So by that definition, I can throw out about 90% of what you say since most of science is not evidential, but theoretical? Or, at least most of what is at stake in this discussion.
This law is nothing more than reactionary to the perception (these people hold) that people of faith are under attack. When you read most of the commentary on Slashdot regarding anything that says "faith might have value" you can see why people craft legislation like this and why they might think they're under attack. For instance, most of what is being said here can be summed-up in two statements:
People of faith are ignorant Science and religion are mutually exclusive
So, you can see exact why people feel under attack and feel the need to react. Do you really blame folks for having to resort to passing legislation? When you read the rhetoric here, you can't really blame people for wanting protection under the law. Some of the comments here suggest such a high level of intolerance that one wonders if some of you had your way, would you completely outlaw faith and church?
You're not supposed to understand faith, you just have it. Just because you put yours in what you can touch doesn't mean that you have the right to criticize others because they don't.
Well, at least there's no penguins or birds in space. So when the oil-spill in happens we won't have to worry about the environmental impact... or will we...?
Microsoft isn't the only one researching vulnerabilities in their products, and in fact, if it wasn't for the effort of a lot of third-party researchers uncovering vulnerabilities, Microsoft probably wouldn't make the effort that they are just now showing us and exposing to public scrutiny.
The real problem is twofold... first, denial; for so long Microsoft (as well as many other mainstream software companies) refused to admit that there was a problem and didn't spend any time or money on the problem. This is a mindset that still needs to be addressed and was never present in open-source software development. Second, the time-to-acknowledgment has to come down. Microsoft is not making vulnerabilities that they discover public knowledge in a timely fashion to allow people who use their products to address these vulnerabilities through work-arounds and other techniques, and in fact, their approach to patch development is prioritized using marketing, not security awareness, as the primary driver behind which vulnerabilities are addressed and when.
But in China, the definition (or lack thereof) of troublemaker is what's so troubling... or maybe there's an inherent transparency in no transparency whatsoever? Being perfectly certain that there is no certainty is somewhat comforting but I don't know what's worse.
Didn't Bob Metcalf make a similar prediction a few years back and ended up eating his hat?
Given that these guys are just a front for the phone company, what are they going to have to eat when they use this as an excuse for not delivering the bandwidth to homes that others in places like Japan enjoy?
Group thought is rarely correct. Mob rule has been proven over and over to be incorrect because the outcome never matches the intention. It's one of the reasons you don't see direct democracy ever fully implemented and one of the flaws with free-market capitalism... individual need rarely translates to what's good for everyone.
But this is the world we live in, and our actions (or inactions) have real consequences on people. No one lives in a vacuum and you are responsible and accountable to the rest of us for how, what you do or do not do, impacts people. That is true for governments and corporations, as well as individuals... hence the need for transparency.
This woman did something horrific and she probably needs to be punished for it. But the cry for justice needs to be directed at the appropriate authorities to avoid the exact collateral damage that the article spoke of... the daughter being impacted by the mother's actions and that impact being exacerbated by the crowdsourcing effect. That's why we have these institutions and they are the ones responsible to afford that level of transparency we demand. Without them we degenerate into mob-rule and anarchy and while on the surface, there are some aspects of that approach that look appealing, nothing is left to serve the common good, and again, the original design and intent driving the need to change is not met and no one wins.
Yes, but when does a "patent" become a hindrance to society by stifling innovation and competition? All that Microsoft has done is made a non-specific claim about owning patents and companies that can't pay the toll are afraid to move forward because they might end up sued into non-existence.
That's called a back-door monopoly... and it hurts us, the marketplace, and the implementation of the benefits of technology we should all enjoy.
I am in no way defending what Mr. Kerr has said here, but, he has probably spent the better part of his professional career in government and is speaking from the ignorant perspective that government exists to better people's lives and therefore equates the US government with any other big business. Unfortunately, because he's probably spent so much time in the government he doesn't understand that there are fundamental differences between businesses that are charged with maintaining the privacy of their customers' data and the government's charge to maintaining the privacy of their constituents... a charge which government has absolutely no penalty for abrogating.
Governments are not under threat of imprisonment, fines, termination, or other severe penalties that private business is when it can be proven that their actions were willfully negligent. Additionally, the government has no fear of "losing business" when they breach an acceptable level of confidentiality with regards to the data they've collected on someone. Business suffers when events like this occur... and Mr. Kerr can have no grasp on the reality of what constitutes suffering in the business world because government life doesn't operate in those terms.
It's a matter of congressional investigation when a breach occurs, and everyone and no one at the same time is held accountable. Very rarely are individuals actually singled out for the same kinds of treatment that has become commonplace in the business-world; the termination of employment at the least, for the mis-handling of confidential data.
So... while I am disappointed that Mr. Kerr cannot see why people would have a problem with not being able to expect and equate anonymity with privacy, I am not at all surprised.
would be to use it to provide insight on traffic and request patterns for known malware distribution sites, the RBN, and other known bad-actors who are engaged in criminal schemes using DNS morphing techniques to fool people into landing on their sites...
Hmmm... probably not a lot of money in that for them tho...
Sincere questions here... also, this is probably off-topic but your post interests me.
