You are correct to say that things have changed significantly in the last few years. A large part of this can be attributed to post-911 insecurity policies. This article from the wall street journal goes into some of the details of recent changes. But they note that at the time of writing, only 8% of foreign students received federal aid while 81% paid in full on their own.
We spend millions bringing Indians to the US for IT education at our best (publicly funded) universities. We allow indians to move here.
The universities may be publicly funded, but the out-of-country tuitions are in no way subsidized by the American tax dollar, in fact they are a significant profit center for most universities.
Furthermore, I'll take a brain-drain from India to the USA over a job drain from the USA to India ANY DAY.
That's where Bush and the idiotic, anti-foreigner "security measures" have been cutting our economy off at the knees. Now the smart kids are staying home, and even the ones that have green cards are leaving and taking their knowledge with them.
If you can't agree to the rules, then don't register domains.
The problem with that attitude is that the rules were written back when the net was a vastly different place. You know those stories about little towns out in the boonies where nobody locks their doors? That is what the net was like when the rules were written.
Since then, the net has changed, the rules haven't. What's worse though is that that back in the good old days, it wasn't terribly difficult to change the rules - common sense prevailed and guys like John Postel were running the show.
Today, the red tape and the beaurcracy is so out of control that the only hope of getting the rules changed to be in sync with the current environment is to bribe the beaurcracy. Something far beyond the reach of the regular domain name owner.
The problem with DCID 6/3 and the various derived standards that parts of the government and its contractors attempt to implement is that security is never better than the people implementing it. While the authors of DCID 6/3 appear to be reasonably experienced and knowledgable of the security domain, it has been my experience that a large number of people in the hiearchy charged with implementing it (DSS) are only good for rubbing a bump on a log.
A major problem is that the standard defines a bunch of security processes, generalized to be applicable to a wide range of systems. Unfortunately what happens is that you get a bunch of people who are process experts but have zero knowledge or understanding of the nitty-gritty details that must be implemented in order to apply the processes to specific sites/installations/systems. Not only do these process people lack anything remotely resembling an understanding of the nitty-gritty, they hardly even acknowledge that the nitty-gritty exists. For them, as long as there is a process in place, the system is, by definition, secured. It doesn't matter if the implementation has security holes the size of a mac truck, as long as the process is in place and being followed, then everything is fine and dandy.
These people are a menace because they bring a false sense of security to the upper echelons of management while at the same time implementing security processes that at best moderately increase security, but usually do nothing and in some cases actually decrease security. This result usually happens by alienating the people with the actual nuts-and-bolts understanding of the systems by making them jump through arbitrary hoops for no real increase in system security.
I have seen far too many sites where the attitude on the ground is to keep your mouth shut when talking to the security process-people, answer only when spoken to and give only the bare minimum response. These engineers have been burnt too many times by capricious requirements from the process-people that they no longer consider their role in the process to be a provider and implementer of real security. Instead their role is how to most quickly and effectively make the process-people go away happy, by a strict adherence to whatever process is mandated no matter how ineffective such processes are, and under no circumstance are they to comment on that (lack of) effectiveness to any of the process-people because more likely than not, the result will just be more processes without any increase in effective security.
"They" probably are hoping that it will be reciprocated. Cataloging all Americans entring the EU is just one step away from cataloging everyone entering the EU. Like gun-control, this tracking stuff has little chance of being effective unless every country does it.
Last I heard, and things could have easily changed since then, the patent holders for MPEG-4 had decided to charge a fee for each file encoded in MPEG-4 but no fee for encoders/decoders. This decision has been blamed for the slow uptake of MPEG-4 in the commercial world (unlike the online bootleg video world where it is uber-popular) and perhaps making it easier for microsoft to get a foot in the door with VC9 for HD-DVD.
How this fee structure affects the GPL status of XviD and FFDshow, I don't know, but it is a bit different from the standard Fraunhoffer style, "we own the patents, you must pay a licensing fee even if your code is a 100% clean-room implementation."
Civil court cases do not require "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather they only require "a preponderance of evidence" so if it ends up in civil court, the email need not be provably legit to still be admitted as evidence.
Copyrights are rights granted to copy something... and copying it into your mind by reading it doesn't qualify.
But copying it from your computer's disk to your computer's ram to your computer's video card legally counts as two, possibly infringing, copies. That court decision was yet another highlight on the road to copyright fascism.
I didn't even want a thank-you, just wanted to know it was being taken care of.
What do you expect? If two months down the line Paypal decides that they never fixed it on there own and that you must have withdrawn the money yourself so now you owe them the $2K, you have nothing to prove that they ever did anything about it. By not acknowledging you, they are keeping as many options open as possible.
