronic voting machines are a mistake. While we say that they should be as easy and secure as ATMs, and they should be, but what most people don't see is that ATMs are not easy.
A large segment of the voting population, in the U.S.A. anyway, does not use ATMs because they are hard to use and confusing. ATMs are an "opt in" technology. Banks still have tellers and branches.
yes, over time as the population gets accustomed to technology, electronic voting may make sense. Maybe in a generation or two. Right now, it excludes the elderly or Luddite population. My brother in-law is 40, and he doesn't use ATMs and doesn't own a computer!!
Sure we can argue that maybe they shouldn't vote, but that is a different conversation.
Don't you mean governments hate freedom? I live under the rule of a democratic republic, but I certainly don't hate freedom. I want freedom. Government is what prevents me from exercising this most fundamental human right.
Are you willing to defend speech that makes your blood boil?
There are a lot of people in the U.S.A. who have forgotten that proper exercise of freedom is uncomfortable and annoying.
the judge claimed that Oppenheim was the only person in the world who had authority to settle on behalf of all 4 companies. Go figure.
Just remember half of every class or profession is probably less than average of that class or profession.
Also, while I'm not a lawyer, I unfortunately know a few of them. There is an arrogance with corporate lawyers who do not deal with the "unwashed masses." There is an assumption, at least from what I see, that lawyers who represent corporations have a higher degree of integrity. It isn't true, of course, but there you go.
Just look at what happens with debt collection. People fighting debt collectors go in to court with a default of being guilty while the lawyer for the company practically runs the proceedings. The Boston Globe had a week long series of it not too long ago.
We all know that the corporate lawyers are the worst fucking scum (sorry, had to be said), but the judges that come from that environment do not see it that way. So, when a corporate lawyer makes a statement that any normal person would call a lie, it has more weight than a little old grandma that says she doesn't even own a computer.
That is correct. They are not going to 'skip' this. They will probably try to avoid it, by getting the best settlement they can get in advance of the hearing... but if they don't settle, they will show, and I can't imagine them disobeying any aspect of the order.
Which begs the question, if you were the defense lawyer, would you hold out a settlement for actual and treble damages? i.e. $0.99 and $2.97 per song? I mean, come on, that's pretty standard in other areas of law, right?
And if that were the settlement, does that have any weight on other settlements?
The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.
Not really. The monarchy exists because the people let it. The history of the magna carta is pretty clear. It was in the best interest of the monarchy to live.
The so called "democratic republics" HATE the freedom they profess to love.
Until the digital age, actual freedom was pretty hard. With the internet, the ability to reach the masses with ideas and data is virtually effortless.
In the U.S.A. at least, "We The People" better get off our asses and do something. In the UK, the BBC says the subjects have been careless with their freedoms.
This stuff is bullshit (sorry), march, protest, resist!!!!
PHP is not inherently more or less secure. That's just marketing language to get you to buy the book.
All public access to systems via any language creates potential security holes, ESPECIALLY when terms are accepted from users and used in conjunction with database queries.
One of the biggest risks, and we are ALL GUILTY, is the use of things like printf to construct a query line. Technically, you should prepare a statement and then execute the statement using the parameters as terms. Not only is this faster, it eliminates the possibility that the terms will be parsed by the query parser as they are passed to a pre-parsed query.
Even "good" sites have to be monitored for abuse because jerks post viagra and porn links in almost every blog. Captcha is good for that, but it doesn't work 100% of the time and its getting worse.
Buy two good quality machines and keep one as a hot spare and just backup every night.
The current "uptime" of a couple of my systems are 255 days, and that's only because of a power failure and subsequent end of generator fuel at my colo which no amount of on-site redundancy would have helped.
Good quality machines and software *will* run for a year pr more with no issues.
I've been setting up sites at data centers for about 10 years now, seriously, do the cost/benefit analysis, the base price is a couple machines, colo, and a backup strategy. Use the stand-by as a backup server, and download from that nightly. You can figure access to internet + 5 minutes to shut down or repair the non-working box, and if necessary active a new IP address on the stand by system. The probability of a good system running a solid OS -- FreeBSD or CentOS failing is pretty low. Good software components don't often fail or if they do, restart.
Seriously, a few of the sites I run have NO redundancy and my biggest risk is NStar and Sprint.
For a fully redundant system, two load balancers, at least 4 servers (two for each load balancer -- redundancy), two high speed switches, etc. etc.
Hardware failure happens but but not that frequently after the first week of service. I have two machines at a colo that are, no joke, 10 years old this year. A few years ago, I replaced the hard disks. This year they will be upgraded -- maybe:-)
All methods by which man-made hydrogen is produced today use more "usable" energy than results in the hydrogen. What we need to do is use hard to use energy like solar, geotherm, or something else.
