15-years seems pretty excessive for involuntary manslaughter. Also, I find the phrase "[getting] what they deserve" quite objectionable. It has a connotation of meting out justice. But putting some dumb kid (or dumb adult) in jail for a decade and a half does not bring back the dead, nor does it somehow compensate for the loss of a life. Too often are the concepts of vengeance and justice conflated in our society; desiring one of them is a vice & common human failing, desiring the other is a virtuous ideal.
The role of the justice system should be to protect society above all else. It makes much more sense IMO to punish texting-related accidents equally whether they result in a fatality or not, as the difference between a car accident that kills someone and one that simply takes out a fire hydrant is often pure luck. If you don't think a 16-year-old driver who causes a non-lethal accident deserves to rot away in jail for almost the same number of years he's been alive, then it doesn't make sense to punish another 16-year-old driver who made the exact same mistake, but was simply not as lucky.
It sends a stronger message to drivers if they know they face a 2~5 year jail sentence if they get in an accident while texting (and perhaps a 6 month sentence if they're just caught texting behind the wheel) than to punish texting drivers only when they cause a fatality (no one ever thinks they're going to end up killing someone by their negligence).
You mention some good points; however, regarding the reading speed issue, the best way to improve reading speed is simply to do it often. That doesn't mean you have to read lengthy tomes necessarily, as these days you can improve your reading (and writing) skills just by reading articles, blog posts, and random user write-ups on the web. And once you get into the habit of proof-reading your e-mails/forum posts (more than once for longer ones), it starts to become so second nature that you do it without realizing. That itself will probably improve your reading speed.
The thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post was the proliferation of electronic writing aids. With stuff like spell check built into web browsers like Firefox and even T9 on cellphones, it's a lot easier to pick up on simple typos before you hit send. Of course, not everyone knows to use these things, which adds to the frustration of those who do.
But ultimately you're right, sometimes it's just not worth the effort to correct a minor typo on disposable communications—especially with the fast-paced lifestyle many tend to live these days. For me personally, it's a bigger issue when it comes to more permanent forms of communication (Wikipedia entries, printed works, etc.).
True. Also, I think that digital communication has actually increased people's acuity to grammar and writing etiquette. For whatever reason, when it comes to hand-written notes and letters, capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and other things considered to be part of "netiquette" are generally ignored. Part of it, I guess, is that people are more concerned with legibility and the message itself. If it's legible, and you can understand what's being conveyed, then the note/letter has achieved its purpose. It doesn't matter if the author wrote in all caps, used a bunch of abbreviations, left out words or made other grammatical errors.
But with digital communication, people get much more hung up on writing etiquette. Legibility is no longer an issue so the scrutiny gets placed on other things. Perhaps part of the reason is that people perceive typing to be a much easier and less laborious task than writing by hand, so there are higher expectations. If you misspell a word or leave out a comma, it's fairly effortless to go back and fix your mistake. And whereas it's harder to break the habit of writing in caps by hand, it's fairly easy to turn off Capslock on the computer. Add to that the immediacy of internet communication (chatrooms or IM versus a post-it note or letter), and it's a lot easier and more tempting to complain to the other person about your pet-peeves.
All of this is again compounded by the casualness of digital communication. A lot less time and work (and thus thought) goes into sending out an e-mail than mailing a letter. With IM, messageboards and chatrooms, you have an even more casual social atmosphere. As such, people are more relaxed about their writing etiquette and naturally make more mistakes. Add to that the fact that there's a much lower age barrier to digital communications (13 & 14-year-olds have cellphones these days and even a 12-year-old can post to a messageboard), and you start getting a false impression that the literacy level of society is dropping when it's quite the opposite.
I think close to every large museum or gallery has been the victim of forgery (or "fakes").
The National Gallery of Victoria, the largest public gallery in Australia, has misattributed a painting to Van Gogh for the last 70 years. Meanwhile, it was discovered that the Art Institute of Chicago had purchased a fake Gauguin. The Wallraf-Richartz Museum has discovered that a "Monet" purchased five-and-a-half decades ago was a fake as well. Even the Getty and the Smithsonian have fallen victim to countless fakes.
