This sounds like a great product idea. The submitter says that he has the data backed up remotely, so he doesn't mind if the hard drive is trashed. Why not make a disposable hard drive? One that can be "booby trapped" similar to what the parent suggests, however it could be contained inside the hard drive. So you have a hard drive that is manufactured to be completely sealed and if the security is breached an acid wash destroys the platters inside the hard drive without destroying the laptop itself (or at least its case). All you would need to do to fix it is replace the hard drive with a new one restored or ghosted from the remote backup.
Re:Obligatory car analogy
on
P.I.I. In the Sky
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't care who has my SSN, since I have to give it out all the time to pretty much anyone who asks.
The only PII that really matters is my bank account. It is all about following the money, who cares who you are as long as you can pay for whatever it is you want. SSN is almost like a public key.
Just because someone sued and won doesn't mean its right. This little old grandma won a similar lawsuit. There are bad laws on the books, when was the last time you heard about a law being removed from the books?
Fuck Canada and their flappy heads. Its just like that South Park episode where the Canadian government tried to strike... who needs them anyway, lets just kick them off the internets.
the first thing I thought when reading this article was this was a great opportunity for the cops to plant drugs. (Car part not Wi-Fi).
The second thing I thought about was not how to secure my wi-fi but how I could pester the cops with it.
Exactly, let the doctor decide and worry about how to pay for it later. If it is a non-cosmetic procedure and you really do need it the Hospitals and Doctors will always work out some way for you to pay for it, even if your insurance company won't. I have never met a doctor that won't fully pay for a patients care if the patient really needs it.
Although if you have money Hospitals and Doctors will take as much of it as they can. If you pull up in a Hummer and ask the doctor to save your life your bill is going to more than the cost of the Hummer, if you pull up in a rusted out ford pinto you probably won't pay a dime.
Other than the rants against Capitalism, this was a great post. However you to are "misinformed" at least in your view of Capitalism and Capitalists.
Capitalism is the best method for distributing limited resources.
Never before in the history of the world has there been an infinite resource. In order for socialism or communism to work you need an infinite resource, which outside the digital world will never exist, however it does exist when it comes to digital goods.
There is still the cost to power the infrastructure housing the infinite resource and the resources used to house it. Who gets the equipment to view it is still best distributed via Capitalism, however onces the minimum threshold to view such data is reached all should have equal access.
The current model is broken and is in serious need of reform.
I listen to two hours of NPR almost every day. To hell with music stations, online and off; they just support the tyrant. We need some consumer rights in copyrights; fair use needs to be expanded. Artists need protection from businesses, not fans.
If you are worried about ocean levels rising due to melting ice, yet the southern pole is increasing ice, no matter the cause, sea levels should not rise.
I'm not part of the "Global Warming is a Hoax" crowd, however creating bad legislation and justifying it because of something we don't have control over is bad policy. The Cap and Trade bill is an example of a bad bill aimed to combat global warming; but does nothing to combat two of the biggest contributors (China and India).
Yes, I did selectively chose studies to confirm my position, isn't that part of a debate? I saw and read the parents article and searched for a counter position. In the 4 min it took me to reply that is the best research I could find. If it was my job I'd look for better and more recent research in the field.
I'm in favor of taxing coal and oil directly to create cost parity for alternative energy. I am not in favor of subsidizing alternative energy. I don't even think the taxes collected on coal and gas should be used for energy related projects (except the possibility of improving infrastructure); but instead it could be used to pay down state and national debts or any other "need" the government has.
Meanwhile, Homeland Security has been promoting broad use of RFID even though its own advisory committee on data integrity and privacy warned that radio-tagged IDs have the potential to allow "widespread surveillance of individuals" without their knowledge or consent.
This is not a bug, its a feature.
Not only that, it was part of the design requirements.
Where is a mod point when you need one.
This is exactly correct and why we have fcc laws banning taboo words is beyond me.
An exclamation, even Jesus Christ, God Damn, or any of the other Christian taboo's are not biblically forbidden. What the Bible speaks against is the Cursing and Swearing that the parent mentions. Saying Jesus Fucking Christ isn't a sin, swearing to tell the truth in a courtroom is, because you are defaming God by invoking his name. I think also the only way that it would be wrong would be to say "by Yahweh", I don't think "the Lord" or "by God" was technically forbidden either. And you really needed to be a Pharisee to call someone on it.
Saying a taboo word in polite company. I like that; I believe that is how I'll explain it to my kids.
Nice +5 Interesting. I don't laugh much however reading: It's like whenever I hear the phrase "no new taxes on anyone making under $250k." I just curse loudly enough to make my dogs leave the room, and I feel 1% better. Gave me a good chuckle and made me feel much better.
