When your money is on the line, it's just NOT OK to accept a self signed cert. Otherwise, it really just depends on what the risks are and how much due diligence you are willing to put up.
Why not just accept them, because it's less secure?
Well, yes and no.
It can be pretty much as secure as any "professional" cert, but the thing is that you have to do some due diligence. With a professionally signed cert, you only have to decide whether you trust the CA and their processes. It's the verification you have to do on your own if you trust a self signed cert.
For instance: I run a small server with about half a dozen family email accounts and secure webmail. Everything going in or out is encrypted, meaning if it's not SSH, HTTPS, IMAPS, it has to be HTTP, SMTP or DNS traffic or it's blocked. Now, for the HTTPS and IMAPS traffic, I use certs signed by my own self generated CA. I do it this way because you can write the CA up to expire in 20 years, and just sign the certs a year at a time - or shorter. I then convinced my family members that they could trust my CA because they didn't need to verify my identity.
Now, keep in mind, there's little more than some personal email at stake, which given the majority of what my mom sends me, is about 2 gigs of religious tearjerker stories, silly jokes, prank pics, and videos of what not to do when you <insert anything here>.
Now, I'd accept such a cert from pretty much anyone I could verify to some degree that coincides with the value of risk.
Would I accept this from my bank? No freakin' way. I want to know that my money is secure, and that the folks holding it aren't running a half-assed operation. I want it to be professional.
It is for this reason I think most of the argument here is redundant. Remember everyone, the question was "when is it OK?" not "how do they do that?" or "what does secure mean?".
Now, if you're putting personal information up on that site, you need to know that it's the right site. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a sysadmin to email you the public key, the one you'll get from the webserver anyway. You can then match that and go from there. Easy and painless.
Another option is to assume it's a bogus site at first and enter an incorrect password. Sometimes you'll see something you don't expect. Still, that's getting a little on the paranoid side if you're just trying to grab an ebook.
Bottom line, it's ok if you're comfortable with it. If not, then you have to decide it's not. The cert exists to assure you that you've got the right place, not the site admin.
be a little more compassionate toward Barracuda if they didn't default their stupid boxes to perpetuate so much damn backscatter. I know they're stopping spam getting to the target, but by default, they do it at the cost of the "Joe" getting "jobbed". It got to where I had to start flagging anything from a barracuda as spam and even set up an automatic filter. I mean jeez, 30 bloody blowbacks from various Barracudas in one day is just stupid. How is that different from the guy sending the crap they're filtering?
If they were really concerned about the damage caused by spam, they'd make this configuration manual, and include a very clear explanation of the consequences part of the process.
I know this whole post is off topic, and I apologize, but I can't stand Barracuda. They don't actually SOLVE the problem they just throw it back at innocent bystanders.
Whew. OK I feel better now.
Cheers!
I'm in the same boat mostly, but our daughter uses the third queue. The thing I don't get is what the focus is. Are they pulling something out of their hats that really will seem better, or are they just reducing costs?
The thing is, if they were to look at it from a profit standpoint, they could actually do this in a much more intelligent way.
For instance: just charge $0.50 per additional queue per month. This way, they're getting tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more maybe less, but certainly enough) to put toward maintaining this feature, and nobody who just has one queue has to subsidize those with 2 or more. And those who do use profiles will be less likely to add them willy-nilly just because the guy next door wants one.
Personally, I'd happily pay an extra buck a month for the convenience of a couple extra queues. And I'm a cheapskate.
Well, for those unsure how to begin, please feel free to take this (under the free as in air license) and modify it to fit your taste:
Dear Netflix Team,
I am writing to acknowledge an email I received regarding recent changes in Netflix service. Specifically, the fact that profiles will soon be eliminated from Netflix services.
I would like to express my dissatisfaction at this decision. As a software developer, I realize that maintaining special services are often more costly than they would appear to those enjoying them, and I don't presume to know the efforts behind the excellent service my family and I have been receiving from Netflix thus far.
However, I would like it to be known that the profile feature was the single most important deciding factor in my decision to become a Netflix customer. The ability for different members of my family to control the flow and content of their own queues is invaluable. The loss of this feature will very likely affect my decision to remain with Netflix. It is my sincere hope that this decision might be re-evaluated.
I'm in full agreement here. I never tried BB Online, partly because I was in full backlash mode over their handling of late charges. Later, when they "eliminated" late charges, I was completely disgusted with the fact they actually just renamed them to "restocking fee". If I kept a movie for more than 10 days, they charged my account for the full value (or what they thought the movie was worth) and refunded it, less a restocking fee when I returned it.
So, I'm taking it BB Online doesn't have profiles? I actually went online last night to see if I could find out for sure, but didn't find anything definitive.
BTW, I also wrote a letter to Netflix letting them know how much I enjoyed their service, and the fact that profiles were the key ingredient in my decision to join NF. I also made it clear that without profiles, there was a very good chance I would no longer see much value in their service. My wife likes mystery, romance and Jane Austen, I like MI5, The 4400, Battlestar, Will Smith, Sci-Fi and psychological thrillers. Our daughter gets kids disks and will keep them for a week or two.
We don't always cycle at the same pace, so profiles make it possible for us to enjoy it more.
At the very least, I'll be dropping my service, but in all likelihood, I'll be dropping it. And probably not in favor of BB. I'm just up the road from a Hollywood Video, so who knows...
Jimmy Carter signed into Law the explicit legalization of home brewing beer as mentioned just above...
Everything I've read indicates that home wine making was legalized with the repeal of prohibition, but there was a clerical error that omitted beer from this bill. I've never seen anything that indicated there was a continued crackdown on home brewing beer though.