The Dutch National Museum can at least be forgiven for not suspecting that a U.S. ambassador would present a fake artifact as a gift.
If the members are shareholders, then shouldn't they be the ones who dictate the CU's policy? Or did the majority of the members agree to these policy changes because they felt it would allow them to provide better benefits to members (higher interest rates on deposits, more ATMs, etc.)?
Interestingly enough, it looks like the legislation limiting CU membership was the result of lobbying by banks. But I guess once membership restrictions were lifted and some CUs started getting as big as banks, it was inevitable that they became more like banks. It's harder to get directly involved in policy-making in large organizations. So a CU with 1000 members will be more impersonal than a CU with 100 members, where each member has a greater say in CU policy.
I live in the IE (Inland Empire). And upon further research, it appears that you're right. There is actually a Wescom very close to where I live and a few others in neighboring cities, but I'd never heard of these places. Everyone I know banks at a commercial banking chain. Do you bank at a CU in SoCal? If so, what's your experience with ATMs? http://www.cufriendly.net/ doesn't show any CU-friendly ATM machines in my area. Are those fee-free CU ATMs pretty rare?
Powerbocking looks awesome. I remember seeing it on Time Warp as a powerbocker did a front flip over a car length-wise; and, yea, it does look suspiciously similar to what this "new" patented invention does. It's also similar in concept to the carbon-fiber prosthetic legs used by some athletes. Way to go CMU, you've patented another pre-existing idea.
Yea, I think more people would bank at credit unions if they knew about them. I'd never heard of a credit union myself until I went to college (in Urbana-Champaign, IL of all places). Actually, I thought that "credit union" was just the name of a popular banking chain in the Midwest, like Wells Fargo or Bank of America or something. It wasn't until my roommate explained to me what a credit unit was that I actually learned what they were.
Frankly, I'm kinda surprised that the Midwest has so many power co-ops and credit union while the part of Southern California I live in has neither. Maybe the poorer communities here have never heard of them or don't have the resources to set them up, while the rich communities just don't care for that sort of cooperative community organization (I suppose stocks, private equities, and off-shore bank accounts pay better).
Next we just need to extend the idea of credit unions & power co-ops to telecommunications, so we'll finally have decent broadband and mobile phone service that doesn't screw over consumers.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using copper tubing (i.e. its thermal conductivity)?
Also, if you read the rest of the thread leading up to the GP, you'll see that the post you replied to was in response to someone suggesting that building codes were unnecessary (or somehow encroached on private property rights). Sure, it's perfectly safe to install copper tubing in your foundation "if you do it right." And that's exactly what building codes are there for, to ensure that people do it right. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like you have in a lot of developing nations (or even the U.S. a few decades ago) where you have buildings collapsing on people, or constructed without regard to fire safety, etc.
First, there should really be an option to disable the awesome bar if there isn't one already (I quite like it personally, but I can understand if others don't find its suggestions useful).
Secondly, you could also try using online bookmarking services; that along with an extension that clears your browsing history when you close Firefox, should keep your porn surfing pretty well hidden.
Lastly, you can create a separate browser profile for your porn surfing. I do this on my own computer, not because I'm worried about people finding out that (gasp!) I look at porn, but because I find it convenient to use different sets of profiles for different tasks. For instance, if I'm doing web design/development, then I have all my web development-related extensions loaded (firebug, javascript debugger, etc.) and my Bookmarks Toolbar and Search Plugins list only contain web-design/development-related resources. I get less distracted this way, and I also don't have to sift through so many bookmarks or search tools. I also find that my browser loads much faster using 4-5 different profiles with 10 extensions and 100-200 bookmarks each rather than a single profile with 50 extensions and 1000 bookmarks.
On my desktop, Firefox will ask me which profile to load each time it starts up, but if you want to keep your porn-surfing a secret you can tell Firefox to use a default profile unless you deliberately switch the profile yourself.
Technically, Adobe Photoshop CS4 64-bit is only supported on 64-bit Windows Vista, but I've been using it on 64-bit XP for over a month without any problems. Adobe's online documentation only states that "Although 64-bit Photoshop CS4 was not thoroughly tested under Windows XP64, and therefore is not supported, it should run." The OpenGL features (mostly minor GUI improvements like smooth zooming) are disabled by default, but you can still enable them in the options. There's also a registry script included with Photoshop CS4 called "AllowOldGPUs_ON" that the documentation says is necessary to enable the OpenGL features in XP64, but I didn't have to run it.