*all* energy production comes from the conversion of hard to use energy into an easier to use form. Solar power is an inefficient means by which light is converted to electricity. Plants convert light very efficiently and produce sugar. We then use yeast to break that down into alcohol. Unfortunately that also produces CO2 as well.
I would bet that large floating sterling engines could use the temperature differential of the sea to produce electricity. That's one idea, anyway.
Pretty pointless - separating the aluminum from the oxygen will require the same amount of energy you got from the hydrogen.
All energy is not the same. Converting from a form of plentiful but difficult to use energy to something line electricity is what hydroelectric generators do.
So, if hydrogen can be produced easily from reaction 'A' and the components can be recovered and reused with reaction 'B' and reaction 'B' uses a plentiful, renewable, and clean energy, then it is a win.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a naive and vastly trivialized point of view. Religion - and its rules - are created by man.
Yes, the various religions are constructs of men. his is true. It is, however, the middle eastern religions that seem to have a problem with sex. Most of the others, seem not to care.
Yes, religion is quite frequently corrupted into little more than a power struggle, but, that doesn't invalidate all the moral codes that the religion is based upon.
Yes, I'll consult the christian bible for the "moral" value on which I will place on my daughter when I sell her to slavery.
The "moral codes" the bible professes have been around long before J'esus.
The history of people is inexorably intertwined with religion
Which people?
Prostitution is not just "paying for sex". It's not no-strings-attached sexual intercourse.
Then almost every young person is a prostitute. I've had plenty of NSA sex in my life. At 46 years old, I look back to my 20s and it was a lot of fun.
There is no such thing. This is simply not how humans (or any animal for that matter) behave.
Obviously you are not a serious study of anthropology. In fact, did you know that, in human beings, there are sperm who's job it is to destroy other sperm? It seems we have a biological history of group sex.
The act of copulation is never done without risk for any living being. Again, if you refuse to believe this, you are delusional.
Life is risk. What's your point. man kind has been seeking to mitigate the risk of disease and reproduction for the acts of sex since we figured out that sex produces screaming children. It is just at this day and age we've gotten a little better at it.
any how, it begs the question, does this relate to prostitution being illegal. There are plenty of things that around which you could get a vague majority to think is immoral, but that does not mean it should be illegal.
For instance, I bet most people would think that knowingly lying on TV news casts is immoral, but in a Florida case a few years back, FOX News won a court battle against a production team who breached a contract with FOX because what FOX wanted was known to be false. Their defense was it was not the truth. FOX countered that it had no responsibility to tell the truth, and won.
I think publicly misrepresenting facts has a far more damaging effect on society than two adults have sex for money in a private venue.
It's a great way to spread STDs (at rates far higher than would occur 'naturally')
You have to prove that assertion.
Typically the prostitue is a woman who is at the mercy of a typically stronger man - with the inevitable results.
This is the case in life. Assault is still against the law.
It 'encourages' human trafficing, pimping, etc. all of which are disruptive to a orderly society.
So does the mere act of a young pretty girl walking door to door selling girl scout cookies.
It is difficult to tax (I'm sure loads of people will jump on this one)
So are a lot of things. A "handy man" is difficult to tax as well.
Aside from these reasons, it's degrading.
To whom? Being a school janitor can be pretty degrading, but it is not illegal.
Face it, prostitution is not the sort of thing that a civilized society *wishes* to tolerate.
Bull shit.
This last reason might not sit too well with your sense of morality, or freedom, but mankind has struggled for millenia trying to better the human condition, and prostitution was singled out pretty quickly as a type of behaviour with a negative contribution coefficient. Not much has changed.
Prostitution, like all moral codes about sex, spring from oppressive religions.
I don't see a difference between a girl who sleeps with men because they *have* money and a girl who sleeps with men *for* money. It is just one is more honest about it.
Either way, you are paying for sex.
Could someone tell me why prostitution is illegal in the first place?
As far as the knowledge-of-poster goes, I don't think you know very much about me, either, so we're even there,
How do you think? I made no ad homonem. I merely wuote your paragraph and parsed out what it said.
I realize that. I used it.
Then why did you say:
Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell. I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that. Arguably, it would be nice on the server side, I guess... but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
That paragraph absolutely tries to say that Windows does not have a shell. If it did have a shell, which you claim to know that it did, why would you say: "it would be nice on the server side, I guess."