The limits have been mentioned here many times, but it is worth saying that many of these are missing some important details. Federal (not state!) regulations allow brewing 100 gallons of wine and 100 gallons of beer for personal use. For households with 2 or more adults of legal drinking age, those limits are extended to 200 gallons. These are US limits - I can't speak to non-US restrictions. Federal law also allows for removal of home brewed beverages from the brewery (your home, that is) for the purposes of competitions, shows, etc. It is still illegal to distill any beverage to increase the ABV for the purposes of consumption, though not for the purpose of herbal or other extracts. It is also highly illegal to sell any home brewed alcoholic beverage.
BTW, for the purposes of these laws, I am under the impression that mead classifies as a wine, as does barleywine, but I've never found a clear definition of the two as used by the law here in the US. It's probably explicitly defined by ABV, but I'm not sure where the boundaries lie between beer, wine, and liquor. I have seen wines up in the 18% to 19% zone ("Viking Blod" is a phenomenal Danish mead the rolls in at 19%), but I think anything over 20% is classified as liquor or spirits.
As always, IANAL, so check your state (or province, county, etc.) regulations before you start.
A global Content Delivery Network (not Akamai, their execs are far more intelligent) with some 20 massive Content Access Points around the world. It was run by hotel and insurance tycoons. Still is.
It came up in a meeting one time that the CFO wanted to get the software to a stable state, then eliminate the engineering department, since it was an "unjustifiable expense".
The chairman of the VC company that owns said CDN thought this was a good idea.
Needless to say, this horrified everyone with a clue, and resulted in about 60 resumes pro-actively hitting the market.
Believe it or not, they're still limping along, 3 years later... And still have an engineering team...
Hmm... you folks UU's? Cause you sure sound like it... we are and split our beliefs in much the same way. That obvious? Well, I should say my wife and daughter are. While there are a number of Atheists in the congregation, as well as Pagans, Christians, etc., and all very nice people, I'm not usually one of them. I see the primary purpose of any church to be fellowship and socialization on common ground of some kind, and as a (slightly) introverted person, I don't really get much out of this on a regular basis. I attend the special events and whatnot, like our children's welcoming most recently (obviously), but mostly I enjoy my "me" time - by sleeping late on those days.
how can critical thought be taught if controversial topics are forbidden by law, and only one vetted and approved position is ever taught? If teaching our children to discern "opinion" for what it is is so critical, why bar the teachers from bringing up controversial positions? The short answer is "you can't". But I teach her atheism as "my belief" along with an explanation of why it is my belief; her mother teaches her paganism as "her belief" and why it is her belief; and we support each others beliefs. How's that for a contradiction?
Teaching critical thought necessitates teaching her ID as a "theory". I teach her that my opinion is that it's a bunch of hand waving and truth bending, intended to support an unsupportable myth. It also necessitates teaching her what Christians in general believe, what Hinduism and Buddhism teach, as well as Islam, Judaism, and whatever other faiths cross our paths.
The key comes in explicitly telling her that this is my belief, and that it's conceivable that I'm wrong.
Now, as an 8 year old that just wants easy answers (which is typical), and a little more time reading, sleeping, or playing the Wii (not necessarily in that order, but still fairly typical), she's just accepting what she's taught as our beliefs. For now. Critical thought will come later. When she starts questioning our beliefs, we'll know she's learning to question.
It seems to me that the only thing keeping parents from teaching their children to think critically is a desire to maintain control and avoid being questioned. Much as I respect my own parents, these are the reasons I never learned to think very critically (in public school, even) until I went to college. Once I started looking at the faith I was raised with (Catholicism), I started finding issue with it. It was a long time before I decided to face these issues, but I did. The result is my current status as an atheist.
If you simply accept that you can't (and shouldn't) have that kind of control, and that you might have to admit your beliefs are incorrect (clearly, this is the hard part), teaching critical thought becomes easy.
I don't believe in science in the way Granny Weatherwax doesn't believe in the gods in Pratchett's DiscWorld. She knows they exist, because she's had proof. I know that scientific findings have truth and value because I see the proof on a daily basis.
And if I had points and hadn't already posted, I'd mod you up as funny.
Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot.
And that's the reason why public schools fail. The only reason for education is to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to function in society as an adult. Teaching kids to conform to the party line without critical thought is useful only when training them to flip burgers. Well, yes and no. Public school fails largely because they only teach kids to pass just this one test...
And teaching critical thinking does not require trying to teach them superstitious mumbo jumbo disguised as science.
If that's what public school teaches, fine. I'll pay for private school, and 10 years from now your kids will be serving mine -- lunch. Well, yeah. But if they're teaching kids that ID is just as feasible as evolution, then they'll be lucky to be flipping burgers, won't they? Or worse yet, they'll become some new-age evangelist with a new bent on twisting logic. I'd rather have my kid flipping burgers, to be honest. At least that's honest work.
But I won't worry, if my kids are home schooled, and learning Trig and Computer Science by age 12, and partially managing their own education by age 14 (ok, she's 8, and I'm being a little optimistic).
I tend to follow this ideology:
Teach your kid to communicate - to write and speak well, so they can get that great idea across;
teach them to think critically (first and foremost), so they recognize that great idea for what it really is; (besides, this is the ONLY tool that will really help them avoid the mindless fundamentalist path)
teach them to be an autodidact (and critical thinking is essential for any success in this);
teach them the joy of numbers and math - both recreational and practical, and how the world of numbers and numerical analysis can be enthralling to anyone not afraid to think (really, really) hard;
teach them to play music and sing, and the theories and math behind music;
help them learn anything else they get curious about. ... And one day they'll pass you up so fast, you'll be ashamed of yourself".
History, the social studies, biology, and other subjects not explicitly mentioned are part of the autodidact goal. This is where children can get curious about something and learn to ask questions - then answer them. Naturally, there must be basic history requirements, because history is important to us as part of a society that's been hundreds of years in the making - and it will help them learn about long term cause and affect on a society, not just an individual.