I'm guessing the situation is probably similar with OS X 10.6. It'll probably work fine, but for whatever reason they just don't want to guaranty anything.
So instead of using a perfectly good internet communication protocol (https in this case) and GUI rendering system, you want each bank to develop their own proprietary solutions just so they can have complete control over all of the code involved? What about the OS? Should I be running Wells Fargo OS 3.1 on my banking computer?
I know it's trendy to talk about how the web isn't designed for e-commerce or security (or how hyped Web 2.0 is), but the web today isn't the same as the web of 2 decades ago. DNS wasn't designed with security in mind either, so are you going to start suggesting that everyone memorizes their bank's IP address now?
Also, this idea that if a piece of code is written in-house that it's suddenly more secure than code written by thousands of people and tested by millions is quite ill-founded. If you run a decent browser like Firefox, keep it up to date, and don't install a bunch of random extensions, and follow good security practices, then you really aren't at much risk of falling victim to cyber-crime.
OTOH, if you're running random executables you receive by e-mail, fall for obvious phishing attacks, or otherwise conduct banking on a public computer, then it really doesn't matter what client application you use to connect to your bank's servers. The most secure banking application in the world won't protect you from social engineering or even a simple keylogger. There is a problem with the way internet banking is conducted today, but you're not going to find the solution in some piece of software.
How is going from C + ASM on DOS to VB + Powerbuilder on Win 3.1 more maintainable? Are you seriously suggesting that all embedded systems should be running a desktop OS for maintainability reasons (or that no embedded software is maintainable)?
I remember using VB4 back in the day (Win98, I think) and even then the VB IDE had a hard time opening VB3 projects. Good luck trying to get Visual Studio 2008 to open a VB2 project. With C and ASM, at least you can code the project in a variety of IDEs--even plaint-text editors. What are you going to use to open an.frx file other than VB?
Furthermore, you can write maintainable C/ASM code for an embedded RISC/ARM processor just as you can write unmaintainable spaghetti code for an x86 Windows platform. If you're writing software for a desktop platform, you're going to have to update it every few years to keep up with changes in the mainstream desktop platform (new OS, new processors, etc.). If you're writing software for embedded systems then you'll only need to update your software when you decide that you want to change processors, chipsets, or add new features. Re-compiling your code for the next version of the ARM processor is likely to be easier than re-writing your entire application to use a different set of system libraries.
translation: your parents didn't have to worry about parenting. after all, why should they take an interest in what their child is reading?
there are still plenty of G-rated and completely tame comics that cater to children (like the funny pages in the newspaper). but i guess all comic books need be censored in order to meet the approval of lazy parents. god forbid comic book creators are given the creative freedom to write/draw what they want--including material that adult audiences can connect with.
i suppose if people like you had it your way there'd be no movies beyond PG-13, and all books/media/art would be insipid and uncontroversial--all so you can shelter your child in a Disney-ified world where everything is made for kids.
there's big a difference between running a lingering yellow light, and running a red light. crosswalk lights don't turn green/white until the cross traffic signals have turned red. so even if someone treats yellow lights as green, they're not likely to hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street. you would literally have to sprint across the crosswalk to get hit by a car who entered the intersection on a yellow. and even in such an unlikely scenario it would really be the pedestrian hitting the car, not the car hitting the pedestrian.
if people are outright running red lights (entering the intersection after the signal has turned from yellow to red), then yes that is an incredibly dangerous situation. but if you're just complaining about having to wait an extra second or half a second to go on a green light, then that's hardly worth the extra accidents that will be caused by the traffic cameras.
i see some of what you're saying, and i agree with you that U.S. corporations shouldn't be allowed to operate overseas to circumvent U.S. laws (like industrial regulations to protect laborers or limit pollution). i mean, murdering someone in international waters is still murder, and industrial pollution is detrimental to the global environment regardless of where you do it.
