And I say, with my freedom of speech, "Caveat Emptor" - let the buyer beware. Is this any worse than the dot-com bubble? I am surprised to see so much call for regulation and oversight here on/. where I would have expected to see more focus on the decentralized crowd-based DEBUNKING that this article itself represents. Many technological items were impossible, then impractical, then suddenly commonplace, so distinguishing between "bad science" and "immature technology" is harder than it used to be. Add a generation of insistence that "everyone's opinion has validity" and it's no wonder that science is having such a hard time.
Basically I agree. OTOH suppose that hard drive with potentially sensitive information fell into the wrong hands? The hysteria over "lack of security" would be worse. If there was no specific retention order for the drive, and they gave up on attempted recovery, then destruction was the *appropriate* solution at the time, at least for the IT techs working on it. Security works against retention and backup.
I can understand some native americans being upset about this kind of names, and I can also understand others (posting above) saying they don't care. What I find strange is that people usually want to name their teams something positive and powerful (other than frat league when you name your team the Nads so that people can cheer Go, Nads!). The various Indian-themed sports team names were all intended to be powerful positive *winning* labels, not insults, to the teams they were being applied to; and by inference positive references, not insults, to their namesakes. Consider how strange it is to name your new team after what was once considered a hated enemy - who lost! Clearly the might and power of that enemy is being honored to some degree. (Though George Carlin might compare it to suburbs where we cut down all the trees and then name the streets in their memory.)
well, yes, they do, if anyone thinks it was reasonable for them to have taken precautions. "I assumed you actually LOCKED those locks on the door when you went out . .."
Yes, but how much of that 24/7 is data really flowing? If the box woke up for 3 to 5 minutes each hour, that would still be a big difference. Instead it's ON all the time!
Verizon FIOS DVR stays fully awake when turned off, so that it can keep "recording" live TV just in case you want to turn it back on again. At least that's a function, worthwhile or not. It also keeps the display hardware hot to show a screensaver on the TV saying "Your FIOS box is off." Since this text keeps drifting around the screen, rather than allowing the display line to simply go dark, a TV left on by mistake (which would have shut itself off on lost input) also stays awake to keep the DVR company. I fully realize the DVR's never going to be completely dead, because it has to wake up when a timer needs processing; but that should be a very low power mode for any time not actively watching or recording.
The key item in your list is "changes the product number". Then it's OK. Problem is they did NOT change the product number, just sold something not-as-good under the same number for the same price.
Ditto. Though I would accept it if they *labeled* the "value version" as such (under a different part number). The marketplace for anything has range; that's why you can get a burger from McDonald's, or Five Guys, or Bobby Flay, or Ruth's Chris. As long as the price corresponds to the product level, it's the buyer's choice.
Yes, you have a point, "but the other guy was worse . . . " is not a valid rationale (other than pleading self-defense). I do, however, find it amusing when one side (either side) screams about the administration doing something that their predecessors *defended* when *their* guy was doing it.
None of the above, I'm one of those people who has gotten burned because I didn't keep the purchase records for something 25 years earlier, and when I sold it and had to declare a profit, I spent many hours trying to find proof of the cost basis. Perhaps you have not yet bought (or inherited) real property, assets of declarable and insurable value, or stock, and thus have not yet encountered these issues (no, wait, if you're younger you may have bought stock in the no-certificate book-entry-only broker-keeps-records era rather than the old transferable-piece-of-paper era, which makes life a lot easier - until your broker goes under). Rather than insult you back, I will urge you to research the record-keeping requirements before the IRS expects you to pay tax on ordinary income for the ENTIRE sale price of something because, without proof of original investment cost, they peg it at zero.
Funny, I never voted for the previous one, but I had to put up with it; in fact I was in the MAJORITY who voted against it and I still had to put up with it. I'm a bit disappointed with this one, but at least it shouldn't be court-martialed for sending troops into danger on false pretenses with insufficient equipment.
I work for a Fortune 500. They have strict archive and retention policies, automatically enforced at the email server. The Federal government also has archive and retention policies. The IRS, in particular, expects taxpayers to keep records FOREVER (or until you die and your will is probated). I don't need to come up with "cockamamy scenarios" to say that the IRS losing email is sort of stupid. Yes, that was two years ago; but did she lose the email of everything she was working on AT THE TIME? That would be a complete mess for any work in progress, and somehow I would imagine that the IT department tries to avoid it.
Well, yes, that's the point. A prohibition that would cause one to starve to death would violate the teaching of mishnah "And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Saving a life takes precedence over other rules. However, if it's a question of someone dying the real death or saving them to continue being *undead*, I'm not so sure we can find talmudic citations.
There are religious opinion papers clarifying the distinction between transfusions in medical need, and *eating* blood. These still do not address the issues of vampirism. If one's body chemistry were such that blood were the only useful nourishment, the normal prohibition of eating "the blood is the life" (yes, it's in the old testament, not the new) would prohibit one from living. Or continuing being undead.