I have heard "experts" say that a volcanic eruption on the scale of, Mt. Pinatubo would put out far more in the way of greenhouse gases than we have the ability to emit. In your statement, you said that the C12/C14 measurements indicate that the CO2 is from fossil origins and the rest is from deforestation... I guess you mean here that less forest means that there is less absorbing media for CO2 around, so a higher level could be attributed to less forests... okay.
I am a total chemistry noob here, so please forgive me. How is the CO2 differentiated? Isn't CO2=CO2? Is there any way to measure the amount of greenhouse type gases that come from geothermal sources? What about other sources, such as Methane emissions from mammals (cattle production in formerly rain-forest covered areas in Brazil, for instance). Can these other types of gases be classified as CO2 types (fossil vs. non-fossil or other classifications) or are they just lumped in as "greenhouse" gases in general that could be, an albeit smaller, part of the issue?
e)We know to great detail how much CO2 ( and other greenhouse gases) we have emitted. Since the only other fossil source of carbon is volcanic and geological activity, this together with the C12/C14 analysis tells us volcanos are not to blame. This is also in agreement with our present understanding of geology.
I am really confused now... are geo-thermal sources of CO2 classified as fossil in origin, or did you just mis-speak? If they are fossil, then how can they be differentiated from stuff humans create?
I understand why this issue is so hard to sort through... the main issue here is politics; national sovereignty, economics, access to resources, and other forces. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a good story from anyone on either side in the scientific community yet on this stuff that is well publicized... neither side can convince me, and I feel totally lost. Here's what I do know...
The polar ice caps are melting.
Car exhaust is horrible to breath
Air pollution hovers visibly over some cities, but not others in America
Pictures I see of cities in China make me wonder how people can even breath
Deforestation is bad... wholesale clear-cutting destroys irreplaceable things
The worlds oceans are not being managed correctly... to the detriment of all
These things are real and visible. And while bad, what do they mean long-term? Is there an unbiased resource out there that actually has documented facts about this issue that a layman could look at to help form a somewhat educated position on this, because outside of what I can see (which isn't good) there doesn't appear to be a source of information that isn't tainted by politics or some sort of agenda? I'd like to see both sides and their "supporting" facts to make my own decision.
Danny McPherson, chief research officer at Arbor Networks, a Lexington, Mass.-based company that provides network security services to some of the world's largest Internet providers, said most providers shy away from blocking whole networks. Instead, they choose to temporarily block specific problem sites.
"Who decides what the acceptable threshold is for stopping connectivity to an entire network? Also, if you're an AT&T or Verizon and you block access to a sizable portion of the Internet, it's very likely that some consumer rights advocacy group is going to come after you."
First... who's saying anything about blocking "a sizable portion of the Internet"? We're talking about being able to identify bad-actors and doing something about it for a change. From some recent articles I've read, AT&T doesn't seem to have any problems blocking their users from accessing the Internet when they don't like what they're doing... they'll just drop you if they don't like you. Why do they have issues blocking real criminals from doing real criminal activities. Can anyone honestly say that these networks are hosting content that anyone legitimate would want to get to?
If there are legit companies doing business with these guys, and maybe if the networks were blocked, or the providers refused to carry routes to those networks, they would "shy away from" doing business with the RBN. Or is that too much of a free-market approach to the problem... block the criminals, and if you're associated with them, you can't do business either. Hmmm...
Second, as to who decides... the market decides! This is pretty cut-and-dry. If there's a company somewhere that specializes in hosting this crap, then shut it down! It will only benefit legitimate business. This is so easy... there isn't a free-speech or access issue here... nothing for anyone to get upset about. The cancer has been identified... cut it out of the body.
The time for reactive measures is over. The article got one thing right... this problem has been allowed to grow and fester beyond the point where half-measures are going to work. $150 million is real money and it's time to take the ability for these goons to do this away from them.
Yes... specifically the way the security model is implemented through the (lack of) controls around what a user is allowed to do on the box. For instance, when I buy a new PC with Windows on it, and I turn it on for the first time, it begins by asking me a few questions about my connectivity, users, and so-on. When it creates those users for the first time, even if it is just a single-default account, it grants that account administrative privileges.
Compare this to a Linux or MacOS-X installation. My account on my laptop does not have default admin-rights, and demands that I enter my password to do things like install system-wide software, updates, and other key admin functions.
I find it amusing that this fact, along with many others related to how flawed Windows is from a security standpoint, are often overlooked by individuals and the media alike.
That's a pretty interesting viewpoint, but really... the Church didn't move to Europe... it got moved by the Roman Empire. The spread of Christianity became continental because the Romans thought that through suppression on the continent, they could keep Christianity at arms-length, in the provinces. So they rounded up the ring-leaders, dragged them off to Rome, and killed them. Along the way, they converted more followers (Roman citizens like Paul were entitled to due-process so they got busy while they were in prison), and the religion ended up spreading on the continent in-spite of their efforts.
I will agree with you that the conquering of the Americas was horrific, but come on... if you really believe the conquering of North and South America was exclusively about religion, you're wearing a really dark pair of rose-colored glasses and you've chosen to completely ignore lots of facts that have little or nothing to do with Christianity outside of European's political leaders' leveraging of the Church as a way to hold and grow their political power as they systematically conquered the native peoples of America. Thus:
1. Temporal power in Europe was often linked to spiritual power. Ecclesiastical careers for lesser sons from powerful families was very prevalent... this was done pragmatically to ensure multiple success factors for these family's well-being and economic growth. So as these families became involved in the economic affairs of the colonies, their ecclesiastic children followed along to ensure the family business, as well as perform their evangelical duties.