Art is almost a gimme - if you just hand over a pack of crayons at a young age, you'll see the first stages of self education within hours. Art takes very little work on the teacher's part - at least in the early stages. The hard part is getting a child to do this with everything they see. Art history is a bit more work, but it's great fun.
Personally, I can't wait to eat my humble pie. That'll be the day I declare my own personal victory over the next generation of ignorance, stupidity, and indifference.
Is there some religion or another that insists on reality? So that I can claim religious persecution by these fundies? Anyone telling me I have to believe in their religion is persecuting me with religion anyway, aren't they?
Free speech doctrine actually allows all of this to begin with, no need for any affirmative right. The question is whether the employer (school district) is constrained in its choice of whether to retain the employee.
This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.
Uh, no, the Free Speech Doctrine most certainly does not apply. A public school teacher has no more right to talk about his or her beliefs to my child any more than I have the right to start teaching your children what I think they should learn about gay marriage, equal rights, and religion. That's your choice, not mine. Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot. This is the real reason that good public school teachers are dreadfully underpaid.
And as for removing it as a cause for dismissal, that won't protect them from charges of civil rights violation.
Frankly, if someone tried to teach my daughter that ID was "fact" and evolution was "theory", I'd have them hauled in front of a Congressional Hearing for violation of my and my family's civil rights as fast as I could push the system.
What am I teaching her? Well, ID is illogical religious fanaticism - the kind that ultimately got witches burned at the stake, and that Evolution is a theory that far surpasses any current alternative explanation in logical plausibility. Since she and my wife are Eclectic Pagans, I think this is an argument that will stick.
Does that mean she isn't allowed to learn about other religions? Of course not; that's stifling her education. She's already learned quite a lot about all the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam,...) and even a fair bit about the Hindi and Buddhist faiths as well as my own preference, no faith - better known as Atheism. There's a big difference in teaching something as "what some people believe" and "what we believe". And it's a bigger difference still to instill the possibility that one day she may choose a different path. It seems to me that leaving this possibility out is dooming your child (or trying to) to a future of narrow minded dogma.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Doesn't really look like they had completely secular principles in mind when deciding to defect and form their own country to me. From my memory, on the inside cover of the "Aqualung" LP cover, by Jethro Tull:
"In the beginning, God created Man,
Then Man created God,
Then Man destroyed God"
Don't remember the rest.
I'm still waiting for the last part to get over with already.
Anyone who's ever taken an introductory Anthropology course in college should know that religion is a tool to control a population, which typically seeks to protect its population from itself and threatens without the slightest evidence of its existence, retribution in the afterlife. The thing is, a constitution is also a tool to control a population, but it is generally intended to protect that populations members from each other and those controlling it (like the government), and allows for concrete sanctions in the here and now for violation of said protections.
Also, religion often pushes for financial support by passing around the plate and selling salvation to the big donors (don't tell me this never happened, or doesn't happen anymore, I know better), it is controlled by a select few with no recourse for the laity, and is generally not open for revision, and in some cases, not even open to research (commercial, proprietary, closed source). On the other hand, the constitution is not applied according to financial status, allows ANYONE with the inclination to pursue a political path and in some cases, amend it. (free, open source).
How does this relate to the OP?
Seems to me they were trying to control a population with the tool they preferred, by referencing the tool the herd would understand.
Let's just face it... People who don't want their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
Sorry, I know I'm burning karma points, but what the hell, you only live ONCE, and he who dies with the most karma points has wasted more opportunities on SlashDot than anyone else:)
I also find it hard to justify a price of $15 on a physical CD.
I agree completely. This is why it is a very rare occurrence for me to shell out money for a new disc. I much prefer spending an hour at Newbury Comics once every month or so, assuming I have a list of discs I'd be interested in. I can spend $20 and get 3 discs - sometimes more for less.
Granted, I've bought used and had the media come out damaged, but not at Newbury Comics, and they're guaranteed anyway. Only one time have I chosen new over used, and that was because the used disc had been undercut by an album specific sale price.
I was a bit concerned when I saw a/. posting a few weeks back that mentioned some states outlawing used disc sales. If that happens here in MA, I'll stop buying hardcopies and just stick to eMusic - unless Amazon comes up with a good enough service to justify using it to supplement eMusic.
While they may have a lot of White Stripes, Honeyroot, Sugarcult, Pixies, The Cult, and a lot of other excellent artists, they don't have a lot of BNL, Black Crowes or Coldplay, and seem to have dropped what little Green Day they did have (at least I got Kerplunk first:). Don't even expect to see The All-American Rejects and countless other good artists any time soon. Of course, I realize none of this is through any fault of eMusic - it's the labels that make it hard for artists to get their work to us at a reasonable price and format.
Probably getting off the thread, but I'm still burned that the RIAA have the audacity to call the fans pirates.
It's probably a bit premature for that declaration.
Quality notwithstanding, people are trying to buy music they like, not music they can play anywhere or in whatever format they want, or even the best possible quantity. Naturally those things are important, but if someone wants a single song off an album, they'll buy the DRM version at iTunes if they can't get it anywhere else. They are not going to buy some track they don't know or care about just because it's available at high quality with no drm in their favorite format. Content is of the first importance.
I have to admit, I was pretty taken up with ITMS until a good while back, but then I found eMusic (Thanks to a/. post:). I've since found a great deal of music I never knew I liked (or loved). Now, I have $14.11 credit at ITMS that has been there for about 6 months and will proabably never be used. Oh well.
Another thing: I've actually replaced a pretty good deal of the music I already paid for at ITMS. Some single songs I purchased there were from albums I initially didn't want to purchase whole, but when you cruise the used disc section at Newbury Comics or (in a pinch, since they're more expensive) Strawberries, you find some surprising stuff.