however, i think it's very small (not to mention jingoistic) to consider all foreign countries our enemies. we need to stop thinking in such myopic and provincial-minded terms. just because someone was born within a different set of borders doesn't make them your enemy. that kind of thinking simply causes more unnecessary conflict, and all because of imaginary lines that we draw on our maps.
just because you happen to be born in a developed nation doesn't mean you are entitled to better living standards than someone born in India or Ethiopia. and it's not the Indians or Ethiopians' fault that U.S. corporations outsource their labor.
that's because you're not paying attention to what they're actually complaining about.
red light cameras aren't controversial because people like to run red lights but don't want to get caught. sure, there are some people who run red lights, but most people have enough good sense not to engage in such reckless behavior. and yet when you talk to most people who live in cities with traffic cameras, they will express negative opinions about them despite not being the red-light-running type. this is because the current implementation of traffic cameras have a lot of inherent problems. all you have to do is read the news once in a while and you will see a list of complaints and problems people have observed with these systems:
due to a lack of human intervention, theses system have been abused by teenagers to give tickets to people they don't like.
they are used to cut back on the number of active police patrols.
they invite corruption by commercializing traffic citations.
they push us another step towards a surveillance society.
the cameras often go haywire, flashing when no one has run the light (or when no cars are even around), and not flashing when people do.
but most importantly, they don't actually do what they're supposed to do, and that is to increase road safety. psychologically, traffic cameras often turn the 3-light/red-yellow-green system into a 2-light system of just red & green. so you end up with people slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow because they're afraid of getting a ticket. that's a lot more dangerous than lingering in the intersection when the light turns from yellow to red, which, though it might annoy you, won't actually cause any accidents (except when idiots treat intersections as drag strips).
yes, that's what i eventually did. but it certainly would have been nice if Apple had made that option more visible instead of hiding it in a "Tools" menu--or they could simply use the updater to provide updates to installed applications.
really, these are almost malware-like tactics clearly designed to frustrate the average user into installing software that they neither need nor want. using an updater to push other applications is simply dishonest and undermines the purpose of an automatic updater, destroying the trust between software makers and software users and making it more likely that users will ignore vital security updates.
yea, fuck that. if they want a pay site, they should just charge for membership. otherwise, set up your own private network and get off the public internet.
i shouldn't have to worry about whether someone else's ISP "carries" a particular website when linking to a public webpage. this not only fragments the web, but it's an underhanded way of charging broadband subscribers extra for specific web content without their permission or knowledge. i don't have any interest in ESPN content, so why should i have to foot the bill for a subscription to a site that i will never visit?
and users should also be allowed to pick & opt out of any update they want. i hate how Apple Software Update, which comes with the Windows version of iTunes, will keep prompting the user about the same "updates" (often completely unrelated to iTunes or any other application the user has installed) until the user downloads and installs it. if you don't, the update will keep popping up or remain in the notification area/system tray.
just because i want to keep iTunes updated doesn't mean i want to install Safari (how is that an update anyhow?) or Bonjour/Rendezvous. at least now Apple makes an attempt (though a feeble one, as they're still using their "updater" to peddle unrelated & unsolicited software).
i agree that it's a bad idea for local governments to directly profit from traffic tickets & other fines, as it is not effective in its ostensible purpose. it also creates a major conflict of interest that is ripe for exploitation.
however, to say that overt corruption and illegal manipulation of traffic cameras isn't news simply because all local governments use traffic cameras to make money is a like saying corporate fraud isn't news because all commercial corporations try to make money. there's still a major difference between bad policy and conspiracy to defraud the public.
actually, i stayed in Melrose Park, a western suburb of Chicago, one summer with a tattoo artist friend of mine. it was a predominantly Italian town that, as i understand, was run by (or at the very least had close ties to) the mob. needless to say, the local police were a bit corrupt. the cops also didn't seem to mind that we were smoking pot or doing lines of coke in front of them since my friend and his family were well known in the community.
coincidentally, a few weeks before i left their entire police department was raided by SWAT teams and the FBI. apparently the police chief had been busted for--supposedly--embezzling over a hundred million dollars (how he did that as a police chief of a small suburb i have no clue). but still, that did make the news and wasn't something that happened everyday.