2. The English colonial movement was driven mainly by the Hudson Bay and other English mercantile-based trading companies, not by the Church of England, "the pilgrims" or any other non-secular organization. That's not to say that these folks weren't God-fearing, church-going, people, but rather that the Church was not out to convert the native peoples of America as far as the English were concerned.
3. Spanish efforts to colonize the Americas were driven by Evangelical Catholics like Queen Isabella, but also by the tremendous desire to unify Spain and consolidate her power through the acquisition of wealth and territories. This was at least as much a Spanish national movement as it was a Catholic church movement and was critical to Spain's economic and national survival.
4. French and Portuguese efforts were also minimally based in religious motives, but that was mainly seconded by their own rabid designs on colonial expansion as well as continental motives (such as support of the American rebellion in 1776 against England... their loss was France's gain, even as an Monarchical power, before the French Revolution) to grow control and influence over European affairs... expanding the Catholic church was not primary on the agenda, and at best, a side-benefit.
In summary, the conquering of the Americas was about big money, imperialism, and economic colonialism, and at best (worst) the Church was along for the ride. Just because some of the imperial families of Europe decided to wrap up parts of it in religion didn't make it a religious action in any way. To suggest that is totally revisionist and has little basis in fact outside of some really sorry events that are mostly sensationalized and out of context with regards to the political climate and the church's real role in the whole affair.
The Catholic church just acted as another focal point of power and politics during the whole sorry situation and ended up being blamed for implementation of policies built by the rulers that enabled the subjugation of the native peoples. It was primarily being driven by mercantile motives and mercantile-based people/families behind the scenes.
Yes... because if you're a pirate/copyright-infringer, there is a slight chance that you might be taking money out of a corporation's pocket, and that corporation might be a political contributor... so you might be hurting a politician's pocketbook or bottom-line and that makes you really really dangerous.
Terrorists aren't known for enriching politicians (at least not directly) so they are lower on the priority list since they're not going to hurt as much in the pocketbook.
Welcome to the new oligarchy, formerly the United States of America.
No one, outside of the occasional binge-drinker, has ever claimed to see any of those things, however, the numerous documented eyewitness accounts of Jesus, his miracles, and his rising from the dead after being crucified, takes my belief from something that doesn't have to be dis-proven, to something that does.
Also... the real reason we still have myths is so we can have really cool shows like Mythbusters!
In Nazi Germany, companies built the factories and produced things like Zyklon-B, the ovens for the crematorium, the rail-cars and transport used to conduct human beings to the death camps, the uniforms for the death-camp guards, the guns, and all the other enabling technologies that helped allow one of the worst crimes of human history to occur.
All they could say after that evil was stamped out was... they were following orders, they were conducting their business, they were making profit, they were obeying the laws.
Did that make them right? Does that kind of thinking really make Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, and the other technology-enabling companies that do business in China and help support one of the most evil regimes under the sun right? Does it absolve them of their responsibility as human beings first?
I'm sorry... but the whole corporate model is broken. The first rule of any corporation needs to be "Do No Harm"... not "Profit at any price". The ONLY reason China is able to get away with the vast amount of human-rights violations and corrupt practices that they do, is because we in the West tolerate it in the name of the almighty dollar!
Speaking of supreme idiots... you're a troll and should have been modded that way and in any objective normal forum filled with open-minded rational and thoughtful people, and not NAZI thought-police like you, you would have been. However, the fact that your article was rated insightful is part & parcel of all the wonderfulness and charm that is Slashdot, Slashwrist, or whatever... I call it the deep-end of an intellectual cesspool either way.
See I can do it too... you're stupid, you're dumb, you're an idiot, you're a moron... whatever... luser. You don't agree with me, so I hate you so that makes me right and you wrong.
That's an informed and intelligent opinion if I've ever seen one... wow, you're astounding. Let's mod you up!
Someone call the freaking WAAAH-mbulance, we got a crybaby on our hands here!
By the way... for the record, I don't think it's an issue... every presidential election we get bombarded by shite like this that is expressly designed to divide people along irrational lines. Let's face it, what real and substantial changes have been made in legislature over the last 35 years on any of this controversial crap? This stuff is the gift to the media that keeps on giving and giving and meanwhile, we end up running the country into debt, destroying our standing in the world, subjecting our population to defective crap from China, and enriching corporations... all at our expense. But hey! We finally got one of our guys in there that is rational and doesn't believe in any of this creation crap. Whoopee! I'm glad I was able to make my vote count.
Now, how about that lead content in those toys? Or how are we going to deal with Warsaw Pact 2? Or how about a real solution to Iraq that doesn't involve more senseless death?
Nah... don't bother with it, it will fix itself. Plus, we don't really want anything to change anyways. We just want to keep you feasting on emotionally charged issues like creationism versus evolution, because that way, no one will pay any attention to the real issues and we'll keep on operating as before.
Actually, it reminds me more of that Hogan's Heroes episode where they ripped the electronics out of the remote-control tank and stuffed Le'Beau in there. Hogan's shouting commands so Le'Beau can hear him until he jumps out, then the tank goes berserk and blows up the staff-car. I can just see one of these things doing something similar.