One day, maybe I'll use my ITMS credit for something, but over the last year, I've spent more on hard copies and on eMusic than I've spent on ITMS, and my ITMS spending still adds up to a LOT more than I spent in the 10 years prior to getting an iPod.
Bottom line though, while I'm still more interested in buying music I like than buying formats, I have changed my method of buying that music. That's what's eventually going to put a damper on the ITMS juggernaut. It is certainly not going to happen because a single (or even a few) of the big companies made special deals that allow customers to spend an arm and a leg to get a moderate quality, DRM free copy of the music they steal from the artists. Besides, as mentioned by a previous poster, Jobs is trying to get rid of DRM, he's just dragging his feet about it and seems to be willing to increase the price, rather than dropping it.
Easy. Starbucks Sumatra blend. Ground for a french press, and if possible, brewed in same.
I know they don't (universally) have the best roasting methods, but they seem to get Sumatra just right (for me, anyway). I always find it to be a sweet, brew with a great bold taste. On occasion I have it black, never, ever with sugar. When possible, raw (unpasturized) cream. Even my wife can drink it black, though she disagrees with my no sugar policy.
As for brewing method, well, my favorite is the french press. In a pinch, like when I have a few extra minutes before catching the train, I use the My-K-Cup in my Keurig. Two filters, brewed on the large cup setting puts me right for the day. If I don't have time before leaving for work, I have to settle for the crap K-Cups we have at work (that machine doesn't take the My-K-Cup).
Correction: Only in the US Government do you need to outlaw something that is already illegal.
In the US, making something illegal is but the first step in outlawing that action or thing. The next step is to outlaw it, but even then, the thing has to be ostracized, vilified, hog tied, circumcised, deep fried, and then finally, it can be made to be a "bad thing", which is often punishable by a lot of hooting, halooing, and in more serious cases a downright hullabaloo; but only when it is made a "terrible thing" (a much more involved and convoluted process, not to mention expensive) are there any real consequences.
You obviously make some very good arguments. I'm impressed by your ability to stay objective (and even civil) where the safety and well being of children are concerned. In almost any other scenario, I am typically the same way (or try very hard to be). But with children I can't seem to overlook the overpowering urge to protect them. In an ideal world, I'm sure most of your ideas would be highly beneficial. I'm afraid I'm not quite optimistic enough for that though. Perhaps that's one of the reasons the world is the way it is.
The speeding trap point is a good one, and my only answer is that speed limits are intended to improve safety. The fact that every single state and local government has perverted the intent for the purpose of revenue and glory, however puerile on the part of the individual police officers is probably part of the pessimism I mentioned above. The police and government are often too busy generating revenue and punishing crimes already committed, for either to bother thinking of the best way to prevent them.
I agree that the world is not a safe place and that children must learn to survive in it, but that doesn't mean you let your child enter even potentially dangerous scenarios just to teach them that. I used to believe that before I was a parent, but things change when you hold your first baby. Hell, I sound like my Dad.
DeadCatX2, it's been an interesting discussion, and I wish I had the time to continue, but I have to keep the boss here happy.
I say that drawing a psychological line is the wrong approach. Punish real world transgressions, not thought-crimes.
Wouldn't it be better to prevent the real world crimes? Especially where children are the victims? Why does one person's right to travel a slippery slope override the right of any child to a reasonable degree of security?
I still don't think you can justifiably punish "thought crimes" though. Wouldn't it be better to mandate treatment to reduce or eliminate the possibility that these people will actually act on their fantasies? Court mandated treatment with no criminal activity is the rub though. The way things stand, I'm guessing the worst that can happen is contempt of court for refusing treatment. Even that would probably raise a red flag to the ACLU. Perhaps having them watch over these kinds of processes (in the US, I mean) would be a good thing too. I'm sure you'd agree that anything near that model would have some risk of degrading any society into a real Orwellian dystopia.
Punishing the behavior you don't find acceptable is not a good way to prevent that behavior.
True. Until a true ability to reason the wisdom of certain behavior develops, resentment is the typical response. That doesn't mean you don't limit childrens behavior at all. It's far better to carefully tread that line and have the resentment fade when the child understands more. I know, I've been on that side of the equation, and my relationship with my father is far stronger as I approach 40 (and has been for some 20 years) than I ever expected it to be. I don't doubt he'd agree that it was well worth a little unreasoned resentment.
Exactly! In our world, that's what most parents think being a good parent is - ruling your child's life with an iron fist. This usually inspires resentment and rebellion.
No, I think that's being overcautious. If my father refused to let me do anything he wouldn't do, regardless of the relative safety or moral degree of the behavior, I'd have left his home on my 18th birthday (or sooner) rather than sometime after my 21st. There's a vast gray area between guiding your kid safely through their childhood and youth, and locking them in the dungeon.
Even if you make this sort of behavior illegal, it's not going to protect everyone. People will continue to be perverted. If you can't stop the problem entirely, then I see no point in punishing people for victimless crimes.
Isn't that just running away from the problem? Speeding is a victimless crime: are you suggesting that because people still fly down the highways and through neighborhoods and kill people, we should just stop handing out speeding tickets? Forgive my bluntness, but that's a very bad idea. Speeding is illegal because it puts people in danger, not because you shouldn't be able to drive how you want.
The idea of thought crimes is a tricky one. So is the concept of a "victimless" crime. People have the power to make their own choices whether they know it or not, and whether they accept it or not. Nonetheless, the patterns of behavior people have followed in their past will have an affect on who they are now, and what choices they will consider in the future - and in fact, whether they will even consider before acting.