Now I understand the rest of your post... you hate MS and hate Windows,
Ad homionem attack. What I think or what you think I think has absolutely nothing to do with the facts stated or the argument presented.
You don't know anything about me, let me give you a hint: I am on the authors list for "Tricks of the Windows 3.1 Masters." from Sams Books.
I have used every one of those.
I have even edited programs on paper tape with a pair of scissors and scotch tape.
Just call me Sid.
Windows 95, 98, XP, etc., all the non-server ones, didn't need a shell
Umm, except for XP, all versions of Windows in your list had "command.com." All DOS versions of Windows executed "autoexec.bat" at start up with the DOS shell command.com. XP has "cmd.exe"
I grew up using Windows and never once needed something like that.
*you* may not have needed it.
but Windows did appear to try to get AWAY from the command line.
Yes, but because *you* don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there and not used.
Besides. If they included a shell, [they did ] everyone would just complain how they're copying UNIX and thus are even more useless. :)
Windows on its own is useless. The only things that make it non-useless have more to do with 3rd party support than anything Microsoft does. That's why monopolies are bad, because, even though Windows sucks, users have little practical choice.
Gates (and Allen) developed MBASIC, and DISK BASIC. DISK BASIC used the "FAT" system to control free space.
Gates and company copied basic from other sources.
The FAT system is nothing more than a fixed size array allocation system, in use in many systems of the time.
CP/M did NOT use the same scheme. Instead, CP/M built up free space maps by scanning the directory. It also did not use a linked list. Personally, I thought FAT was weak then, and still is....
CP/M was better, yes.
But the "industry" adopted it.
One has to wonder about the anti-trust issues of patent usage. Yes the industry adopted it, but could it have, in any practical sense, adopted anything else?
Then, Microsoft designed a long filename system on top of it, that was back-compatible with the old method. THAT was patented. And, no, it wasn't even the "obvious" solution -- that would have been a mapping file.
The word "obvious" is subjective. LFN in FAT is implemented simply using the existing directory mechanisms. Is the only way to do something "non obvious?"
Microsoft was creative with the MS FAT longname solution. Either deal with it, or get the patent overturned.
"Creative" is not what makes something worth a patent. Was it obvious? The only answer to that is yes, as someone skilled in the art (someone with file system experience, particularly FAT) their method was the only way to do it.
maybe they are just trying to protect their intellectual property
I'm not saying that "intellectual property" is a pointless concept, but what is currently implemented is frighteningly Philip K. Dick.
Software is particularly problematic. An invention does not always come from the intellect and work of the inventor. More often than not it is merely an observation and augmentation of the work and intellect of others.
Software is nothing more than building on that which was built by others, which was built on the work of people before that, and before that, ad infinitem. Even the implementor of a statistical analysis system owes credit to the creators of the programming language used to write it, the creators of the math system, etc.
Intellectual property my ass, it is a land-grab of an environment created by two generations of engineers that worked and published without patent protection. Now college drop-out Bill Gates, sues for trivial implementations of theoretical models created by men far better than him.
A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government.
Not exactly. The term "Windows" is trademarked, should Microsoft be the only entity to be able to purchase "windows?" of course not.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
Neither of these arguments are correct.
Trademarks are names and logos under which businesses trade. The reason why they are protected is to protect the reputation of the institution that holds them. Believe it or not, there is "fair use" of trade marks. It is perfectly legal to use someone else's trademark if you using only enough of it to identify the business.
For instance. A car dealership named "Planet Subaru" has the trademark "Planet Subaru." As a dissatisfied customer, I can create a website named "www.planetsubarusucks.com." I can even use the trademarked name "Planet Subaru" on this site as long as there is no confusion that I am associated with them, only as much of the trademark as necessary to identify the business, and that I do not intend to trade on their mark.
It is perfectly legitimate for a ford dealer to buy "toyota" to get business from a competitor. Trademarks are not for censorship.
I get alternately frustrated and paranoid about these sorts of things. How on earth can a DOCUMENT format have an exploitable code problem. How stupid do you have to be to create this monster.
Then the paranoia sinks in. People can't be this stupid. Really, seriously?
There are a lot of positives for "corporate amerika" (read anti-consumer) if we are all paranoid about our systems. if nothing is safe, you can bet someone will be trying to sell safety. In my best "tin foil hat" thinking, the people who perpetrate the insecurity in the first place and sell you additional safety, are not to be trusted.
There are lots of examples of "corporate amerika" teaming up to get you. RIAA and MPIAA are the more slashdot recognizable. A little paranoia may be just good thinking.