Slashdot Mirror
15-years seems pretty excessive for involuntary manslaughter. Also, I find the phrase "[getting] what they deserve" quite objectionable. It has a connotation of meting out justice. But putting some dumb kid (or dumb adult) in jail for a decade and a half does not bring back the dead, nor does it somehow compensate for the loss of a life. Too often are the concepts of vengeance and justice conflated in our society; desiring one of them is a vice & common human failing, desiring the other is a virtuous ideal.
The role of the justice system should be to protect society above all else. It makes much more sense IMO to punish texting-related accidents equally whether they result in a fatality or not, as the difference between a car accident that kills someone and one that simply takes out a fire hydrant is often pure luck. If you don't think a 16-year-old driver who causes a non-lethal accident deserves to rot away in jail for almost the same number of years he's been alive, then it doesn't make sense to punish another 16-year-old driver who made the exact same mistake, but was simply not as lucky.
It sends a stronger message to drivers if they know they face a 2~5 year jail sentence if they get in an accident while texting (and perhaps a 6 month sentence if they're just caught texting behind the wheel) than to punish texting drivers only when they cause a fatality (no one ever thinks they're going to end up killing someone by their negligence).
You mention some good points; however, regarding the reading speed issue, the best way to improve reading speed is simply to do it often. That doesn't mean you have to read lengthy tomes necessarily, as these days you can improve your reading (and writing) skills just by reading articles, blog posts, and random user write-ups on the web. And once you get into the habit of proof-reading your e-mails/forum posts (more than once for longer ones), it starts to become so second nature that you do it without realizing. That itself will probably improve your reading speed.
The thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post was the proliferation of electronic writing aids. With stuff like spell check built into web browsers like Firefox and even T9 on cellphones, it's a lot easier to pick up on simple typos before you hit send. Of course, not everyone knows to use these things, which adds to the frustration of those who do.
But ultimately you're right, sometimes it's just not worth the effort to correct a minor typo on disposable communications—especially with the fast-paced lifestyle many tend to live these days. For me personally, it's a bigger issue when it comes to more permanent forms of communication (Wikipedia entries, printed works, etc.).
True. Also, I think that digital communication has actually increased people's acuity to grammar and writing etiquette. For whatever reason, when it comes to hand-written notes and letters, capitalization, punctuation, spelling, and other things considered to be part of "netiquette" are generally ignored. Part of it, I guess, is that people are more concerned with legibility and the message itself. If it's legible, and you can understand what's being conveyed, then the note/letter has achieved its purpose. It doesn't matter if the author wrote in all caps, used a bunch of abbreviations, left out words or made other grammatical errors.
But with digital communication, people get much more hung up on writing etiquette. Legibility is no longer an issue so the scrutiny gets placed on other things. Perhaps part of the reason is that people perceive typing to be a much easier and less laborious task than writing by hand, so there are higher expectations. If you misspell a word or leave out a comma, it's fairly effortless to go back and fix your mistake. And whereas it's harder to break the habit of writing in caps by hand, it's fairly easy to turn off Capslock on the computer. Add to that the immediacy of internet communication (chatrooms or IM versus a post-it note or letter), and it's a lot easier and more tempting to complain to the other person about your pet-peeves.
All of this is again compounded by the casualness of digital communication. A lot less time and work (and thus thought) goes into sending out an e-mail than mailing a letter. With IM, messageboards and chatrooms, you have an even more casual social atmosphere. As such, people are more relaxed about their writing etiquette and naturally make more mistakes. Add to that the fact that there's a much lower age barrier to digital communications (13 & 14-year-olds have cellphones these days and even a 12-year-old can post to a messageboard), and you start getting a false impression that the literacy level of society is dropping when it's quite the opposite.
I think close to every large museum or gallery has been the victim of forgery (or "fakes").
The National Gallery of Victoria, the largest public gallery in Australia, has misattributed a painting to Van Gogh for the last 70 years. Meanwhile, it was discovered that the Art Institute of Chicago had purchased a fake Gauguin. The Wallraf-Richartz Museum has discovered that a "Monet" purchased five-and-a-half decades ago was a fake as well. Even the Getty and the Smithsonian have fallen victim to countless fakes.
The Dutch National Museum can at least be forgiven for not suspecting that a U.S. ambassador would present a fake artifact as a gift.