That doesn't mean anyone who "dabbles" in this kind of behavior now will be attacking children in 2 months or even 2 years. I expect most will shortly realize they're uncomfortable (if not downright disgusted) with it. But if they aren't, and continue beyond the point of just "dabbling" then they are obviously jazzed by the behavior in some way, and will very likely become less affected by it as time goes on. Some of these people still won't necessarily move to the next level, but some will. Wouldn't it be better to try to help them avoid that? It certainly wouldn't be worse for them than leaving them alone, and would certainly benefit any children they may come into contact with. I know "Think of the children" is getting to be cliche', but it's not a bad plan. How many parents would say they don't want anyone's rights limited in any way just so their child can be safe?
Slashdot Mirror
When your money is on the line, it's just NOT OK to accept a self signed cert. Otherwise, it really just depends on what the risks are and how much due diligence you are willing to put up.
Why not just accept them, because it's less secure?
Well, yes and no.
It can be pretty much as secure as any "professional" cert, but the thing is that you have to do some due diligence. With a professionally signed cert, you only have to decide whether you trust the CA and their processes. It's the verification you have to do on your own if you trust a self signed cert.
For instance: I run a small server with about half a dozen family email accounts and secure webmail. Everything going in or out is encrypted, meaning if it's not SSH, HTTPS, IMAPS, it has to be HTTP, SMTP or DNS traffic or it's blocked. Now, for the HTTPS and IMAPS traffic, I use certs signed by my own self generated CA. I do it this way because you can write the CA up to expire in 20 years, and just sign the certs a year at a time - or shorter. I then convinced my family members that they could trust my CA because they didn't need to verify my identity.
Now, keep in mind, there's little more than some personal email at stake, which given the majority of what my mom sends me, is about 2 gigs of religious tearjerker stories, silly jokes, prank pics, and videos of what not to do when you <insert anything here>.
Now, I'd accept such a cert from pretty much anyone I could verify to some degree that coincides with the value of risk.
Would I accept this from my bank? No freakin' way. I want to know that my money is secure, and that the folks holding it aren't running a half-assed operation. I want it to be professional.
It is for this reason I think most of the argument here is redundant. Remember everyone, the question was "when is it OK?" not "how do they do that?" or "what does secure mean?".
Now, if you're putting personal information up on that site, you need to know that it's the right site. It is perfectly acceptable to ask a sysadmin to email you the public key, the one you'll get from the webserver anyway. You can then match that and go from there. Easy and painless.
Another option is to assume it's a bogus site at first and enter an incorrect password. Sometimes you'll see something you don't expect. Still, that's getting a little on the paranoid side if you're just trying to grab an ebook.
Bottom line, it's ok if you're comfortable with it. If not, then you have to decide it's not. The cert exists to assure you that you've got the right place, not the site admin.
be a little more compassionate toward Barracuda if they didn't default their stupid boxes to perpetuate so much damn backscatter. I know they're stopping spam getting to the target, but by default, they do it at the cost of the "Joe" getting "jobbed". It got to where I had to start flagging anything from a barracuda as spam and even set up an automatic filter. I mean jeez, 30 bloody blowbacks from various Barracudas in one day is just stupid. How is that different from the guy sending the crap they're filtering?
If they were really concerned about the damage caused by spam, they'd make this configuration manual, and include a very clear explanation of the consequences part of the process.
I know this whole post is off topic, and I apologize, but I can't stand Barracuda. They don't actually SOLVE the problem they just throw it back at innocent bystanders.
Whew. OK I feel better now.
Cheers!
Naturally, I meant to say:
At the very least, I'll be reducing my service,
So true.
I'm in the same boat mostly, but our daughter uses the third queue. The thing I don't get is what the focus is. Are they pulling something out of their hats that really will seem better, or are they just reducing costs?
The thing is, if they were to look at it from a profit standpoint, they could actually do this in a much more intelligent way.
For instance: just charge $0.50 per additional queue per month. This way, they're getting tens of thousands of dollars (maybe more maybe less, but certainly enough) to put toward maintaining this feature, and nobody who just has one queue has to subsidize those with 2 or more. And those who do use profiles will be less likely to add them willy-nilly just because the guy next door wants one.
Personally, I'd happily pay an extra buck a month for the convenience of a couple extra queues. And I'm a cheapskate.
Cheers
Well, for those unsure how to begin, please feel free to take this (under the free as in air license) and modify it to fit your taste:
Dear Netflix Team,
I am writing to acknowledge an email I received regarding recent changes in Netflix service. Specifically, the fact that profiles will soon be eliminated from Netflix services.
I would like to express my dissatisfaction at this decision. As a software developer, I realize that maintaining special services are often more costly than they would appear to those enjoying them, and I don't presume to know the efforts behind the excellent service my family and I have been receiving from Netflix thus far.
However, I would like it to be known that the profile feature was the single most important deciding factor in my decision to become a Netflix customer. The ability for different members of my family to control the flow and content of their own queues is invaluable. The loss of this feature will very likely affect my decision to remain with Netflix. It is my sincere hope that this decision might be re-evaluated.
Best regards,
Etc.
I'm in full agreement here. I never tried BB Online, partly because I was in full backlash mode over their handling of late charges. Later, when they "eliminated" late charges, I was completely disgusted with the fact they actually just renamed them to "restocking fee". If I kept a movie for more than 10 days, they charged my account for the full value (or what they thought the movie was worth) and refunded it, less a restocking fee when I returned it.
...
So, I'm taking it BB Online doesn't have profiles? I actually went online last night to see if I could find out for sure, but didn't find anything definitive.
BTW, I also wrote a letter to Netflix letting them know how much I enjoyed their service, and the fact that profiles were the key ingredient in my decision to join NF. I also made it clear that without profiles, there was a very good chance I would no longer see much value in their service. My wife likes mystery, romance and Jane Austen, I like MI5, The 4400, Battlestar, Will Smith, Sci-Fi and psychological thrillers. Our daughter gets kids disks and will keep them for a week or two.