We need to remember that the computer is a revolutionary platform that continues to introduce disruptive innovations. "Corporate amerika" really really dislikes that which disturbs the status quo. The computer is too much of a money maker to destroy like they did DAT recorders. They are teaming up to make the computer more like a VCR or DVD player and less a platform of innovation.
Linux and free software is a problem for them because they can't control it. All they can control are the avenues through which we use our computers. The media formats, the services, etc. are all ways to leverage "corporate amerika's" assets against everyone.
I know this is all paranoia, but I don't think there needs to be an actual conspiracy for it to be true. "Corporate amerika" is anti-freedom, I think we can all agree that this is most always case. They don't have to intentionally work together, but a group entities with basically the same objectives may behave in concert toward an objective without conscienceless knowing it like a thousand ants from a single ant hill.
This was magnified by an unwillingness by the banks to re-negotiate the raise in rates on adjustable rate loans.
Just a nit, but the stupidity is even worse than that!!!
What "banks" did, was take a lot of "similar" mortgages (rate,maturity, etc.) and bundle them into a financial instrument. The mortgage itself is no longer something that can be negotiated, it is part of a larger financial formula and changing it requires *all* the share holders of the instrument to be informed and consent.
Its just stupid, but it is also helpful. If a bank wants to foreclose on your house, you simply ask to see the paper work and note. More often than not, the mortgage was sold to a holding company and the foreclosing bank does not have the note and thus you buy yourself potentially months.
I guess we need to require our citizens to pass a minimum proficiency test to screen out the ones that can't use such a device as well. Ah, it will be just like the old Jim Crowe days.
I am not opposed to a proficiency test for the participation of voting. The problem I have with it is *who* creates the questions and defines the standards?
Should a belief in a supreme being be a requirement to vote as it was a couple hundred years ago?
Should it be necessary to be able to add, subtract, multiply, and divide? How about trig? How about geometry? algebra? Statistics?
How about reading? How well? What books?
Proper education is, unfortunately, a political issue. Facts are "facts" but what they are tough to mean is political. The books on a curriculum are politically chosen. Look what's happening with ID vs evolution.
If, say, I could not provide an acceptable definition of "irreducible complexity" (bullshit) in Kansas, should I not be allowed to vote?
Americans can't be blamed. They can't even use the metric system, let alone an ATM.
If you've never done physics using fractions, you'd know the metric system is easier.
I think we should level everything from the bottom as you sugested.
I suggested no such thing.
of course, if banks halved the number of tellers, many people would have to LEARN how to use an ATM. That's a nice tought... learning.
I am a techie. I built my first computer in 1977. "learning" is a life long thing for me. I can proudly say that, at a minimum, I know the basics of how everything I own and use works. On average, I know a great deal about everything I own and use.
That's me. *WHY* is learning to use an ATM a useful skill? Why should it be? It is, at best, a transient technology. in 30 years, it will all be vocal with no buttons.
I know lawyers who learn and study every day, but can't comfortably use their computers. Should they learn? Take time from learning their profession and focus on a peripheral interest? Sure, they need to learn to use a computer well enough to serve their interests, but why any more?
ATMs suck. People get confused. People who don't know computers intimately are afraid of them. Even the people who use ATMs have a little fear of them. Even practiced computer users STILL have fear when doing things they are not used to doing.
Since voting is usually no more often than once a year, most of the population will not be comfortable with it.
make no mistake, this is an assault on "fair use" of work.
The logos and art in question are not representing Google or Microsoft, they are mere representations of what was found on the external sites which are assumed to be displaying lawfully acquired content.
Google and Microsoft are not the police or the courts. If you have a valid issue with their display of an image, issue a take down notice.
Electronic voting machines are a mistake. While we say that they should be as easy and secure as ATMs, and they should be, but what most people don't see is that ATMs are not easy.
A large segment of the voting population, in the U.S.A. anyway, does not use ATMs because they are hard to use and confusing. ATMs are an "opt in" technology. Banks still have tellers and branches.
yes, over time as the population gets accustomed to technology, electronic voting may make sense. Maybe in a generation or two. Right now, it excludes the elderly or Luddite population. My brother in-law is 40, and he doesn't use ATMs and doesn't own a computer!!
Sure we can argue that maybe they shouldn't vote, but that is a different conversation.
Don't you mean governments hate freedom? I live under the rule of a democratic republic, but I certainly don't hate freedom. I want freedom. Government is what prevents me from exercising this most fundamental human right.
Are you willing to defend speech that makes your blood boil?
There are a lot of people in the U.S.A. who have forgotten that proper exercise of freedom is uncomfortable and annoying.
the judge claimed that Oppenheim was the only person in the world who had authority to settle on behalf of all 4 companies. Go figure.