What makes anyone actually stupid enough to think that the media exists for us? There is no such thing as the "fourth estate" any longer. It is dead and has been replaced by corporate greed driven by advertising dollars.
As for the article: The problem with these stories is that there is little or no entertainment value. I walked through CNN Center in Atlanta today while I was in Atlanta... the last time I was there, the center area was cordoned off for their "Talk Back Live". I think the spot that this show used to be shot at is now a Starbucks kiosk. The place and the organization is obviously geared for entertainment purposes only... none of the stories hold much potential hope for generating ratings, and therefore, advertisement dollars.
I used to work for a company that specialized in health care informatics... the collecting, processing, and delivery of data related to everything healthcare in the US.
We constantly collected data from over 2000 hospitals; everything from procedure outcomes, medicine used, infection-rates, pre-op/op/post-op staff-levels, parts & pieces used... on and on. This data was collected and processed in order to sell back to the hospitals that provided it. This data was used by these hospitals to create best-practices, efficiencies, and other benefits and to benchmark their results against national trends for any kind of particular procedure or care. Additionally, the federal government was using the data to help determine what kind of drugs worked and what didn't work based on the outcomes in the data, not from an experimental perspective, but from a effectiveness perspective; like the effectiveness of a particular antibiotic against a specific infection diagnosis. Finally, when I left, Health & Human Services was looking at using the data to baseline Medicare providers and how they were compensated; judging their outcomes against private-care outcomes in the data, and then base the medicare payments on how the providers ranked against these. The "A" providers were to be paid at the highest rate, and the "F" providers at the lowest... and then this data was to be made public so that people would have a choice, or be able to make better choices.
I have no idea where that program ended up, but I feel that the use of technology to collect and process data for the express purpose of assisting the medical community as a whole is crucial to generating successful outcomes in patient care. Treatment in the area of infection and other non-invasive procedures rely almost exclusively on effective knowledge transfer on what works and what doesn't, especially with regard to medicinal effectiveness. Frankly, I'd rather be treated by someone with the most knowledge at their fingertips than by someone who doesn't have the ability to look into any data and is operating in the dark. People think doctors come out of medical school with all the answers; the truth is, they come out with knowledge, but the application of that knowledge is what determines success. Data and technology delivery is the key to enabling effective application.
Thanks for that... it is amazing how much crap I had to plow thru on this thread just to get to a coherent answer.
However, in many cases, a carrier like MCI doesn't own their own infrastructure, at least not down to the building premise... that's owned by a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) and the LEC charges a regulated price to the carriers such as MCI and then hands-off the signal to them. MCI is passing that cost marked-up, plus their fee for whatever access you purchase (voice or data), on to you.
You are correct in that this regulated price is fought-for by the telco lobby, but this is well supported in government because of the perception that we can't have "ma-bell", whoever it is where you live, going out of business because they can't afford to maintain their infrastructure.
T-1 from your LEC in and out of the same central office is surprisingly inexpensive compared to the thousands of dollars you pay to get it beyond that... so if you're connecting two offices served out of the same CO with a T-1, you pay local-loop for each end of the circuit to the LEC and nothing else; no mileage, no carrier, or any other fees (outside of taxes of course) and you end up with a dedicated 1.544Mb/s and if you want, you can push mayonnaise through it... it's yours to do with as you will as long as you adhere to whatever federal/state/local telecommunications regulations are present for where you live. In most cases, you cannot buy a T-1 like that from anyone but the LEC, because they own the copper in the ground from premise to premise; that's called a monopoly. But that's also what maintains the price... that copper in the ground to your premise costs huge amounts of money to establish and maintain... rights of way need to be established, the street has to be torn-up to put it in, and the cable-plant has to be maintained (ala phone-truck guys). This is what drives the regulations that spawn tariffs. As far as the LEC is concerned, they have to charge an amount that allows them to maintain business, and it degenerates to a public services issue because ultimately, the issue doesn't boil down to your IP/Internet service... it boils down to voice service which is considered a basic service and part of a national infrastructure plan; all this appeals to lawmakers who help prop this system up because people are gonna get pissed when they can't pick up the phone and hear a dial-tone.
Even if you purchase some other service that rides on T-1, like frame-relay, you're going to pay the local-loop to the CO, plus the port and CIR charges to connect to the network; it's those charges that make a frame-relay T1 so expensive. While with a shared-services network like frame-relay you have the whole, unsubscribed T-1 to the central office, the actual thru-put you're going to be able to push is determined by the port speed and CIR you choose (when you establish the service) once you get into the network cloud.
Frankly, I'd prefer it if they'd deregulate the whole thing a let competition have a chance. Where I live, I can get Vonage, or I can get phone service from my cable provider, or I can buy a traditional POTS from a company called Windstream, which used to be Alltel. I can't get a POTS line from anyone but Windstream because they own the copper going down my street. I don't use any of it... I use my cell phone instead.
Thank you! Play more games, watch less television.
People think they're "informed" by watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the rest of that garbage. What they don't realize is that they're being programmed while they're being entertained. The signal/noise ratio on the "News" channels is so horrible I don't think anyone who consumes that crap realizes just how bad it is. It's opinion-driven, not fact-based, and rarely accurate... or if it is accurate at all, it's couched in more opinion and not presented in a pure fact-oriented format.
I wish people would start tuning out and start thinking again, instead of letting the television do it for them.
Slashdot Mirror
You're a monster! The humane thing to do is use that *special* shampoo!