I think what is at issue here is that it is a 16 year old girl and many american's are going to jail for looking at 17 year old girls that way. If she was 18 then the president can look at her all he wants, but because shes 16 he now must register as a sex offender.
Of note and I haven't seen anyone mention this yet:
If you make bootleg copies and sell it; you're in violation of copyright and are prosecutable. As it should be!
If you are a business and put it in your advertisement; you're in violation of copyright and are prosecutable. As it should be!
If you make a derivative work and sell it for profit; you're in violation of the copyright and are prosecutable. As it should be!
What this allows is for you to share your music with your family, which in the US is illegal. You can also make a mixed tape for your girlfriend, which in the US is illegal. If you buy a song on itunes and like it and want your friends to hear it you can email it to them or host it on your website and mail your friends a link; which in the US is illegal.
Copyright law in the US is wrong. We need strong copyrights, but with some sense.
We also need a new word for "making a digital copy of a work depriving the copyright holder of only opportunity cost and nothing else"; because that isn't stealing, it isn't pirating, and its not even what copyright law was created for. Copyrights were created so that when some unknown singer came up with a song and some famous or other singer later claimed it as there own; the original artist would have some legal recourse to get the fame and money that was due them. The RIAA's interpretation of copyright is wrong and should be illegal. Copyrights are to protect artists from other artists and other business PROFITING from their work; not from the public/consumers. If there is no money involved there is no violation of copyright in principle and that is how the law should be changed.
An example: We can track what video is being seen on YouTube. If there is an ad on that page and someone clicks the ad generating revenue for YouTube, the owner of the copyright of the video being shown is entitled to a portion of that revenue. If there is no revenue being generated then the copyright holder isn't being deprived of anything; instead they are getting free advertising for their future works. It is up to the copyright holder to figure out how best to make money off of their creation. No one else is allowed to claim their work as their own or profit from their work without giving them a kickback agreed to by the copyright owner. But there is nothing morally wrong with free distribution. It may currently be illegal, but the law is wrong, not the people.
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like a great product idea. The submitter says that he has the data backed up remotely, so he doesn't mind if the hard drive is trashed. Why not make a disposable hard drive? One that can be "booby trapped" similar to what the parent suggests, however it could be contained inside the hard drive. So you have a hard drive that is manufactured to be completely sealed and if the security is breached an acid wash destroys the platters inside the hard drive without destroying the laptop itself (or at least its case). All you would need to do to fix it is replace the hard drive with a new one restored or ghosted from the remote backup.
I don't care who has my SSN, since I have to give it out all the time to pretty much anyone who asks.
The only PII that really matters is my bank account. It is all about following the money, who cares who you are as long as you can pay for whatever it is you want. SSN is almost like a public key.
Its not a catch 22 its a "fuck-em-all". If you don't want to play by our rules, we'll ban IPs from your country.
At least thats what they should do...
Just because someone sued and won doesn't mean its right. This little old grandma won a similar lawsuit. There are bad laws on the books, when was the last time you heard about a law being removed from the books?
Sounds like a giant game of whack-a-mole to me.
Fuck Canada and their flappy heads. Its just like that South Park episode where the Canadian government tried to strike... who needs them anyway, lets just kick them off the internets.
If the Mythbusters team can beat it (as Grant did in Episode 93) then who can't?
the first thing I thought when reading this article was this was a great opportunity for the cops to plant drugs. (Car part not Wi-Fi).
The second thing I thought about was not how to secure my wi-fi but how I could pester the cops with it.
Digital distribution will take over when all 6 billion people on the planet get 10Gb/s for free.
Exactly, let the doctor decide and worry about how to pay for it later. If it is a non-cosmetic procedure and you really do need it the Hospitals and Doctors will always work out some way for you to pay for it, even if your insurance company won't. I have never met a doctor that won't fully pay for a patients care if the patient really needs it.
Although if you have money Hospitals and Doctors will take as much of it as they can. If you pull up in a Hummer and ask the doctor to save your life your bill is going to more than the cost of the Hummer, if you pull up in a rusted out ford pinto you probably won't pay a dime.
Other than the rants against Capitalism, this was a great post. However you to are "misinformed" at least in your view of Capitalism and Capitalists.
Capitalism is the best method for distributing limited resources.
Never before in the history of the world has there been an infinite resource. In order for socialism or communism to work you need an infinite resource, which outside the digital world will never exist, however it does exist when it comes to digital goods.
There is still the cost to power the infrastructure housing the infinite resource and the resources used to house it. Who gets the equipment to view it is still best distributed via Capitalism, however onces the minimum threshold to view such data is reached all should have equal access.
The current model is broken and is in serious need of reform.
This case is Fraud.
Spreading FUD would be Slander/Defamation.
It is Fraud.
Who cares. I've seen them, so you can take them down now.