We don't always cycle at the same pace, so profiles make it possible for us to enjoy it more.
At the very least, I'll be dropping my service, but in all likelihood, I'll be dropping it. And probably not in favor of BB. I'm just up the road from a Hollywood Video, so who knows
Cheers.
Netflix, You're doing it wrong!
Jimmy Carter signed into Law the explicit legalization of home brewing beer as mentioned just above ...
Everything I've read indicates that home wine making was legalized with the repeal of prohibition, but there was a clerical error that omitted beer from this bill. I've never seen anything that indicated there was a continued crackdown on home brewing beer though.
The limits have been mentioned here many times, but it is worth saying that many of these are missing some important details. Federal (not state!) regulations allow brewing 100 gallons of wine and 100 gallons of beer for personal use. For households with 2 or more adults of legal drinking age, those limits are extended to 200 gallons. These are US limits - I can't speak to non-US restrictions. Federal law also allows for removal of home brewed beverages from the brewery (your home, that is) for the purposes of competitions, shows, etc. It is still illegal to distill any beverage to increase the ABV for the purposes of consumption, though not for the purpose of herbal or other extracts. It is also highly illegal to sell any home brewed alcoholic beverage.
BTW, for the purposes of these laws, I am under the impression that mead classifies as a wine, as does barleywine, but I've never found a clear definition of the two as used by the law here in the US. It's probably explicitly defined by ABV, but I'm not sure where the boundaries lie between beer, wine, and liquor. I have seen wines up in the 18% to 19% zone ("Viking Blod" is a phenomenal Danish mead the rolls in at 19%), but I think anything over 20% is classified as liquor or spirits.
As always, IANAL, so check your state (or province, county, etc.) regulations before you start.
And I care ...
Stop LOOKING at me!!!
A global Content Delivery Network (not Akamai, their execs are far more intelligent) with some 20 massive Content Access Points around the world. It was run by hotel and insurance tycoons. Still is.
... And still have an engineering team ...
It came up in a meeting one time that the CFO wanted to get the software to a stable state, then eliminate the engineering department, since it was an "unjustifiable expense".
The chairman of the VC company that owns said CDN thought this was a good idea.
Needless to say, this horrified everyone with a clue, and resulted in about 60 resumes pro-actively hitting the market.
Believe it or not, they're still limping along, 3 years later
Cheers!
Teaching critical thought necessitates teaching her ID as a "theory". I teach her that my opinion is that it's a bunch of hand waving and truth bending, intended to support an unsupportable myth. It also necessitates teaching her what Christians in general believe, what Hinduism and Buddhism teach, as well as Islam, Judaism, and whatever other faiths cross our paths.
The key comes in explicitly telling her that this is my belief, and that it's conceivable that I'm wrong.
Now, as an 8 year old that just wants easy answers (which is typical), and a little more time reading, sleeping, or playing the Wii (not necessarily in that order, but still fairly typical), she's just accepting what she's taught as our beliefs. For now. Critical thought will come later. When she starts questioning our beliefs, we'll know she's learning to question.
It seems to me that the only thing keeping parents from teaching their children to think critically is a desire to maintain control and avoid being questioned. Much as I respect my own parents, these are the reasons I never learned to think very critically (in public school, even) until I went to college. Once I started looking at the faith I was raised with (Catholicism), I started finding issue with it. It was a long time before I decided to face these issues, but I did. The result is my current status as an atheist.
If you simply accept that you can't (and shouldn't) have that kind of control, and that you might have to admit your beliefs are incorrect (clearly, this is the hard part), teaching critical thought becomes easy.
Yes?
I like that one, mind if I use it? :D
I don't believe in science in the way Granny Weatherwax doesn't believe in the gods in Pratchett's DiscWorld. She knows they exist, because she's had proof. I know that scientific findings have truth and value because I see the proof on a daily basis.
And if I had points and hadn't already posted, I'd mod you up as funny.
Cheers!
Well, yes and no. Public school fails largely because they only teach kids to pass just this one test
And teaching critical thinking does not require trying to teach them superstitious mumbo jumbo disguised as science.
If that's what public school teaches, fine. I'll pay for private school, and 10 years from now your kids will be serving mine -- lunch. Well, yeah. But if they're teaching kids that ID is just as feasible as evolution, then they'll be lucky to be flipping burgers, won't they? Or worse yet, they'll become some new-age evangelist with a new bent on twisting logic. I'd rather have my kid flipping burgers, to be honest. At least that's honest work.
But I won't worry, if my kids are home schooled, and learning Trig and Computer Science by age 12, and partially managing their own education by age 14 (ok, she's 8, and I'm being a little optimistic).
I tend to follow this ideology:
Teach your kid to communicate - to write and speak well, so they can get that great idea across;
teach them to think critically (first and foremost), so they recognize that great idea for what it really is; (besides, this is the ONLY tool that will really help them avoid the mindless fundamentalist path)
teach them to be an autodidact (and critical thinking is essential for any success in this);
teach them the joy of numbers and math - both recreational and practical, and how the world of numbers and numerical analysis can be enthralling to anyone not afraid to think (really, really) hard;
teach them to play music and sing, and the theories and math behind music;
help them learn anything else they get curious about.
History, the social studies, biology, and other subjects not explicitly mentioned are part of the autodidact goal. This is where children can get curious about something and learn to ask questions - then answer them. Naturally, there must be basic history requirements, because history is important to us as part of a society that's been hundreds of years in the making - and it will help them learn about long term cause and affect on a society, not just an individual.