If the members are shareholders, then shouldn't they be the ones who dictate the CU's policy? Or did the majority of the members agree to these policy changes because they felt it would allow them to provide better benefits to members (higher interest rates on deposits, more ATMs, etc.)?
Interestingly enough, it looks like the legislation limiting CU membership was the result of lobbying by banks. But I guess once membership restrictions were lifted and some CUs started getting as big as banks, it was inevitable that they became more like banks. It's harder to get directly involved in policy-making in large organizations. So a CU with 1000 members will be more impersonal than a CU with 100 members, where each member has a greater say in CU policy.
I live in the IE (Inland Empire). And upon further research, it appears that you're right. There is actually a Wescom very close to where I live and a few others in neighboring cities, but I'd never heard of these places. Everyone I know banks at a commercial banking chain. Do you bank at a CU in SoCal? If so, what's your experience with ATMs? http://www.cufriendly.net/ doesn't show any CU-friendly ATM machines in my area. Are those fee-free CU ATMs pretty rare?
Powerbocking looks awesome. I remember seeing it on Time Warp as a powerbocker did a front flip over a car length-wise; and, yea, it does look suspiciously similar to what this "new" patented invention does. It's also similar in concept to the carbon-fiber prosthetic legs used by some athletes. Way to go CMU, you've patented another pre-existing idea.
Yea, I think more people would bank at credit unions if they knew about them. I'd never heard of a credit union myself until I went to college (in Urbana-Champaign, IL of all places). Actually, I thought that "credit union" was just the name of a popular banking chain in the Midwest, like Wells Fargo or Bank of America or something. It wasn't until my roommate explained to me what a credit unit was that I actually learned what they were.
Frankly, I'm kinda surprised that the Midwest has so many power co-ops and credit union while the part of Southern California I live in has neither. Maybe the poorer communities here have never heard of them or don't have the resources to set them up, while the rich communities just don't care for that sort of cooperative community organization (I suppose stocks, private equities, and off-shore bank accounts pay better).
Next we just need to extend the idea of credit unions & power co-ops to telecommunications, so we'll finally have decent broadband and mobile phone service that doesn't screw over consumers.
But they're not safety devices. Seatbelts are security devices. They secure you to the seat.
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of using copper tubing (i.e. its thermal conductivity)?
Also, if you read the rest of the thread leading up to the GP, you'll see that the post you replied to was in response to someone suggesting that building codes were unnecessary (or somehow encroached on private property rights). Sure, it's perfectly safe to install copper tubing in your foundation "if you do it right." And that's exactly what building codes are there for, to ensure that people do it right. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like you have in a lot of developing nations (or even the U.S. a few decades ago) where you have buildings collapsing on people, or constructed without regard to fire safety, etc.
A few things:
First, there should really be an option to disable the awesome bar if there isn't one already (I quite like it personally, but I can understand if others don't find its suggestions useful).
Secondly, you could also try using online bookmarking services; that along with an extension that clears your browsing history when you close Firefox, should keep your porn surfing pretty well hidden.
Lastly, you can create a separate browser profile for your porn surfing. I do this on my own computer, not because I'm worried about people finding out that (gasp!) I look at porn, but because I find it convenient to use different sets of profiles for different tasks. For instance, if I'm doing web design/development, then I have all my web development-related extensions loaded (firebug, javascript debugger, etc.) and my Bookmarks Toolbar and Search Plugins list only contain web-design/development-related resources. I get less distracted this way, and I also don't have to sift through so many bookmarks or search tools. I also find that my browser loads much faster using 4-5 different profiles with 10 extensions and 100-200 bookmarks each rather than a single profile with 50 extensions and 1000 bookmarks.
On my desktop, Firefox will ask me which profile to load each time it starts up, but if you want to keep your porn-surfing a secret you can tell Firefox to use a default profile unless you deliberately switch the profile yourself.
Technically, Adobe Photoshop CS4 64-bit is only supported on 64-bit Windows Vista, but I've been using it on 64-bit XP for over a month without any problems. Adobe's online documentation only states that "Although 64-bit Photoshop CS4 was not thoroughly tested under Windows XP64, and therefore is not supported, it should run." The OpenGL features (mostly minor GUI improvements like smooth zooming) are disabled by default, but you can still enable them in the options. There's also a registry script included with Photoshop CS4 called "AllowOldGPUs_ON" that the documentation says is necessary to enable the OpenGL features in XP64, but I didn't have to run it.