So by that definition, I can throw out about 90% of what you say since most of science is not evidential, but theoretical? Or, at least most of what is at stake in this discussion.
This law is nothing more than reactionary to the perception (these people hold) that people of faith are under attack. When you read most of the commentary on Slashdot regarding anything that says "faith might have value" you can see why people craft legislation like this and why they might think they're under attack. For instance, most of what is being said here can be summed-up in two statements:
People of faith are ignorant
Science and religion are mutually exclusive
So, you can see exact why people feel under attack and feel the need to react. Do you really blame folks for having to resort to passing legislation? When you read the rhetoric here, you can't really blame people for wanting protection under the law. Some of the comments here suggest such a high level of intolerance that one wonders if some of you had your way, would you completely outlaw faith and church?
You're not supposed to understand faith, you just have it. Just because you put yours in what you can touch doesn't mean that you have the right to criticize others because they don't.
Well, at least there's no penguins or birds in space. So when the oil-spill in happens we won't have to worry about the environmental impact... or will we...?
Microsoft isn't the only one researching vulnerabilities in their products, and in fact, if it wasn't for the effort of a lot of third-party researchers uncovering vulnerabilities, Microsoft probably wouldn't make the effort that they are just now showing us and exposing to public scrutiny.
The real problem is twofold... first, denial; for so long Microsoft (as well as many other mainstream software companies) refused to admit that there was a problem and didn't spend any time or money on the problem. This is a mindset that still needs to be addressed and was never present in open-source software development. Second, the time-to-acknowledgment has to come down. Microsoft is not making vulnerabilities that they discover public knowledge in a timely fashion to allow people who use their products to address these vulnerabilities through work-arounds and other techniques, and in fact, their approach to patch development is prioritized using marketing, not security awareness, as the primary driver behind which vulnerabilities are addressed and when.
But in China, the definition (or lack thereof) of troublemaker is what's so troubling... or maybe there's an inherent transparency in no transparency whatsoever? Being perfectly certain that there is no certainty is somewhat comforting but I don't know what's worse.
Didn't Bob Metcalf make a similar prediction a few years back and ended up eating his hat?
Given that these guys are just a front for the phone company, what are they going to have to eat when they use this as an excuse for not delivering the bandwidth to homes that others in places like Japan enjoy?
Group thought is rarely correct. Mob rule has been proven over and over to be incorrect because the outcome never matches the intention. It's one of the reasons you don't see direct democracy ever fully implemented and one of the flaws with free-market capitalism... individual need rarely translates to what's good for everyone.
But this is the world we live in, and our actions (or inactions) have real consequences on people. No one lives in a vacuum and you are responsible and accountable to the rest of us for how, what you do or do not do, impacts people. That is true for governments and corporations, as well as individuals... hence the need for transparency.
This woman did something horrific and she probably needs to be punished for it. But the cry for justice needs to be directed at the appropriate authorities to avoid the exact collateral damage that the article spoke of... the daughter being impacted by the mother's actions and that impact being exacerbated by the crowdsourcing effect. That's why we have these institutions and they are the ones responsible to afford that level of transparency we demand. Without them we degenerate into mob-rule and anarchy and while on the surface, there are some aspects of that approach that look appealing, nothing is left to serve the common good, and again, the original design and intent driving the need to change is not met and no one wins.
So no... crowdsourcing is not right...
Yes, but when does a "patent" become a hindrance to society by stifling innovation and competition? All that Microsoft has done is made a non-specific claim about owning patents and companies that can't pay the toll are afraid to move forward because they might end up sued into non-existence.
That's called a back-door monopoly... and it hurts us, the marketplace, and the implementation of the benefits of technology we should all enjoy.
I am in no way defending what Mr. Kerr has said here, but, he has probably spent the better part of his professional career in government and is speaking from the ignorant perspective that government exists to better people's lives and therefore equates the US government with any other big business. Unfortunately, because he's probably spent so much time in the government he doesn't understand that there are fundamental differences between businesses that are charged with maintaining the privacy of their customers' data and the government's charge to maintaining the privacy of their constituents... a charge which government has absolutely no penalty for abrogating.
Governments are not under threat of imprisonment, fines, termination, or other severe penalties that private business is when it can be proven that their actions were willfully negligent. Additionally, the government has no fear of "losing business" when they breach an acceptable level of confidentiality with regards to the data they've collected on someone. Business suffers when events like this occur... and Mr. Kerr can have no grasp on the reality of what constitutes suffering in the business world because government life doesn't operate in those terms.
It's a matter of congressional investigation when a breach occurs, and everyone and no one at the same time is held accountable. Very rarely are individuals actually singled out for the same kinds of treatment that has become commonplace in the business-world; the termination of employment at the least, for the mis-handling of confidential data.
So... while I am disappointed that Mr. Kerr cannot see why people would have a problem with not being able to expect and equate anonymity with privacy, I am not at all surprised.
would be to use it to provide insight on traffic and request patterns for known malware distribution sites, the RBN, and other known bad-actors who are engaged in criminal schemes using DNS morphing techniques to fool people into landing on their sites...
Hmmm... probably not a lot of money in that for them tho...
Sincere questions here... also, this is probably off-topic but your post interests me.
