I doubt it matters if it's open or closed source software. There are multiple layers of checks, and accountability lies wherever the after-accident investigation places it. One piece of code is still just one piece of a whole system.
Though this does remind me, tangentially, of a visiting math prof in college. He refused to give partial credit on any problems b/c of the Challenger disaster. His explanation was that had someone properly coded the launch software it would not have been scheduled to fly that day. Something to do with using a zero instead of a small, non-zero number in "go" flight algorithm. I never was able to figure out of this was true or not.
But man, no partial credit with like 4-5 questions per test. No curve, no A's. He left the country at the end of the quarter, that rat.:P
"It's kind of ridiculous," she [Junior Lisa Aigner] said. "It's just the fact that a group supposedly affiliated with (the University)... kind of took my trust and threw it out the window."
Welcome to the internet; trust no one. I hope more people got the message.
That's a scary thought, thinking back to the subject matter of all the A papers I wrote in ethics & econ. Man, if those profs actually did agree with my arguments they'd have been hauled off by torches & pitchforks.
As an engineering student I loved those classes b/c as long as I presented a well defended argument, I could say whatever I wanted. There was no formulary right answer.
"Note that a US citizen is generally required by US law and State Department regulations to be in possession of a US passport when leaving or entering the US. This requirement does not apply when entering the US from Canada, Mexico, or Caribbean countries (other than Cuba); however, even in those cases, proof of one's identity and one's US citizenship is still required, and a passport is probably the best such proof."
* Thirty-three million people-including 13 million children-live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents one in ten households in the United States (10 percent).
* 3.1 percent of U.S. households experience hunger: they frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. Nearly 8.5 million people, including 2.9 million children, live in these homes.
* 7.3 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger: they have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 24.7 million people, including 9.9 million children, live in these homes.
Malnutrition is often the cause of marasmus and kwasiorkor, which are considered starvation-related diseases. 1% of children in the US suffer from chronic malnuturtion (1 in 100) and 10% from malnutrition (1 in 10). Think about that.
And furthermore, a general search on starvation (not confined to the US) will reveal that it's a real problem affecting millions (with a billion in the poverty/malnutrition level) worldwide. Even life outside the US are important too, no?
The link between hunger, malnutrition, starvation, poverty, and death is clear. It's semantics or obfuscation to try and argue otherwise.
try google again. I suppose we haven't really haven't defined starvation for this particular argument, or maybe I took too much liberty. But if you read the MTP transcript, you will see the Catholic priest ask for consistency in our policies and views. That's what frustrates me--the lack of consistency.
At one point you asked "at what cost" for one person's life. No one wants to go on record with a number, but it is implied in a number of discussions. The US does need to grow up and accept the fact that we "can't save everyone" and that tough choices have to be made. There are not enough resources to do everything we would like to do (or that government mandates we do.) One day in the ICU for Ms. Schiavo would go a long way towards helping a number of people. And over 15 years...who paid for that? I haven't seen that discussed at all.
As described to me by a close friend who has witnessed someone chose to starve themselves (you are allowed to refuse drink and food) to death (terminal case, 3 months to live) rather than suffer through the "cure," it is not painful. It would be unpleasant at first, I'm sure, but the next step is delusion, followed by listlessness and then coma. Well, Ms. Schiavo is already in a coma so we are past any stage of "suffering."
My spouse, a critical care physician (ICU, vents, and all that jazz), does not dispute the above story.
Of course you don't know my friend and I didn't get to meet his friend. And we all know how trustworthy "friend of friend" stories tend to be, but in this case I believe it. And so, with this information, I take exception to saying that starving someone in a coma will cause suffering.
I'm going to borrow a line from Meet the Press this past Sunday (and if you didn't see it I highly encourage you to read the transcript ), but what we have here is a lot of people who are not authorities on the issue speaking as if they are.
To complete your line of thinking...starving a dog=wrong, euthanizing a dog=right. Starving a person=right, euthanizing a person=wrong. Go figure.
I've drifted so off-topic...so I might as well loop back the MTP show...because this is a perfect case of Stalin's observation that "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic." How true. Ms. Schiavo is starving, and congress takes action and the country is up in arms. Meanwhile millions of children in the US are starving, but we are cutting funding to those programs. How am I to respect such an inconsistent view?