Yes, I've also paid for my disk, and I want to watch it without the previews and warnings and crap, and I want the remote buttons to work all the time instead of being blocked by PUOs. The thing I find most irritating about DRM'ed media is the persistent reminders that "it's not really yours, it's still ours, even if you think you bought and paid for it".
No, Skynet as the world's collection of cellphones, and all of the other embedded processors with zillions of cycles available and a lot of spare time on their hands . . . . Seriously, half of us are walking around with more computer power PER DEVICE than the entire world was using on any given day in the 1960s. And we have our "real" computer at home. Even M$ couldn't waste all of that computational capacity. Do you think the push to hook them all together in an IoT is really coming from *humans*????? (see Roger Zelazny, "LOKI 7281")
This. And when I managed to call, the agent said my prior call and travel notice were in the activity log . . . but somehow hadn't taken effect. The only funny part - the dinky little car rental agency had Skype set up for me to make the US call before I finished asking how I was going to do it. They wanted to make me happy and do business, unlike the banks who figure you have to do business with them whether you're happy or not.
I concur. The situation is not as simple as the ideology on both sides. A famous real example of this situation is Winston Churchill's decision to do nothing about a warning of the coming attack on Coventry, in order to conceal the secret source of the information, and the fact that German codes had been broken. (NB: There are also differing accounts that the War Office was uncertain of the target, and so Churchill could not take *any* action without revealing signals intelligence.)
It all comes down to trust. We accept, even enjoy, stories of fictional judge-and-jury-and-executioner James Bond, Dirty Harry, or Judge Dredd, because we trust that they are on the "right side". One would hope that a long tradition of openness and "disinfecting sunlight" would give a measure of trust that in the narrow situations when secrets must be kept - an informant's identity, for example - the justice system is acting for the best. Unfortunately, this trust has already been abused, and questionable situations abound, eroding the hopes of redeveloping future trust in the system as a whole. Surely there are individuals who would be trusted by a majority of the public to "do the right thing" in one of these cases; but we don't get to choose an "auditor" for each case.
Slashdot Mirror
And I say, with my freedom of speech, "Caveat Emptor" - let the buyer beware. Is this any worse than the dot-com bubble? I am surprised to see so much call for regulation and oversight here on /. where I would have expected to see more focus on the decentralized crowd-based DEBUNKING that this article itself represents. Many technological items were impossible, then impractical, then suddenly commonplace, so distinguishing between "bad science" and "immature technology" is harder than it used to be. Add a generation of insistence that "everyone's opinion has validity" and it's no wonder that science is having such a hard time.
Flying a car under manual control in a populated area is grounds for being sent to the organ banks. Larry Niven said that YEARS ago.
Basically I agree. OTOH suppose that hard drive with potentially sensitive information fell into the wrong hands? The hysteria over "lack of security" would be worse. If there was no specific retention order for the drive, and they gave up on attempted recovery, then destruction was the *appropriate* solution at the time, at least for the IT techs working on it. Security works against retention and backup.
I can understand some native americans being upset about this kind of names, and I can also understand others (posting above) saying they don't care. What I find strange is that people usually want to name their teams something positive and powerful (other than frat league when you name your team the Nads so that people can cheer Go, Nads!). The various Indian-themed sports team names were all intended to be powerful positive *winning* labels, not insults, to the teams they were being applied to; and by inference positive references, not insults, to their namesakes. Consider how strange it is to name your new team after what was once considered a hated enemy - who lost! Clearly the might and power of that enemy is being honored to some degree. (Though George Carlin might compare it to suburbs where we cut down all the trees and then name the streets in their memory.)
well, yes, they do, if anyone thinks it was reasonable for them to have taken precautions. "I assumed you actually LOCKED those locks on the door when you went out . . ."
Yes, but how much of that 24/7 is data really flowing? If the box woke up for 3 to 5 minutes each hour, that would still be a big difference. Instead it's ON all the time!
Verizon FIOS DVR stays fully awake when turned off, so that it can keep "recording" live TV just in case you want to turn it back on again. At least that's a function, worthwhile or not. It also keeps the display hardware hot to show a screensaver on the TV saying "Your FIOS box is off." Since this text keeps drifting around the screen, rather than allowing the display line to simply go dark, a TV left on by mistake (which would have shut itself off on lost input) also stays awake to keep the DVR company. I fully realize the DVR's never going to be completely dead, because it has to wake up when a timer needs processing; but that should be a very low power mode for any time not actively watching or recording.
The key item in your list is "changes the product number". Then it's OK. Problem is they did NOT change the product number, just sold something not-as-good under the same number for the same price.
Ditto. Though I would accept it if they *labeled* the "value version" as such (under a different part number). The marketplace for anything has range; that's why you can get a burger from McDonald's, or Five Guys, or Bobby Flay, or Ruth's Chris. As long as the price corresponds to the product level, it's the buyer's choice.