I have heard "experts" say that a volcanic eruption on the scale of, Mt. Pinatubo would put out far more in the way of greenhouse gases than we have the ability to emit. In your statement, you said that the C12/C14 measurements indicate that the CO2 is from fossil origins and the rest is from deforestation... I guess you mean here that less forest means that there is less absorbing media for CO2 around, so a higher level could be attributed to less forests... okay.
I am a total chemistry noob here, so please forgive me. How is the CO2 differentiated? Isn't CO2=CO2? Is there any way to measure the amount of greenhouse type gases that come from geothermal sources? What about other sources, such as Methane emissions from mammals (cattle production in formerly rain-forest covered areas in Brazil, for instance). Can these other types of gases be classified as CO2 types (fossil vs. non-fossil or other classifications) or are they just lumped in as "greenhouse" gases in general that could be, an albeit smaller, part of the issue?
I am really confused now... are geo-thermal sources of CO2 classified as fossil in origin, or did you just mis-speak? If they are fossil, then how can they be differentiated from stuff humans create?
I understand why this issue is so hard to sort through... the main issue here is politics; national sovereignty, economics, access to resources, and other forces. Unfortunately, I haven't heard a good story from anyone on either side in the scientific community yet on this stuff that is well publicized... neither side can convince me, and I feel totally lost. Here's what I do know...
The polar ice caps are melting.Car exhaust is horrible to breath
Air pollution hovers visibly over some cities, but not others in America
Pictures I see of cities in China make me wonder how people can even breath
Deforestation is bad... wholesale clear-cutting destroys irreplaceable things
The worlds oceans are not being managed correctly... to the detriment of all
These things are real and visible. And while bad, what do they mean long-term? Is there an unbiased resource out there that actually has documented facts about this issue that a layman could look at to help form a somewhat educated position on this, because outside of what I can see (which isn't good) there doesn't appear to be a source of information that isn't tainted by politics or some sort of agenda? I'd like to see both sides and their "supporting" facts to make my own decision.
and I tried to tell my mom!
Poissons = Poison
From TFA:
Danny McPherson, chief research officer at Arbor Networks, a Lexington, Mass.-based company that provides network security services to some of the world's largest Internet providers, said most providers shy away from blocking whole networks. Instead, they choose to temporarily block specific problem sites.
"Who decides what the acceptable threshold is for stopping connectivity to an entire network? Also, if you're an AT&T or Verizon and you block access to a sizable portion of the Internet, it's very likely that some consumer rights advocacy group is going to come after you."
First... who's saying anything about blocking "a sizable portion of the Internet"? We're talking about being able to identify bad-actors and doing something about it for a change. From some recent articles I've read, AT&T doesn't seem to have any problems blocking their users from accessing the Internet when they don't like what they're doing... they'll just drop you if they don't like you. Why do they have issues blocking real criminals from doing real criminal activities. Can anyone honestly say that these networks are hosting content that anyone legitimate would want to get to?
If there are legit companies doing business with these guys, and maybe if the networks were blocked, or the providers refused to carry routes to those networks, they would "shy away from" doing business with the RBN. Or is that too much of a free-market approach to the problem... block the criminals, and if you're associated with them, you can't do business either. Hmmm...
Second, as to who decides... the market decides! This is pretty cut-and-dry. If there's a company somewhere that specializes in hosting this crap, then shut it down! It will only benefit legitimate business. This is so easy... there isn't a free-speech or access issue here... nothing for anyone to get upset about. The cancer has been identified... cut it out of the body.
The time for reactive measures is over. The article got one thing right... this problem has been allowed to grow and fester beyond the point where half-measures are going to work. $150 million is real money and it's time to take the ability for these goons to do this away from them.
Yes... specifically the way the security model is implemented through the (lack of) controls around what a user is allowed to do on the box. For instance, when I buy a new PC with Windows on it, and I turn it on for the first time, it begins by asking me a few questions about my connectivity, users, and so-on. When it creates those users for the first time, even if it is just a single-default account, it grants that account administrative privileges.
Compare this to a Linux or MacOS-X installation. My account on my laptop does not have default admin-rights, and demands that I enter my password to do things like install system-wide software, updates, and other key admin functions.
I find it amusing that this fact, along with many others related to how flawed Windows is from a security standpoint, are often overlooked by individuals and the media alike.
That's a pretty interesting viewpoint, but really... the Church didn't move to Europe... it got moved by the Roman Empire. The spread of Christianity became continental because the Romans thought that through suppression on the continent, they could keep Christianity at arms-length, in the provinces. So they rounded up the ring-leaders, dragged them off to Rome, and killed them. Along the way, they converted more followers (Roman citizens like Paul were entitled to due-process so they got busy while they were in prison), and the religion ended up spreading on the continent in-spite of their efforts.
I will agree with you that the conquering of the Americas was horrific, but come on... if you really believe the conquering of North and South America was exclusively about religion, you're wearing a really dark pair of rose-colored glasses and you've chosen to completely ignore lots of facts that have little or nothing to do with Christianity outside of European's political leaders' leveraging of the Church as a way to hold and grow their political power as they systematically conquered the native peoples of America. Thus:
1. Temporal power in Europe was often linked to spiritual power. Ecclesiastical careers for lesser sons from powerful families was very prevalent... this was done pragmatically to ensure multiple success factors for these family's well-being and economic growth. So as these families became involved in the economic affairs of the colonies, their ecclesiastic children followed along to ensure the family business, as well as perform their evangelical duties.