In the case of actual malpractice, the point of bankrupting and blacklisting the doctor would not be for revenge but to prevent him (or her) from (mis)treating anyone else. Which indirectly leads to my other point...
I think that the patient should be the one to directly purchase disability insurance to handle those kind of eventualities. In general, I am very big on any solutions that put the decision-making and the consqences-suffering into the same pair of hands. Keep the responsibility for picking insurance right there in the same pair of hands that will have to live with the consequences.
If my theory is right, that malpractice lawsuits would quickly and fairly accurately weed out the bad doctors from the good. Thus the sum total cost of disability insurance would be a lot less than the sum total cost of the current malpratice insurance system.
I am also sure that some high-risk procedures will not be insurable. But, better to have the procedure available at all than to have doctors forced into avoiding it due to cost (and requirements for) malpractice insurance.
Ok, I am nodding off as I am typing this so pardon if it was a little incoherent.
Sounds to me like that problem is the insurance. If there were no malpractice insurance, there would be no deep pockets to go sue. Without malpractice insurance, the only result of a successful malpractice lawsuit would be the bankrupting and blacklisting of the doctor at fault which would generally be a good thing since just about all frivolous lawsuits would never even be filed without the win-the-lottery mentality of the abusers of the current system.
Or in other words, when malpractice insurance is illegal only criminals will malpractice.
Ok, I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would be a better system than what we have today.
Oddly enough the most demonized techonology on/. would solve the problem nicely.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time, so what?
If RFID tech didn't have redeeming qualities in the first place, then there would be no controversy at all because no one would see any benefit to using it.
The reason RFID gets so much play here is because some people care more about "the trains running on time" while others care more about all the "other uses" that infringe on our sense of privacy.
Plus the corn-dog porn guys who download all those girlie pix suck bigtime bandwidth.
So, you would rather have people like him go to 3rd party usenet provider or some other distribution system? That, my friend is what will suck bigtime bandwidth. As it is now, usenet is a relatively distribution mechanism - articles are only transferred between sites, across the internet where bandwidth is scarce, once. Then at each site's intranet, where bandwidth is plentiful, each user transfer's a copy to their local machine.
If anything, MORE stuff ought to go through usenet. I never understood why comcast ditched their formerly reasonably high-quality usenet servers and outsourced the function to some external provider. Doing that just caused their usenet-hogging customers to go to external providers and waste internet bandwidth - a resource comcast is suppossed to be trying to conserver in order to keep costs down.
You would be amazed how poorly the GPL and other Free licenses are understood by the staff - managerial and especially technical - at most companies that do software development. I believe there are a couple of factors that explain the ignorance - on the managerial side, it takes a major change in mindset to "get" the idea of the GPL, most managers just have not gone through the process yet.
On the technical side, far too many developers are stereotypical "heads-down," "why do I have to take history/literature/philosophy/etc courses at college when I am here for a computer science degree?" types who don't know and don't want to know the way the licenses work - instead it's, "if the code is there, it must be free."
Neither are valid excuses, but the point is basically, "never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity."
What other standard system directory in mswindows has the same name as a standard unix directory? The answer, of course, is NONE. The point your parent was making has as much to do with the the/etc/ as it does with the hosts.
Simply put, this law and the sentence are pure bullshit. The kind of people who support it are the same kind of people who got all worked up over Janet's Right Tit.
The first BIG problem with this law is the typical slippery slope thing. Here's just one example: What if someone is a really big proponent of gay marriage and instead of redirecting these typo-sites to porno, he redirects them to a bunch of gay marriage propaganda -- nothing pornographic at all, just stuff designed to convince adults and children alike that the "gay lifestyle" is OK. With recent events, it is clear that there are a LOT of people in America who consider homosexuality to be obscene. Should a guy like that get 3 years in the slammer?
The second big problem is this American attitude that sex is bad. First off - kids who haven't reached puberty don't care diddly about sex. Left to their own devices, pre-pubescent kids will take a look or two at porn, and then click on to something that they care about. It just doesn't mean anything to them. On the other hand, kids hitting puberty are going to seek out the porn all on their own. If anything, this scam will convince them that on the internet, porn costs money and maybe delay them from finding some of those free all-you-can-eat-and-then-some porn sources like alt.binaries.erotica.
All this law does is "protect" parents who were long ago indoctrinated with the sex-is-bad meme from feeling embarassed when they sit down with their kids at the computer and end up at one of the porn sites.