Ah, irony. Not many realize that administering morphine actually hastens the onset of death; it slowly kills the patient. It was given because that is the accepted medical practice. Whether it makes sense or not is not the issue anymore; but don't read into it that morphine was given to prevent pain from starvation.
This is ignores the value of all the data that is strewn about the computer. I know many people who can only find files that reside on the "favorites" or "recent" list. And most products are not consistent with where files are placed; the software that came with my digital camera has an insane storage scheme that totally defies logic. Buy a new computer and you throw all that data out. Some people wouldn't notice that it's gone, but others would. There is also the value of time spent reinstalling everything that doesn't come with a new computer, recreating all your personalized settings, etc.
You should add these hidden costs to the dollar amount you put on the hardware, then compare $50/hr to the final value.
I don't think it will be the hard to instruct the user to get it too boot, but if modifying the bios to boot from CD is found to be too hard, perhaps a secure thumb-drive type device instead.
At some point it seems there should be either DRM or laws protecting the original works, but not both. To have both is a concession that _neither_ one works. That is the present situation, as I view it. And if neither one works, the situation should be reevaluated so that an effective solution can be applied.
Essentially, fund the enforcement of the laws so that they are effective; or, remove the laws and let DRM live or die on its own accord. A free market is cruel, don't hide (your flawed business plan) behind laws.
I recall a public defender speaking to my high school class years ago..."our system is designed to let 10 guilty people go free in order to prevent one innocent person from being wrongly convicted." Society has lost sight of that. Maybe society does not support it anymore, and we are okay with wrongful convictions. I, personally, am not.
My high ID probably gives me away, but thank you much for this comment. I was wondering where in the heck all the sigs were coming from; after reading as an AC for over 3 years I finally signed-up a week ago.
Thank you much as your comment prompted me to find the "hide sigs" preference.:)
I see how you've taken that statement out of context. It is specifically referring to two types of attacks: man-in-the-middle and trojan-horse. Earlier in the article he states that "Two-factor authentication mitigates this problem," where the problem referenced is the issue with lost/misplaced/compromised passwords.
Is two-factor authentification an improve over using passwords alone? Yes. Does it improve security? I believe that is debatable, and likely no. But really you have to define what attacks are you trying to protect against. And then you should also ask if implementing this new form of security cost effective? If the data says that most compromises are from man-in-the-middle and trojan-horse instead of just compromised passwords, then no two-factor authentification won't effectively do anything.
I'd imagine something like a dongle (or better, a keychain usb drive or knoppix-type disk) that is read-only. It would have "install" it's own "OS" and software/UI that used to connect with remotely. But the basic idea is that is tamper-proof, unlike existing OS'. The central server could verify that all is as it should be before continuing the session.
I suppose it could still be compromised if the hardware was compromised somehow, but hopefully that's harder than installing a trojan or keylogger. And of course the data packets could be intercepted.
I think you are misreading him slightly. I believe he objects to something being marketed as secure when in fact it is not.
Security (and safety & privacy, but those are off-topic) versus convenience is always going to be a trade-off. You may not want to go through 10 hoops to get to your bank account, but when you lose the money in it you have to accept that fact you are okay with that. _If_ that fact is advertised beforehand, we can all make informed choices and fairly evaluate the risks and our tolerance of them. But when we are given a line of bs, something the Schneier is good at pointing out, we are not able to make informed choices and yet are still expected to accept the consequences. That is wrong.
Plagiarism is independent of copyright. One can plagiarize copyrighted works just as easy as public domain works. There is societal pressure to credit original creators, and that's probably better than any law.
And since you can't copyright an idea, your posts can likely be reused without restriction anyways. Someone could paraphrase or selectively quote, give you credit, cite the original source/context, and use as they saw fit.
Something missing from this article is a comment on the major revenue source of the Classifieds. I was under the impression that newspapers historcially had made a lot of money from this, and the internet has altered that market.
For me, quality of the news matter. I need more than just facts. An article in BW (online link at The Future Of The New York Times ) two months ago discussed this same topic. That article included a different angle in that the NYT continues to do investigative work whereas a lot of other papers have chosen to cut back.