2. The English colonial movement was driven mainly by the Hudson Bay and other English mercantile-based trading companies, not by the Church of England, "the pilgrims" or any other non-secular organization. That's not to say that these folks weren't God-fearing, church-going, people, but rather that the Church was not out to convert the native peoples of America as far as the English were concerned.
3. Spanish efforts to colonize the Americas were driven by Evangelical Catholics like Queen Isabella, but also by the tremendous desire to unify Spain and consolidate her power through the acquisition of wealth and territories. This was at least as much a Spanish national movement as it was a Catholic church movement and was critical to Spain's economic and national survival.
4. French and Portuguese efforts were also minimally based in religious motives, but that was mainly seconded by their own rabid designs on colonial expansion as well as continental motives (such as support of the American rebellion in 1776 against England... their loss was France's gain, even as an Monarchical power, before the French Revolution) to grow control and influence over European affairs... expanding the Catholic church was not primary on the agenda, and at best, a side-benefit.
In summary, the conquering of the Americas was about big money, imperialism, and economic colonialism, and at best (worst) the Church was along for the ride. Just because some of the imperial families of Europe decided to wrap up parts of it in religion didn't make it a religious action in any way. To suggest that is totally revisionist and has little basis in fact outside of some really sorry events that are mostly sensationalized and out of context with regards to the political climate and the church's real role in the whole affair.
The Catholic church just acted as another focal point of power and politics during the whole sorry situation and ended up being blamed for implementation of policies built by the rulers that enabled the subjugation of the native peoples. It was primarily being driven by mercantile motives and mercantile-based people/families behind the scenes.
Yes... because if you're a pirate/copyright-infringer, there is a slight chance that you might be taking money out of a corporation's pocket, and that corporation might be a political contributor... so you might be hurting a politician's pocketbook or bottom-line and that makes you really really dangerous.
Terrorists aren't known for enriching politicians (at least not directly) so they are lower on the priority list since they're not going to hurt as much in the pocketbook.
Welcome to the new oligarchy, formerly the United States of America.
No one, outside of the occasional binge-drinker, has ever claimed to see any of those things, however, the numerous documented eyewitness accounts of Jesus, his miracles, and his rising from the dead after being crucified, takes my belief from something that doesn't have to be dis-proven, to something that does.
Also... the real reason we still have myths is so we can have really cool shows like Mythbusters!
In Nazi Germany, companies built the factories and produced things like Zyklon-B, the ovens for the crematorium, the rail-cars and transport used to conduct human beings to the death camps, the uniforms for the death-camp guards, the guns, and all the other enabling technologies that helped allow one of the worst crimes of human history to occur.
All they could say after that evil was stamped out was... they were following orders, they were conducting their business, they were making profit, they were obeying the laws.
Did that make them right? Does that kind of thinking really make Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, and the other technology-enabling companies that do business in China and help support one of the most evil regimes under the sun right? Does it absolve them of their responsibility as human beings first?
I'm sorry... but the whole corporate model is broken. The first rule of any corporation needs to be "Do No Harm"... not "Profit at any price". The ONLY reason China is able to get away with the vast amount of human-rights violations and corrupt practices that they do, is because we in the West tolerate it in the name of the almighty dollar!
Speaking of supreme idiots... you're a troll and should have been modded that way and in any objective normal forum filled with open-minded rational and thoughtful people, and not NAZI thought-police like you, you would have been. However, the fact that your article was rated insightful is part & parcel of all the wonderfulness and charm that is Slashdot, Slashwrist, or whatever... I call it the deep-end of an intellectual cesspool either way.
See I can do it too... you're stupid, you're dumb, you're an idiot, you're a moron... whatever... luser. You don't agree with me, so I hate you so that makes me right and you wrong.
That's an informed and intelligent opinion if I've ever seen one... wow, you're astounding. Let's mod you up!
Someone call the freaking WAAAH-mbulance, we got a crybaby on our hands here!
By the way... for the record, I don't think it's an issue... every presidential election we get bombarded by shite like this that is expressly designed to divide people along irrational lines. Let's face it, what real and substantial changes have been made in legislature over the last 35 years on any of this controversial crap? This stuff is the gift to the media that keeps on giving and giving and meanwhile, we end up running the country into debt, destroying our standing in the world, subjecting our population to defective crap from China, and enriching corporations... all at our expense. But hey! We finally got one of our guys in there that is rational and doesn't believe in any of this creation crap. Whoopee! I'm glad I was able to make my vote count.
Now, how about that lead content in those toys? Or how are we going to deal with Warsaw Pact 2? Or how about a real solution to Iraq that doesn't involve more senseless death?
Nah... don't bother with it, it will fix itself. Plus, we don't really want anything to change anyways. We just want to keep you feasting on emotionally charged issues like creationism versus evolution, because that way, no one will pay any attention to the real issues and we'll keep on operating as before.
Actually, it reminds me more of that Hogan's Heroes episode where they ripped the electronics out of the remote-control tank and stuffed Le'Beau in there. Hogan's shouting commands so Le'Beau can hear him until he jumps out, then the tank goes berserk and blows up the staff-car. I can just see one of these things doing something similar.
What makes anyone actually stupid enough to think that the media exists for us? There is no such thing as the "fourth estate" any longer. It is dead and has been replaced by corporate greed driven by advertising dollars.