For a front-passenger bike, try a Bilenky ViewPoint: http://www.bilenky.com/viewpnt... or a Hase Pino http://hasebikes.com/148-1-tan...
Not real estate, that would of course have paperwork.
Have you seen this barista's resume? Three degrees, journal publication, pilot's license . . . it's *really* tough finding a job nowadays.
Yes, you have a point, "but the other guy was worse . . . " is not a valid rationale (other than pleading self-defense). I do, however, find it amusing when one side (either side) screams about the administration doing something that their predecessors *defended* when *their* guy was doing it.
None of the above, I'm one of those people who has gotten burned because I didn't keep the purchase records for something 25 years earlier, and when I sold it and had to declare a profit, I spent many hours trying to find proof of the cost basis. Perhaps you have not yet bought (or inherited) real property, assets of declarable and insurable value, or stock, and thus have not yet encountered these issues (no, wait, if you're younger you may have bought stock in the no-certificate book-entry-only broker-keeps-records era rather than the old transferable-piece-of-paper era, which makes life a lot easier - until your broker goes under). Rather than insult you back, I will urge you to research the record-keeping requirements before the IRS expects you to pay tax on ordinary income for the ENTIRE sale price of something because, without proof of original investment cost, they peg it at zero.
And the Bush administration did?
It's your banana republic government
I never voted for this current administration.
Funny, I never voted for the previous one, but I had to put up with it; in fact I was in the MAJORITY who voted against it and I still had to put up with it. I'm a bit disappointed with this one, but at least it shouldn't be court-martialed for sending troops into danger on false pretenses with insufficient equipment.
I work for a Fortune 500. They have strict archive and retention policies, automatically enforced at the email server. The Federal government also has archive and retention policies. The IRS, in particular, expects taxpayers to keep records FOREVER (or until you die and your will is probated). I don't need to come up with "cockamamy scenarios" to say that the IRS losing email is sort of stupid. Yes, that was two years ago; but did she lose the email of everything she was working on AT THE TIME? That would be a complete mess for any work in progress, and somehow I would imagine that the IT department tries to avoid it.
Well, yes, that's the point. A prohibition that would cause one to starve to death would violate the teaching of mishnah "And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world." Saving a life takes precedence over other rules. However, if it's a question of someone dying the real death or saving them to continue being *undead*, I'm not so sure we can find talmudic citations.
There are religious opinion papers clarifying the distinction between transfusions in medical need, and *eating* blood. These still do not address the issues of vampirism. If one's body chemistry were such that blood were the only useful nourishment, the normal prohibition of eating "the blood is the life" (yes, it's in the old testament, not the new) would prohibit one from living. Or continuing being undead.
Yes, I've also paid for my disk, and I want to watch it without the previews and warnings and crap, and I want the remote buttons to work all the time instead of being blocked by PUOs. The thing I find most irritating about DRM'ed media is the persistent reminders that "it's not really yours, it's still ours, even if you think you bought and paid for it".
I thought the NSA system *is* the backup . . . for the Internet.
"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Benjamin Franklin
No, Skynet as the world's collection of cellphones, and all of the other embedded processors with zillions of cycles available and a lot of spare time on their hands . . . . Seriously, half of us are walking around with more computer power PER DEVICE than the entire world was using on any given day in the 1960s. And we have our "real" computer at home. Even M$ couldn't waste all of that computational capacity. Do you think the push to hook them all together in an IoT is really coming from *humans*????? (see Roger Zelazny, "LOKI 7281")
This. And when I managed to call, the agent said my prior call and travel notice were in the activity log . . . but somehow hadn't taken effect. The only funny part - the dinky little car rental agency had Skype set up for me to make the US call before I finished asking how I was going to do it. They wanted to make me happy and do business, unlike the banks who figure you have to do business with them whether you're happy or not.
I concur. The situation is not as simple as the ideology on both sides. A famous real example of this situation is Winston Churchill's decision to do nothing about a warning of the coming attack on Coventry, in order to conceal the secret source of the information, and the fact that German codes had been broken. (NB: There are also differing accounts that the War Office was uncertain of the target, and so Churchill could not take *any* action without revealing signals intelligence.)
It all comes down to trust. We accept, even enjoy, stories of fictional judge-and-jury-and-executioner James Bond, Dirty Harry, or Judge Dredd, because we trust that they are on the "right side". One would hope that a long tradition of openness and "disinfecting sunlight" would give a measure of trust that in the narrow situations when secrets must be kept - an informant's identity, for example - the justice system is acting for the best. Unfortunately, this trust has already been abused, and questionable situations abound, eroding the hopes of redeveloping future trust in the system as a whole. Surely there are individuals who would be trusted by a majority of the public to "do the right thing" in one of these cases; but we don't get to choose an "auditor" for each case.