Art is almost a gimme - if you just hand over a pack of crayons at a young age, you'll see the first stages of self education within hours. Art takes very little work on the teacher's part - at least in the early stages. The hard part is getting a child to do this with everything they see. Art history is a bit more work, but it's great fun.
Personally, I can't wait to eat my humble pie. That'll be the day I declare my own personal victory over the next generation of ignorance, stupidity, and indifference.
Failing that, there's always Pastafarianism
This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.
Uh, no, the Free Speech Doctrine most certainly does not apply. A public school teacher has no more right to talk about his or her beliefs to my child any more than I have the right to start teaching your children what I think they should learn about gay marriage, equal rights, and religion. That's your choice, not mine. Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot. This is the real reason that good public school teachers are dreadfully underpaid.
And as for removing it as a cause for dismissal, that won't protect them from charges of civil rights violation.
Frankly, if someone tried to teach my daughter that ID was "fact" and evolution was "theory", I'd have them hauled in front of a Congressional Hearing for violation of my and my family's civil rights as fast as I could push the system.
What am I teaching her? Well, ID is illogical religious fanaticism - the kind that ultimately got witches burned at the stake, and that Evolution is a theory that far surpasses any current alternative explanation in logical plausibility. Since she and my wife are Eclectic Pagans, I think this is an argument that will stick.
Does that mean she isn't allowed to learn about other religions? Of course not; that's stifling her education. She's already learned quite a lot about all the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam,
Doesn't really look like they had completely secular principles in mind when deciding to defect and form their own country to me. From my memory, on the inside cover of the "Aqualung" LP cover, by Jethro Tull: Don't remember the rest.
I'm still waiting for the last part to get over with already.
Anyone who's ever taken an introductory Anthropology course in college should know that religion is a tool to control a population, which typically seeks to protect its population from itself and threatens without the slightest evidence of its existence, retribution in the afterlife. The thing is, a constitution is also a tool to control a population, but it is generally intended to protect that populations members from each other and those controlling it (like the government), and allows for concrete sanctions in the here and now for violation of said protections.
Also, religion often pushes for financial support by passing around the plate and selling salvation to the big donors (don't tell me this never happened, or doesn't happen anymore, I know better), it is controlled by a select few with no recourse for the laity, and is generally not open for revision, and in some cases, not even open to research (commercial, proprietary, closed source). On the other hand, the constitution is not applied according to financial status, allows ANYONE with the inclination to pursue a political path and in some cases, amend it. (free, open source).
How does this relate to the OP?
Seems to me they were trying to control a population with the tool they preferred, by referencing the tool the herd would understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus
Go explain that one with ID. God + Wacky Tobaccy = Platypus
The new math
Doh! more karma up in smoke.
... helping stupid people feel smart since 1987.
...
:)
Let's just face it
People who don't want their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs.
Sorry, I know I'm burning karma points, but what the hell, you only live ONCE, and he who dies with the most karma points has wasted more opportunities on SlashDot than anyone else
I also find it hard to justify a price of $15 on a physical CD.
/. posting a few weeks back that mentioned some states outlawing used disc sales. If that happens here in MA, I'll stop buying hardcopies and just stick to eMusic - unless Amazon comes up with a good enough service to justify using it to supplement eMusic.
:). Don't even expect to see The All-American Rejects and countless other good artists any time soon. Of course, I realize none of this is through any fault of eMusic - it's the labels that make it hard for artists to get their work to us at a reasonable price and format.
I agree completely. This is why it is a very rare occurrence for me to shell out money for a new disc. I much prefer spending an hour at Newbury Comics once every month or so, assuming I have a list of discs I'd be interested in. I can spend $20 and get 3 discs - sometimes more for less.
Granted, I've bought used and had the media come out damaged, but not at Newbury Comics, and they're guaranteed anyway. Only one time have I chosen new over used, and that was because the used disc had been undercut by an album specific sale price.
I was a bit concerned when I saw a
While they may have a lot of White Stripes, Honeyroot, Sugarcult, Pixies, The Cult, and a lot of other excellent artists, they don't have a lot of BNL, Black Crowes or Coldplay, and seem to have dropped what little Green Day they did have (at least I got Kerplunk first
Probably getting off the thread, but I'm still burned that the RIAA have the audacity to call the fans pirates.
There are other ways to detonate explosives remotely. Doesn't seem like the smartest thing to let potential enemies know of such plans in advance.
...
Well, this is George W. Bush we're talking about
It's probably a bit premature for that declaration.
/. post :). I've since found a great deal of music I never knew I liked (or loved). Now, I have $14.11 credit at ITMS that has been there for about 6 months and will proabably never be used. Oh well.
Quality notwithstanding, people are trying to buy music they like, not music they can play anywhere or in whatever format they want, or even the best possible quantity. Naturally those things are important, but if someone wants a single song off an album, they'll buy the DRM version at iTunes if they can't get it anywhere else. They are not going to buy some track they don't know or care about just because it's available at high quality with no drm in their favorite format. Content is of the first importance.
I have to admit, I was pretty taken up with ITMS until a good while back, but then I found eMusic (Thanks to a
Another thing: I've actually replaced a pretty good deal of the music I already paid for at ITMS. Some single songs I purchased there were from albums I initially didn't want to purchase whole, but when you cruise the used disc section at Newbury Comics or (in a pinch, since they're more expensive) Strawberries, you find some surprising stuff.
One day, maybe I'll use my ITMS credit for something, but over the last year, I've spent more on hard copies and on eMusic than I've spent on ITMS, and my ITMS spending still adds up to a LOT more than I spent in the 10 years prior to getting an iPod.
Bottom line though, while I'm still more interested in buying music I like than buying formats, I have changed my method of buying that music. That's what's eventually going to put a damper on the ITMS juggernaut. It is certainly not going to happen because a single (or even a few) of the big companies made special deals that allow customers to spend an arm and a leg to get a moderate quality, DRM free copy of the music they steal from the artists. Besides, as mentioned by a previous poster, Jobs is trying to get rid of DRM, he's just dragging his feet about it and seems to be willing to increase the price, rather than dropping it.