Plates 8, 9, and 10 are clearly vagina. Just like all Georgia O'Keeffe paintings as well.
Plates 3 and 4 are of boobs.
I listen to two hours of NPR almost every day. To hell with music stations, online and off; they just support the tyrant. We need some consumer rights in copyrights; fair use needs to be expanded. Artists need protection from businesses, not fans.
I point you to Idle Hands and what we can expect when people start hacking limbs.
FYI- Some great shots of Jessica Alba...
I'm pretty sure those are supposed to be TB and not GB.
If you are worried about ocean levels rising due to melting ice, yet the southern pole is increasing ice, no matter the cause, sea levels should not rise.
I'm not part of the "Global Warming is a Hoax" crowd, however creating bad legislation and justifying it because of something we don't have control over is bad policy. The Cap and Trade bill is an example of a bad bill aimed to combat global warming; but does nothing to combat two of the biggest contributors (China and India).
Yes, I did selectively chose studies to confirm my position, isn't that part of a debate? I saw and read the parents article and searched for a counter position. In the 4 min it took me to reply that is the best research I could find. If it was my job I'd look for better and more recent research in the field.
I'm in favor of taxing coal and oil directly to create cost parity for alternative energy. I am not in favor of subsidizing alternative energy. I don't even think the taxes collected on coal and gas should be used for energy related projects (except the possibility of improving infrastructure); but instead it could be used to pay down state and national debts or any other "need" the government has.
Meanwhile, Homeland Security has been promoting broad use of RFID even though its own advisory committee on data integrity and privacy warned that radio-tagged IDs have the potential to allow "widespread surveillance of individuals" without their knowledge or consent.
This is not a bug, its a feature.
Not only that, it was part of the design requirements.
Where is a mod point when you need one.
This is exactly correct and why we have fcc laws banning taboo words is beyond me.
An exclamation, even Jesus Christ, God Damn, or any of the other Christian taboo's are not biblically forbidden. What the Bible speaks against is the Cursing and Swearing that the parent mentions. Saying Jesus Fucking Christ isn't a sin, swearing to tell the truth in a courtroom is, because you are defaming God by invoking his name. I think also the only way that it would be wrong would be to say "by Yahweh", I don't think "the Lord" or "by God" was technically forbidden either. And you really needed to be a Pharisee to call someone on it.
Saying a taboo word in polite company. I like that; I believe that is how I'll explain it to my kids.
Nice +5 Interesting. I don't laugh much however reading: It's like whenever I hear the phrase "no new taxes on anyone making under $250k." I just curse loudly enough to make my dogs leave the room, and I feel 1% better. Gave me a good chuckle and made me feel much better.
I think what is at issue here is that it is a 16 year old girl and many american's are going to jail for looking at 17 year old girls that way. If she was 18 then the president can look at her all he wants, but because shes 16 he now must register as a sex offender.
Of note and I haven't seen anyone mention this yet:
If you make bootleg copies and sell it; you're in violation of copyright and are prosecutable. As it should be!
If you are a business and put it in your advertisement; you're in violation of copyright and are prosecutable. As it should be!
If you make a derivative work and sell it for profit; you're in violation of the copyright and are prosecutable. As it should be!
What this allows is for you to share your music with your family, which in the US is illegal. You can also make a mixed tape for your girlfriend, which in the US is illegal. If you buy a song on itunes and like it and want your friends to hear it you can email it to them or host it on your website and mail your friends a link; which in the US is illegal.
Copyright law in the US is wrong. We need strong copyrights, but with some sense.
We also need a new word for "making a digital copy of a work depriving the copyright holder of only opportunity cost and nothing else"; because that isn't stealing, it isn't pirating, and its not even what copyright law was created for. Copyrights were created so that when some unknown singer came up with a song and some famous or other singer later claimed it as there own; the original artist would have some legal recourse to get the fame and money that was due them. The RIAA's interpretation of copyright is wrong and should be illegal. Copyrights are to protect artists from other artists and other business PROFITING from their work; not from the public/consumers. If there is no money involved there is no violation of copyright in principle and that is how the law should be changed.
An example: We can track what video is being seen on YouTube. If there is an ad on that page and someone clicks the ad generating revenue for YouTube, the owner of the copyright of the video being shown is entitled to a portion of that revenue. If there is no revenue being generated then the copyright holder isn't being deprived of anything; instead they are getting free advertising for their future works. It is up to the copyright holder to figure out how best to make money off of their creation. No one else is allowed to claim their work as their own or profit from their work without giving them a kickback agreed to by the copyright owner. But there is nothing morally wrong with free distribution. It may currently be illegal, but the law is wrong, not the people.
Under what law or jurisdiction are they prosecuting these crimes under? Does that mean that it is illegal to go to Vegas?