I'm guessing the situation is probably similar with OS X 10.6. It'll probably work fine, but for whatever reason they just don't want to guaranty anything.
So instead of using a perfectly good internet communication protocol (https in this case) and GUI rendering system, you want each bank to develop their own proprietary solutions just so they can have complete control over all of the code involved? What about the OS? Should I be running Wells Fargo OS 3.1 on my banking computer?
I know it's trendy to talk about how the web isn't designed for e-commerce or security (or how hyped Web 2.0 is), but the web today isn't the same as the web of 2 decades ago. DNS wasn't designed with security in mind either, so are you going to start suggesting that everyone memorizes their bank's IP address now?
Also, this idea that if a piece of code is written in-house that it's suddenly more secure than code written by thousands of people and tested by millions is quite ill-founded. If you run a decent browser like Firefox, keep it up to date, and don't install a bunch of random extensions, and follow good security practices, then you really aren't at much risk of falling victim to cyber-crime.
OTOH, if you're running random executables you receive by e-mail, fall for obvious phishing attacks, or otherwise conduct banking on a public computer, then it really doesn't matter what client application you use to connect to your bank's servers. The most secure banking application in the world won't protect you from social engineering or even a simple keylogger. There is a problem with the way internet banking is conducted today, but you're not going to find the solution in some piece of software.
How is going from C + ASM on DOS to VB + Powerbuilder on Win 3.1 more maintainable? Are you seriously suggesting that all embedded systems should be running a desktop OS for maintainability reasons (or that no embedded software is maintainable)?
I remember using VB4 back in the day (Win98, I think) and even then the VB IDE had a hard time opening VB3 projects. Good luck trying to get Visual Studio 2008 to open a VB2 project. With C and ASM, at least you can code the project in a variety of IDEs--even plaint-text editors. What are you going to use to open an .frx file other than VB?
Furthermore, you can write maintainable C/ASM code for an embedded RISC/ARM processor just as you can write unmaintainable spaghetti code for an x86 Windows platform. If you're writing software for a desktop platform, you're going to have to update it every few years to keep up with changes in the mainstream desktop platform (new OS, new processors, etc.). If you're writing software for embedded systems then you'll only need to update your software when you decide that you want to change processors, chipsets, or add new features. Re-compiling your code for the next version of the ARM processor is likely to be easier than re-writing your entire application to use a different set of system libraries.
translation:
your parents didn't have to worry about parenting. after all, why should they take an interest in what their child is reading?
there are still plenty of G-rated and completely tame comics that cater to children (like the funny pages in the newspaper). but i guess all comic books need be censored in order to meet the approval of lazy parents. god forbid comic book creators are given the creative freedom to write/draw what they want--including material that adult audiences can connect with.
i suppose if people like you had it your way there'd be no movies beyond PG-13, and all books/media/art would be insipid and uncontroversial--all so you can shelter your child in a Disney-ified world where everything is made for kids.
yea... that's not her. that's Faith Hill. why the hell would the chairwoman of the National Cyber Study Group be in a publicity photo with Tim McGraw?
there's big a difference between running a lingering yellow light, and running a red light. crosswalk lights don't turn green/white until the cross traffic signals have turned red. so even if someone treats yellow lights as green, they're not likely to hit a pedestrian trying to cross the street. you would literally have to sprint across the crosswalk to get hit by a car who entered the intersection on a yellow. and even in such an unlikely scenario it would really be the pedestrian hitting the car, not the car hitting the pedestrian.
if people are outright running red lights (entering the intersection after the signal has turned from yellow to red), then yes that is an incredibly dangerous situation. but if you're just complaining about having to wait an extra second or half a second to go on a green light, then that's hardly worth the extra accidents that will be caused by the traffic cameras.
i see some of what you're saying, and i agree with you that U.S. corporations shouldn't be allowed to operate overseas to circumvent U.S. laws (like industrial regulations to protect laborers or limit pollution). i mean, murdering someone in international waters is still murder, and industrial pollution is detrimental to the global environment regardless of where you do it.