I think you have made a few errors in your analysis. The advantage of low interest rates is that it has been a chance to refinance into a fixed interest rate. If one shortened the term, the payment stayed about the same; if the longer term was kept monthly payments dropped. But the payments are fixed for a long time unless an ARM was chosen; but this makes little sense in the current climate unless one is being being speculative and trying to time the housing market. But those people deserve what they get and should be aware of the risks.
Now, when people refinanced many unfortunately withdrew a large some of cash from the "increased" value of the home since purchase. The good news is that a lot of people used it to pay off credit card and other debt which was at much higher interest rate. While this did nothing to increase savings, it did decrease consumer debt.
Lastly, about foreign investment...The low value of the dollar makes the US a very attractive place to investment. The world considers the US to be a stable place to invest, and thus US Treasuries are bought by foreign investors as much as ever.
I remember that one, though the name escapes me. Their plan included investing their revenues aggressively to make extra cash to cover the rebates. Of course, doing that in a downhill market didn't work out too well.
I knew a number of otherwise intelligent folks that fell for that one. I'd like to think that people have learned from the whole experience, but I'm sure they will all be suckered again someday.
Slashdot Mirror
Though this does remind me, tangentially, of a visiting math prof in college. He refused to give partial credit on any problems b/c of the Challenger disaster. His explanation was that had someone properly coded the launch software it would not have been scheduled to fly that day. Something to do with using a zero instead of a small, non-zero number in "go" flight algorithm. I never was able to figure out of this was true or not.
But man, no partial credit with like 4-5 questions per test. No curve, no A's. He left the country at the end of the quarter, that rat. :P
Welcome to the internet; trust no one. I hope more people got the message.
Nature will beat you to it. The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die
Will this same contract allow me to bill companies for the ad space they rent on the car, clothes, etc. that I've purchased?
As an engineering student I loved those classes b/c as long as I presented a well defended argument, I could say whatever I wanted. There was no formulary right answer.
"Note that a US citizen is generally required by US law and State Department regulations to be in possession of a US passport when leaving or entering the US. This requirement does not apply when entering the US from Canada, Mexico, or Caribbean countries (other than Cuba); however, even in those cases, proof of one's identity and one's US citizenship is still required, and a passport is probably the best such proof."
I guess the FAQ will have to be updated.
Automatic Plate Recognition
Domestic Facts on Hunger and Poverty
* Thirty-three million people-including 13 million children-live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents one in ten households in the United States (10 percent).
* 3.1 percent of U.S. households experience hunger: they frequently skip meals or eat too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day. Nearly 8.5 million people, including 2.9 million children, live in these homes.
* 7.3 percent of U.S. households are at risk of hunger: they have lower quality diets or must resort to seeking emergency food because they cannot always afford the food they need. 24.7 million people, including 9.9 million children, live in these homes.
Malnutrition is often the cause of marasmus and kwasiorkor, which are considered starvation-related diseases. 1% of children in the US suffer from chronic malnuturtion (1 in 100) and 10% from malnutrition (1 in 10). Think about that.
And furthermore, a general search on starvation (not confined to the US) will reveal that it's a real problem affecting millions (with a billion in the poverty/malnutrition level) worldwide. Even life outside the US are important too, no?
The link between hunger, malnutrition, starvation, poverty, and death is clear. It's semantics or obfuscation to try and argue otherwise.
At one point you asked "at what cost" for one person's life. No one wants to go on record with a number, but it is implied in a number of discussions. The US does need to grow up and accept the fact that we "can't save everyone" and that tough choices have to be made. There are not enough resources to do everything we would like to do (or that government mandates we do.) One day in the ICU for Ms. Schiavo would go a long way towards helping a number of people. And over 15 years...who paid for that? I haven't seen that discussed at all.
My spouse, a critical care physician (ICU, vents, and all that jazz), does not dispute the above story.
Of course you don't know my friend and I didn't get to meet his friend. And we all know how trustworthy "friend of friend" stories tend to be, but in this case I believe it. And so, with this information, I take exception to saying that starving someone in a coma will cause suffering.