Don't take the above statements to mean that I condone what the guy did, but it is just a minor annoyance -- on the level of pop-up ads, nothing more. The saying about freedom not being free is directly applicable here - true freedom of expression means people using that right to express stuff that disgusts you in ways that disgust you but for the greater good of society we all put up with the disgusting stuff. If we didn't, then all we'd ever have is politically correct, but effectively lifeless expression in public.
You do realize that statement somewhat undermines the point of your sig? It is very difficult for Americans to emigrate to India, at the very least for protectionist if not more emotional reasons, the equivalent of an Indian "green card" is far more rare than the American one.
ask any woman if Victoria's Secret underwear is actually comfortable
You must not get around too much. There are both a wide variety of styles of underwear sold with the VC label and there are also a wide variety of women's opinions about what styles of lingere are comfortable. For the most part, comfort is defined by familiarity (exempting the obvious like tags placed so that they irritate the skin and badly fitted clothing).
Many women hate g-strings(butt-floss) and even thongs. In my experience, the girls that have, for whatever reason, regularly worn g-string panties for more than six months aren't bothered by the butt-floss effect and some even find regular bikini-style panties too constricting.
No surprise, but these women tend to be pretty stylish dressers too and may have been willing to endure the initial loss of comfort for the sake of making their ass look good in a pair of tight pants.
What does this have to do with firmware upgrades? Well, these girls are rarely in need of firmware upgrades, they usually keep their wares quite firm just by going to the gym. Ba-da-dum!
That's why we need Star Wars - you know, SDI now MDA, Missile Defense. The USA has got the biggest military and with a decent missile defense system we can put the cable up somewhere in the very southernmost parts of the country so if it falls down, it won't fall on us. Nobody else can do a thing about because if they make trouble, we will just liberate their country and if they shoot missiles at us while we are building it, we can stop them!
I was scared an anonymous coward was going to make me look bad...
But instead you decided to do it yourself by showing the world you can't tell the difference between feet and miles. You now know that you can not petition the google with prayer.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct to say that things have changed significantly in the last few years. A large part of this can be attributed to post-911 insecurity policies. This article from the wall street journal goes into some of the details of recent changes. But they note that at the time of writing, only 8% of foreign students received federal aid while 81% paid in full on their own.
We spend millions bringing Indians to the US for IT education at our best (publicly funded) universities. We allow indians to move here.
The universities may be publicly funded, but the out-of-country tuitions are in no way subsidized by the American tax dollar, in fact they are a significant profit center for most universities.
Furthermore, I'll take a brain-drain from India to the USA over a job drain from the USA to India ANY DAY.
That's where Bush and the idiotic, anti-foreigner "security measures" have been cutting our economy off at the knees. Now the smart kids are staying home, and even the ones that have green cards are leaving and taking their knowledge with them.
Why are the people who call Bush a dictator the same ones who want to take away our guns?
We aren't.
If you can't agree to the rules, then don't register domains.
The problem with that attitude is that the rules were written back when the net was a vastly different place. You know those stories about little towns out in the boonies where nobody locks their doors? That is what the net was like when the rules were written.
Since then, the net has changed, the rules haven't. What's worse though is that that back in the good old days, it wasn't terribly difficult to change the rules - common sense prevailed and guys like John Postel were running the show.
Today, the red tape and the beaurcracy is so out of control that the only hope of getting the rules changed to be in sync with the current environment is to bribe the beaurcracy. Something far beyond the reach of the regular domain name owner.
IETF RFCs are merely suggestions that people are making a 'request for comments' on.
Congratulations, you can parse an acronym.
But too bad for you, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, or in otherwords, you are wrong.
From the document, What RFCs are: All so-called Internet standards are published as RFCs...
--
Member of the Stop Fucking Saying 'M$' army
Hhhm. I think your sig needs to be abbreviated.
You should go with: M$F$M$A
The problem with DCID 6/3 and the various derived standards that parts of the government and its contractors attempt to implement is that security is never better than the people implementing it. While the authors of DCID 6/3 appear to be reasonably experienced and knowledgable of the security domain, it has been my experience that a large number of people in the hiearchy charged with implementing it (DSS) are only good for rubbing a bump on a log.
A major problem is that the standard defines a bunch of security processes, generalized to be applicable to a wide range of systems. Unfortunately what happens is that you get a bunch of people who are process experts but have zero knowledge or understanding of the nitty-gritty details that must be implemented in order to apply the processes to specific sites/installations/systems. Not only do these process people lack anything remotely resembling an understanding of the nitty-gritty, they hardly even acknowledge that the nitty-gritty exists. For them, as long as there is a process in place, the system is, by definition, secured. It doesn't matter if the implementation has security holes the size of a mac truck, as long as the process is in place and being followed, then everything is fine and dandy.