As for the article: The problem with these stories is that there is little or no entertainment value. I walked through CNN Center in Atlanta today while I was in Atlanta... the last time I was there, the center area was cordoned off for their "Talk Back Live". I think the spot that this show used to be shot at is now a Starbucks kiosk. The place and the organization is obviously geared for entertainment purposes only... none of the stories hold much potential hope for generating ratings, and therefore, advertisement dollars.
Yes... Dick Cheney's daughter and her partner just had a baby... so it must be true! No men required.
I used to work for a company that specialized in health care informatics... the collecting, processing, and delivery of data related to everything healthcare in the US.
We constantly collected data from over 2000 hospitals; everything from procedure outcomes, medicine used, infection-rates, pre-op/op/post-op staff-levels, parts & pieces used... on and on. This data was collected and processed in order to sell back to the hospitals that provided it. This data was used by these hospitals to create best-practices, efficiencies, and other benefits and to benchmark their results against national trends for any kind of particular procedure or care. Additionally, the federal government was using the data to help determine what kind of drugs worked and what didn't work based on the outcomes in the data, not from an experimental perspective, but from a effectiveness perspective; like the effectiveness of a particular antibiotic against a specific infection diagnosis. Finally, when I left, Health & Human Services was looking at using the data to baseline Medicare providers and how they were compensated; judging their outcomes against private-care outcomes in the data, and then base the medicare payments on how the providers ranked against these. The "A" providers were to be paid at the highest rate, and the "F" providers at the lowest... and then this data was to be made public so that people would have a choice, or be able to make better choices.
I have no idea where that program ended up, but I feel that the use of technology to collect and process data for the express purpose of assisting the medical community as a whole is crucial to generating successful outcomes in patient care. Treatment in the area of infection and other non-invasive procedures rely almost exclusively on effective knowledge transfer on what works and what doesn't, especially with regard to medicinal effectiveness. Frankly, I'd rather be treated by someone with the most knowledge at their fingertips than by someone who doesn't have the ability to look into any data and is operating in the dark. People think doctors come out of medical school with all the answers; the truth is, they come out with knowledge, but the application of that knowledge is what determines success. Data and technology delivery is the key to enabling effective application.
Thanks for that... it is amazing how much crap I had to plow thru on this thread just to get to a coherent answer.
However, in many cases, a carrier like MCI doesn't own their own infrastructure, at least not down to the building premise... that's owned by a Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) and the LEC charges a regulated price to the carriers such as MCI and then hands-off the signal to them. MCI is passing that cost marked-up, plus their fee for whatever access you purchase (voice or data), on to you.
You are correct in that this regulated price is fought-for by the telco lobby, but this is well supported in government because of the perception that we can't have "ma-bell", whoever it is where you live, going out of business because they can't afford to maintain their infrastructure.
T-1 from your LEC in and out of the same central office is surprisingly inexpensive compared to the thousands of dollars you pay to get it beyond that... so if you're connecting two offices served out of the same CO with a T-1, you pay local-loop for each end of the circuit to the LEC and nothing else; no mileage, no carrier, or any other fees (outside of taxes of course) and you end up with a dedicated 1.544Mb/s and if you want, you can push mayonnaise through it... it's yours to do with as you will as long as you adhere to whatever federal/state/local telecommunications regulations are present for where you live. In most cases, you cannot buy a T-1 like that from anyone but the LEC, because they own the copper in the ground from premise to premise; that's called a monopoly. But that's also what maintains the price... that copper in the ground to your premise costs huge amounts of money to establish and maintain... rights of way need to be established, the street has to be torn-up to put it in, and the cable-plant has to be maintained (ala phone-truck guys). This is what drives the regulations that spawn tariffs. As far as the LEC is concerned, they have to charge an amount that allows them to maintain business, and it degenerates to a public services issue because ultimately, the issue doesn't boil down to your IP/Internet service... it boils down to voice service which is considered a basic service and part of a national infrastructure plan; all this appeals to lawmakers who help prop this system up because people are gonna get pissed when they can't pick up the phone and hear a dial-tone.
Even if you purchase some other service that rides on T-1, like frame-relay, you're going to pay the local-loop to the CO, plus the port and CIR charges to connect to the network; it's those charges that make a frame-relay T1 so expensive. While with a shared-services network like frame-relay you have the whole, unsubscribed T-1 to the central office, the actual thru-put you're going to be able to push is determined by the port speed and CIR you choose (when you establish the service) once you get into the network cloud.
Frankly, I'd prefer it if they'd deregulate the whole thing a let competition have a chance. Where I live, I can get Vonage, or I can get phone service from my cable provider, or I can buy a traditional POTS from a company called Windstream, which used to be Alltel. I can't get a POTS line from anyone but Windstream because they own the copper going down my street. I don't use any of it... I use my cell phone instead.
Thank you! Play more games, watch less television.
People think they're "informed" by watching CNN, MSNBC, Fox and the rest of that garbage. What they don't realize is that they're being programmed while they're being entertained. The signal/noise ratio on the "News" channels is so horrible I don't think anyone who consumes that crap realizes just how bad it is. It's opinion-driven, not fact-based, and rarely accurate... or if it is accurate at all, it's couched in more opinion and not presented in a pure fact-oriented format.
I wish people would start tuning out and start thinking again, instead of letting the television do it for them.