Just remember half of every class or profession is probably less than average of that class or profession.
Also, while I'm not a lawyer, I unfortunately know a few of them. There is an arrogance with corporate lawyers who do not deal with the "unwashed masses." There is an assumption, at least from what I see, that lawyers who represent corporations have a higher degree of integrity. It isn't true, of course, but there you go.
Just look at what happens with debt collection. People fighting debt collectors go in to court with a default of being guilty while the lawyer for the company practically runs the proceedings. The Boston Globe had a week long series of it not too long ago.
We all know that the corporate lawyers are the worst fucking scum (sorry, had to be said), but the judges that come from that environment do not see it that way. So, when a corporate lawyer makes a statement that any normal person would call a lie, it has more weight than a little old grandma that says she doesn't even own a computer.
That is correct. They are not going to 'skip' this. They will probably try to avoid it, by getting the best settlement they can get in advance of the hearing... but if they don't settle, they will show, and I can't imagine them disobeying any aspect of the order.
Which begs the question, if you were the defense lawyer, would you hold out a settlement for actual and treble damages? i.e. $0.99 and $2.97 per song? I mean, come on, that's pretty standard in other areas of law, right?
And if that were the settlement, does that have any weight on other settlements?
The UK is a monarchy. Their entire political system exists because the Queen wants it to.
Not really. The monarchy exists because the people let it. The history of the magna carta is pretty clear. It was in the best interest of the monarchy to live.
The so called "democratic republics" HATE the freedom they profess to love.
Until the digital age, actual freedom was pretty hard. With the internet, the ability to reach the masses with ideas and data is virtually effortless.
In the U.S.A. at least, "We The People" better get off our asses and do something. In the UK, the BBC says the subjects have been careless with their freedoms.
This stuff is bullshit (sorry), march, protest, resist!!!!
PHP is not inherently more or less secure. That's just marketing language to get you to buy the book.
All public access to systems via any language creates potential security holes, ESPECIALLY when terms are accepted from users and used in conjunction with database queries.
One of the biggest risks, and we are ALL GUILTY, is the use of things like printf to construct a query line. Technically, you should prepare a statement and then execute the statement using the parameters as terms. Not only is this faster, it eliminates the possibility that the terms will be parsed by the query parser as they are passed to a pre-parsed query.
Even "good" sites have to be monitored for abuse because jerks post viagra and porn links in almost every blog. Captcha is good for that, but it doesn't work 100% of the time and its getting worse.
Buy two good quality machines and keep one as a hot spare and just backup every night.
The current "uptime" of a couple of my systems are 255 days, and that's only because of a power failure and subsequent end of generator fuel at my colo which no amount of on-site redundancy would have helped.
Good quality machines and software *will* run for a year pr more with no issues.
I've been setting up sites at data centers for about 10 years now, seriously, do the cost/benefit analysis, the base price is a couple machines, colo, and a backup strategy. Use the stand-by as a backup server, and download from that nightly. You can figure access to internet + 5 minutes to shut down or repair the non-working box, and if necessary active a new IP address on the stand by system. The probability of a good system running a solid OS -- FreeBSD or CentOS failing is pretty low. Good software components don't often fail or if they do, restart.
Seriously, a few of the sites I run have NO redundancy and my biggest risk is NStar and Sprint.
For a fully redundant system, two load balancers, at least 4 servers (two for each load balancer -- redundancy), two high speed switches, etc. etc.
Hardware failure happens but but not that frequently after the first week of service. I have two machines at a colo that are, no joke, 10 years old this year. A few years ago, I replaced the hard disks. This year they will be upgraded -- maybe :-)
All methods by which man-made hydrogen is produced today use more "usable" energy than results in the hydrogen. What we need to do is use hard to use energy like solar, geotherm, or something else.
*all* energy production comes from the conversion of hard to use energy into an easier to use form. Solar power is an inefficient means by which light is converted to electricity. Plants convert light very efficiently and produce sugar. We then use yeast to break that down into alcohol. Unfortunately that also produces CO2 as well.
I would bet that large floating sterling engines could use the temperature differential of the sea to produce electricity. That's one idea, anyway.
Pretty pointless - separating the aluminum from the oxygen will require the same amount of energy you got from the hydrogen.
All energy is not the same. Converting from a form of plentiful but difficult to use energy to something line electricity is what hydroelectric generators do.
So, if hydrogen can be produced easily from reaction 'A' and the components can be recovered and reused with reaction 'B' and reaction 'B' uses a plentiful, renewable, and clean energy, then it is a win.