Easy. Starbucks Sumatra blend. Ground for a french press, and if possible, brewed in same.
I know they don't (universally) have the best roasting methods, but they seem to get Sumatra just right (for me, anyway). I always find it to be a sweet, brew with a great bold taste. On occasion I have it black, never, ever with sugar. When possible, raw (unpasturized) cream. Even my wife can drink it black, though she disagrees with my no sugar policy.
As for brewing method, well, my favorite is the french press. In a pinch, like when I have a few extra minutes before catching the train, I use the My-K-Cup in my Keurig. Two filters, brewed on the large cup setting puts me right for the day. If I don't have time before leaving for work, I have to settle for the crap K-Cups we have at work (that machine doesn't take the My-K-Cup).
Correction: Only in the US Government do you need to outlaw something that is already illegal.
In the US, making something illegal is but the first step in outlawing that action or thing. The next step is to outlaw it, but even then, the thing has to be ostracized, vilified, hog tied, circumcised, deep fried, and then finally, it can be made to be a "bad thing", which is often punishable by a lot of hooting, halooing, and in more serious cases a downright hullabaloo; but only when it is made a "terrible thing" (a much more involved and convoluted process, not to mention expensive) are there any real consequences.
You obviously make some very good arguments. I'm impressed by your ability to stay objective (and even civil) where the safety and well being of children are concerned. In almost any other scenario, I am typically the same way (or try very hard to be). But with children I can't seem to overlook the overpowering urge to protect them. In an ideal world, I'm sure most of your ideas would be highly beneficial. I'm afraid I'm not quite optimistic enough for that though. Perhaps that's one of the reasons the world is the way it is.
The speeding trap point is a good one, and my only answer is that speed limits are intended to improve safety. The fact that every single state and local government has perverted the intent for the purpose of revenue and glory, however puerile on the part of the individual police officers is probably part of the pessimism I mentioned above. The police and government are often too busy generating revenue and punishing crimes already committed, for either to bother thinking of the best way to prevent them.
I agree that the world is not a safe place and that children must learn to survive in it, but that doesn't mean you let your child enter even potentially dangerous scenarios just to teach them that. I used to believe that before I was a parent, but things change when you hold your first baby. Hell, I sound like my Dad.
DeadCatX2, it's been an interesting discussion, and I wish I had the time to continue, but I have to keep the boss here happy.
Cheers!
I say that drawing a psychological line is the wrong approach. Punish real world transgressions, not thought-crimes.
Wouldn't it be better to prevent the real world crimes? Especially where children are the victims? Why does one person's right to travel a slippery slope override the right of any child to a reasonable degree of security?
I still don't think you can justifiably punish "thought crimes" though. Wouldn't it be better to mandate treatment to reduce or eliminate the possibility that these people will actually act on their fantasies? Court mandated treatment with no criminal activity is the rub though. The way things stand, I'm guessing the worst that can happen is contempt of court for refusing treatment. Even that would probably raise a red flag to the ACLU. Perhaps having them watch over these kinds of processes (in the US, I mean) would be a good thing too. I'm sure you'd agree that anything near that model would have some risk of degrading any society into a real Orwellian dystopia.
Punishing the behavior you don't find acceptable is not a good way to prevent that behavior.
True. Until a true ability to reason the wisdom of certain behavior develops, resentment is the typical response. That doesn't mean you don't limit childrens behavior at all. It's far better to carefully tread that line and have the resentment fade when the child understands more. I know, I've been on that side of the equation, and my relationship with my father is far stronger as I approach 40 (and has been for some 20 years) than I ever expected it to be. I don't doubt he'd agree that it was well worth a little unreasoned resentment.
Exactly! In our world, that's what most parents think being a good parent is - ruling your child's life with an iron fist. This usually inspires resentment and rebellion.
No, I think that's being overcautious. If my father refused to let me do anything he wouldn't do, regardless of the relative safety or moral degree of the behavior, I'd have left his home on my 18th birthday (or sooner) rather than sometime after my 21st. There's a vast gray area between guiding your kid safely through their childhood and youth, and locking them in the dungeon.
Even if you make this sort of behavior illegal, it's not going to protect everyone. People will continue to be perverted. If you can't stop the problem entirely, then I see no point in punishing people for victimless crimes.
Isn't that just running away from the problem? Speeding is a victimless crime: are you suggesting that because people still fly down the highways and through neighborhoods and kill people, we should just stop handing out speeding tickets? Forgive my bluntness, but that's a very bad idea. Speeding is illegal because it puts people in danger, not because you shouldn't be able to drive how you want.
The idea of thought crimes is a tricky one. So is the concept of a "victimless" crime. People have the power to make their own choices whether they know it or not, and whether they accept it or not. Nonetheless, the patterns of behavior people have followed in their past will have an affect on who they are now, and what choices they will consider in the future - and in fact, whether they will even consider before acting.
That doesn't mean anyone who "dabbles" in this kind of behavior now will be attacking children in 2 months or even 2 years. I expect most will shortly realize they're uncomfortable (if not downright disgusted) with it. But if they aren't, and continue beyond the point of just "dabbling" then they are obviously jazzed by the behavior in some way, and will very likely become less affected by it as time goes on. Some of these people still won't necessarily move to the next level, but some will. Wouldn't it be better to try to help them avoid that? It certainly wouldn't be worse for them than leaving them alone, and would certainly benefit any children they may come into contact with. I know "Think of the children" is getting to be cliche', but it's not a bad plan. How many parents would say they don't want anyone's rights limited in any way just so their child can be safe?