These people are a menace because they bring a false sense of security to the upper echelons of management while at the same time implementing security processes that at best moderately increase security, but usually do nothing and in some cases actually decrease security. This result usually happens by alienating the people with the actual nuts-and-bolts understanding of the systems by making them jump through arbitrary hoops for no real increase in system security.
I have seen far too many sites where the attitude on the ground is to keep your mouth shut when talking to the security process-people, answer only when spoken to and give only the bare minimum response. These engineers have been burnt too many times by capricious requirements from the process-people that they no longer consider their role in the process to be a provider and implementer of real security. Instead their role is how to most quickly and effectively make the process-people go away happy, by a strict adherence to whatever process is mandated no matter how ineffective such processes are, and under no circumstance are they to comment on that (lack of) effectiveness to any of the process-people because more likely than not, the result will just be more processes without any increase in effective security.
"They" probably are hoping that it will be reciprocated. Cataloging all Americans entring the EU is just one step away from cataloging everyone entering the EU. Like gun-control, this tracking stuff has little chance of being effective unless every country does it.
Dude, where's my country?
Last I heard, and things could have easily changed since then, the patent holders for MPEG-4 had decided to charge a fee for each file encoded in MPEG-4 but no fee for encoders/decoders. This decision has been blamed for the slow uptake of MPEG-4 in the commercial world (unlike the online bootleg video world where it is uber-popular) and perhaps making it easier for microsoft to get a foot in the door with VC9 for HD-DVD.
How this fee structure affects the GPL status of XviD and FFDshow, I don't know, but it is a bit different from the standard Fraunhoffer style, "we own the patents, you must pay a licensing fee even if your code is a 100% clean-room implementation."
Its an ISO standard, royalty free... They might get some money licensing an *implementation* but not the language.
Since when does being an ISO standard make a technology royalty free?
It's not like MPEG is royalty free.
The whole reason to have a draft is so you can pay far below market rates.
Bring on the H1B's! Lets just offshore our draft - join the american foreign legion!
Civil court cases do not require "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather they only require "a preponderance of evidence" so if it ends up in civil court, the email need not be provably legit to still be admitted as evidence.
Copyrights are rights granted to copy something... and copying it into your mind by reading it doesn't qualify.
But copying it from your computer's disk to your computer's ram to your computer's video card legally counts as two, possibly infringing, copies. That court decision was yet another highlight on the road to copyright fascism.
I didn't even want a thank-you, just wanted to know it was being taken care of.
What do you expect? If two months down the line Paypal decides that they never fixed it on there own and that you must have withdrawn the money yourself so now you owe them the $2K, you have nothing to prove that they ever did anything about it. By not acknowledging you, they are keeping as many options open as possible.
In the case of actual malpractice, the point of bankrupting and blacklisting the doctor would not be for revenge but to prevent him (or her) from (mis)treating anyone else. Which indirectly leads to my other point...
I think that the patient should be the one to directly purchase disability insurance to handle those kind of eventualities. In general, I am very big on any solutions that put the decision-making and the consqences-suffering into the same pair of hands. Keep the responsibility for picking insurance right there in the same pair of hands that will have to live with the consequences.
If my theory is right, that malpractice lawsuits would quickly and fairly accurately weed out the bad doctors from the good. Thus the sum total cost of disability insurance would be a lot less than the sum total cost of the current malpratice insurance system.
I am also sure that some high-risk procedures will not be insurable. But, better to have the procedure available at all than to have doctors forced into avoiding it due to cost (and requirements for) malpractice insurance.
Ok, I am nodding off as I am typing this so pardon if it was a little incoherent.
Sounds to me like that problem is the insurance. If there were no malpractice insurance, there would be no deep pockets to go sue. Without malpractice insurance, the only result of a successful malpractice lawsuit would be the bankrupting and blacklisting of the doctor at fault which would generally be a good thing since just about all frivolous lawsuits would never even be filed without the win-the-lottery mentality of the abusers of the current system.
Or in other words, when malpractice insurance is illegal only criminals will malpractice.
Ok, I'm sure it wouldn't be perfect, but I think it would be a better system than what we have today.
Oddly enough the most demonized techonology on /. would solve the problem nicely.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time, so what?
If RFID tech didn't have redeeming qualities in the first place, then there would be no controversy at all because no one would see any benefit to using it.
The reason RFID gets so much play here is because some people care more about "the trains running on time" while others care more about all the "other uses" that infringe on our sense of privacy.
Plus the corn-dog porn guys who download all those girlie pix suck bigtime bandwidth.