I'm going to borrow a line from Meet the Press this past Sunday (and if you didn't see it I highly encourage you to read the transcript ), but what we have here is a lot of people who are not authorities on the issue speaking as if they are.
To complete your line of thinking...starving a dog=wrong, euthanizing a dog=right. Starving a person=right, euthanizing a person=wrong. Go figure.
I've drifted so off-topic...so I might as well loop back the MTP show...because this is a perfect case of Stalin's observation that "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths a statistic." How true. Ms. Schiavo is starving, and congress takes action and the country is up in arms. Meanwhile millions of children in the US are starving, but we are cutting funding to those programs. How am I to respect such an inconsistent view?
I heard that they burn at 451 deg F. /sigh
Ah, irony. Not many realize that administering morphine actually hastens the onset of death; it slowly kills the patient. It was given because that is the accepted medical practice. Whether it makes sense or not is not the issue anymore; but don't read into it that morphine was given to prevent pain from starvation.
You should add these hidden costs to the dollar amount you put on the hardware, then compare $50/hr to the final value.
No VCRs, Tivo, mythTV, or tv-tuner cards out there? Or maybe just wait for the torrent when you get home?
Funny, I thought of this exact thing last week.
Essentially, fund the enforcement of the laws so that they are effective; or, remove the laws and let DRM live or die on its own accord. A free market is cruel, don't hide (your flawed business plan) behind laws.
I recall a public defender speaking to my high school class years ago..."our system is designed to let 10 guilty people go free in order to prevent one innocent person from being wrongly convicted." Society has lost sight of that. Maybe society does not support it anymore, and we are okay with wrongful convictions. I, personally, am not.
Thank you much as your comment prompted me to find the "hide sigs" preference. :)
Is two-factor authentification an improve over using passwords alone? Yes. Does it improve security? I believe that is debatable, and likely no. But really you have to define what attacks are you trying to protect against. And then you should also ask if implementing this new form of security cost effective? If the data says that most compromises are from man-in-the-middle and trojan-horse instead of just compromised passwords, then no two-factor authentification won't effectively do anything.
I'd imagine something like a dongle (or better, a keychain usb drive or knoppix-type disk) that is read-only. It would have "install" it's own "OS" and software/UI that used to connect with remotely. But the basic idea is that is tamper-proof, unlike existing OS'. The central server could verify that all is as it should be before continuing the session.
I suppose it could still be compromised if the hardware was compromised somehow, but hopefully that's harder than installing a trojan or keylogger. And of course the data packets could be intercepted.
Security (and safety & privacy, but those are off-topic) versus convenience is always going to be a trade-off. You may not want to go through 10 hoops to get to your bank account, but when you lose the money in it you have to accept that fact you are okay with that. _If_ that fact is advertised beforehand, we can all make informed choices and fairly evaluate the risks and our tolerance of them. But when we are given a line of bs, something the Schneier is good at pointing out, we are not able to make informed choices and yet are still expected to accept the consequences. That is wrong.
Plagiarism is independent of copyright. One can plagiarize copyrighted works just as easy as public domain works. There is societal pressure to credit original creators, and that's probably better than any law. And since you can't copyright an idea, your posts can likely be reused without restriction anyways. Someone could paraphrase or selectively quote, give you credit, cite the original source/context, and use as they saw fit.
For me, quality of the news matter. I need more than just facts. An article in BW (online link at The Future Of The New York Times ) two months ago discussed this same topic. That article included a different angle in that the NYT continues to do investigative work whereas a lot of other papers have chosen to cut back.
Now, when people refinanced many unfortunately withdrew a large some of cash from the "increased" value of the home since purchase. The good news is that a lot of people used it to pay off credit card and other debt which was at much higher interest rate. While this did nothing to increase savings, it did decrease consumer debt.
Lastly, about foreign investment...The low value of the dollar makes the US a very attractive place to investment. The world considers the US to be a stable place to invest, and thus US Treasuries are bought by foreign investors as much as ever.
I knew a number of otherwise intelligent folks that fell for that one. I'd like to think that people have learned from the whole experience, but I'm sure they will all be suckered again someday.