however, i think it's very small (not to mention jingoistic) to consider all foreign countries our enemies. we need to stop thinking in such myopic and provincial-minded terms. just because someone was born within a different set of borders doesn't make them your enemy. that kind of thinking simply causes more unnecessary conflict, and all because of imaginary lines that we draw on our maps.
just because you happen to be born in a developed nation doesn't mean you are entitled to better living standards than someone born in India or Ethiopia. and it's not the Indians or Ethiopians' fault that U.S. corporations outsource their labor.
that's because you're not paying attention to what they're actually complaining about.
red light cameras aren't controversial because people like to run red lights but don't want to get caught. sure, there are some people who run red lights, but most people have enough good sense not to engage in such reckless behavior. and yet when you talk to most people who live in cities with traffic cameras, they will express negative opinions about them despite not being the red-light-running type. this is because the current implementation of traffic cameras have a lot of inherent problems. all you have to do is read the news once in a while and you will see a list of complaints and problems people have observed with these systems:
but most importantly, they don't actually do what they're supposed to do, and that is to increase road safety. psychologically, traffic cameras often turn the 3-light/red-yellow-green system into a 2-light system of just red & green. so you end up with people slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow because they're afraid of getting a ticket. that's a lot more dangerous than lingering in the intersection when the light turns from yellow to red, which, though it might annoy you, won't actually cause any accidents (except when idiots treat intersections as drag strips).
yes, that's what i eventually did. but it certainly would have been nice if Apple had made that option more visible instead of hiding it in a "Tools" menu--or they could simply use the updater to provide updates to installed applications.
really, these are almost malware-like tactics clearly designed to frustrate the average user into installing software that they neither need nor want. using an updater to push other applications is simply dishonest and undermines the purpose of an automatic updater, destroying the trust between software makers and software users and making it more likely that users will ignore vital security updates.
yea, fuck that. if they want a pay site, they should just charge for membership. otherwise, set up your own private network and get off the public internet.
i shouldn't have to worry about whether someone else's ISP "carries" a particular website when linking to a public webpage. this not only fragments the web, but it's an underhanded way of charging broadband subscribers extra for specific web content without their permission or knowledge. i don't have any interest in ESPN content, so why should i have to foot the bill for a subscription to a site that i will never visit?
ack, that should read: "at least now Apple makes an attempt (...) to distinguish updates from new installations."
--that'll learn me not to use the preview button.
and users should also be allowed to pick & opt out of any update they want. i hate how Apple Software Update, which comes with the Windows version of iTunes, will keep prompting the user about the same "updates" (often completely unrelated to iTunes or any other application the user has installed) until the user downloads and installs it. if you don't, the update will keep popping up or remain in the notification area/system tray.
just because i want to keep iTunes updated doesn't mean i want to install Safari (how is that an update anyhow?) or Bonjour/Rendezvous. at least now Apple makes an attempt (though a feeble one, as they're still using their "updater" to peddle unrelated & unsolicited software).
that's conflating two completely separate issues.
i agree that it's a bad idea for local governments to directly profit from traffic tickets & other fines, as it is not effective in its ostensible purpose. it also creates a major conflict of interest that is ripe for exploitation.
however, to say that overt corruption and illegal manipulation of traffic cameras isn't news simply because all local governments use traffic cameras to make money is a like saying corporate fraud isn't news because all commercial corporations try to make money. there's still a major difference between bad policy and conspiracy to defraud the public.
ok, you got me there. =P
actually, i stayed in Melrose Park, a western suburb of Chicago, one summer with a tattoo artist friend of mine. it was a predominantly Italian town that, as i understand, was run by (or at the very least had close ties to) the mob. needless to say, the local police were a bit corrupt. the cops also didn't seem to mind that we were smoking pot or doing lines of coke in front of them since my friend and his family were well known in the community.
coincidentally, a few weeks before i left their entire police department was raided by SWAT teams and the FBI. apparently the police chief had been busted for--supposedly--embezzling over a hundred million dollars (how he did that as a police chief of a small suburb i have no clue). but still, that did make the news and wasn't something that happened everyday.