So, you would rather have people like him go to 3rd party usenet provider or some other distribution system? That, my friend is what will suck bigtime bandwidth. As it is now, usenet is a relatively distribution mechanism - articles are only transferred between sites, across the internet where bandwidth is scarce, once. Then at each site's intranet, where bandwidth is plentiful, each user transfer's a copy to their local machine.
If anything, MORE stuff ought to go through usenet. I never understood why comcast ditched their formerly reasonably high-quality usenet servers and outsourced the function to some external provider. Doing that just caused their usenet-hogging customers to go to external providers and waste internet bandwidth - a resource comcast is suppossed to be trying to conserver in order to keep costs down.
You would be amazed how poorly the GPL and other Free licenses are understood by the staff - managerial and especially technical - at most companies that do software development. I believe there are a couple of factors that explain the ignorance - on the managerial side, it takes a major change in mindset to "get" the idea of the GPL, most managers just have not gone through the process yet.
On the technical side, far too many developers are stereotypical "heads-down," "why do I have to take history/literature/philosophy/etc courses at college when I am here for a computer science degree?" types who don't know and don't want to know the way the licenses work - instead it's, "if the code is there, it must be free."
Neither are valid excuses, but the point is basically, "never attribute to malice what can be easily explained by stupidity."
What other standard system directory in mswindows has the same name as a standard unix directory? The answer, of course, is NONE. The point your parent was making has as much to do with the the /etc/ as it does with the hosts.
Simply put, this law and the sentence are pure bullshit. The kind of people who support it are the same kind of people who got all worked up over Janet's Right Tit.
The first BIG problem with this law is the typical slippery slope thing. Here's just one example: What if someone is a really big proponent of gay marriage and instead of redirecting these typo-sites to porno, he redirects them to a bunch of gay marriage propaganda -- nothing pornographic at all, just stuff designed to convince adults and children alike that the "gay lifestyle" is OK. With recent events, it is clear that there are a LOT of people in America who consider homosexuality to be obscene. Should a guy like that get 3 years in the slammer?
The second big problem is this American attitude that sex is bad. First off - kids who haven't reached puberty don't care diddly about sex. Left to their own devices, pre-pubescent kids will take a look or two at porn, and then click on to something that they care about. It just doesn't mean anything to them. On the other hand, kids hitting puberty are going to seek out the porn all on their own. If anything, this scam will convince them that on the internet, porn costs money and maybe delay them from finding some of those free all-you-can-eat-and-then-some porn sources like alt.binaries.erotica.
All this law does is "protect" parents who were long ago indoctrinated with the sex-is-bad meme from feeling embarassed when they sit down with their kids at the computer and end up at one of the porn sites.
Don't take the above statements to mean that I condone what the guy did, but it is just a minor annoyance -- on the level of pop-up ads, nothing more. The saying about freedom not being free is directly applicable here - true freedom of expression means people using that right to express stuff that disgusts you in ways that disgust you but for the greater good of society we all put up with the disgusting stuff. If we didn't, then all we'd ever have is politically correct, but effectively lifeless expression in public.
You do realize that statement somewhat undermines the point of your sig? It is very difficult for Americans to emigrate to India, at the very least for protectionist if not more emotional reasons, the equivalent of an Indian "green card" is far more rare than the American one.
ask any woman if Victoria's Secret underwear is actually comfortable
You must not get around too much. There are both a wide variety of styles of underwear sold with the VC label and there are also a wide variety of women's opinions about what styles of lingere are comfortable. For the most part, comfort is defined by familiarity (exempting the obvious like tags placed so that they irritate the skin and badly fitted clothing).
Many women hate g-strings(butt-floss) and even thongs. In my experience, the girls that have, for whatever reason, regularly worn g-string panties for more than six months aren't bothered by the butt-floss effect and some even find regular bikini-style panties too constricting.
No surprise, but these women tend to be pretty stylish dressers too and may have been willing to endure the initial loss of comfort for the sake of making their ass look good in a pair of tight pants.
What does this have to do with firmware upgrades? Well, these girls are rarely in need of firmware upgrades, they usually keep their wares quite firm just by going to the gym. Ba-da-dum!
That's why we need Star Wars - you know, SDI now MDA, Missile Defense. The USA has got the biggest military and with a decent missile defense system we can put the cable up somewhere in the very southernmost parts of the country so if it falls down, it won't fall on us. Nobody else can do a thing about because if they make trouble, we will just liberate their country and if they shoot missiles at us while we are building it, we can stop them!
I was scared an anonymous coward was going to make me look bad...
But instead you decided to do it yourself by showing the world you can't tell the difference between feet and miles. You now know that you can not petition the google with prayer.