The problem is that some people just don't get it. They don't take the time to look at this universe in awe and wonder and simply don't care about being able to see the Milky Way at night. They're not bad people. They're just ignorant.
If you live in a smaller town and even suggest the concept of "light pollution", people look at you and assume you are some sort of left-leaning-environmental-wacko. It doesn't matter how conservative your politics are--some people hear you discuss "light pollution" and they lump you into the same camp as all of the "tree huggers", "greens", "liberals", "communists", or whatever other groups they hold as "the enemy". I've even advocated just going a few nights a year without lights, coinciding with various meteor showers. Again, I must be a "nut job". After all, there's "no such thing as light pollution".
Of course, it doesn't help if you live in a town that is home to a major manufacturer of lighting components for public spaces and industry, either. Then such "light pollution" comments are viewed as attacks on the town's economy, too.
Hmmm...I've been kicking up dust on this planet for a good long while now, and have used "rig" regularly any time I'm referring to something that is a complete configuration or package:
fishing (rod, reel, tackle)
specific fishing tackle conifigurations
Lindy rig
Texax rig
Carolina rig
a bike (rims, wheels, fenders, rack, paniers, lights)
an outdoor dumbwaiter for a treehouse (box, pulleys, rope)
sailing (masts, lines, sails, winches)
The word isn't as narrow as I think you'd like it to be.
Not knowinig the jurisdiction in which you reside, I don't know the details of your tax burden. The Feds collect about 8.5% (simplified and not looking at limits, if memory serves) for Social Security and Medicare (and your employer pays another portion, unless you are self-employed in which case you pay it all). I don't know if you included your property taxes in your "nearly 20 cents out of every dollar I earn" figure. I don't like the weight of the tax burden more than anyone else (I wish we would go back to taxes on goods and services in international commerce rather than a Federal income tax here in the States, but that's just me), but was just trying to point out that a minimal surcharge for something that is creating requiring additional government spending is a reasonable topic for discussion.
Increase the number of bullets going each way, and the odds would drop (though I cannot vouch for the 1:20 figure presented, it may be possible). Have you even considered how many flights are in the air at any moment? Just spend some time near a major airport and the feasability may seem more plausible.
I know that initial reactions tend to run along the lines of "There's no way they're going to tax my Internet access!", but let's give it some thought for a moment.
The Internet has largely become similar to a public utility or similar public accommodation. [I realize that IANAL and that such terms have specific legal meanings, but allow me to continue to present my case.] While we may not always like it, most jurisdictions have the authority to collect fees, levees, or taxes to support administrative costs associated with certain public accomodations or utilities: there are fees for curb and gutter, lighting, sewer, water, and road maintenance. "Wait", you say, "those are all items owned by the municipality. Municipalities don't own the data cabling or the ISPs (in most cases)." True, but agents of government do collect taxes, fees, and other surcharges pertaining to telecommunications, certain entertainment venues, and who knows how many other things.
In each of those cases (and yes, I acknowledge that many may argue that government does a poor job of what I will describe), the monies collected are used to provide various municipal or government services. In some cases, the collected funds may be used for services or things directly related to the surcharge or fee for which the monies were collected (e.g. curb and gutter improvements), but in other cases the fees are used to support other administrative functions within a municipality (e.g., filing costs, police services, fire services). If a city sees an uptick in citizen consumption of specific services tied to specific activities (e.g., the number of fire calls relating to backyard fire pits), it only makes sense that the fees associated with the activity (e.g., burning permit, residential fire permit) would increase to help defray any increased costs (e.g., adding members to the fire squad, purchasing additional brush-fire mitigation gear).
If, therefore, law enforcement agencies are finding more and more of their resources are being allocated to crimes or investigations that hinge on Internet usage, is it not reasonable for those agents of government to collect some minimal renumeration to defray their costs (e.g., investigators with the appropriate skils, computer forensic technologies)?
I'm not proposing suggesting that such a path is without danger. Logically, however, it does seem reasonable. My biggest concern would be that such government-imposed fees, taxes, and surcharges would grow to the level we see them in general telecommunications, or that they would be revised to be based on throughput used (data transfer volumes) rather than as a flat fee that applies to all users of the service. So, yes, it is a slippery slope, but not one without merit or one to be dismissed without much dialogue.
I'd be in favor of protecting the sites, but not as a means of protecting the evidences and artifacts of the earlier activities of themselves. I believe the real opportunity here would be to inspect and test the area to see if any measurable amounts of dust or other materials have settled on the previous tracks and artifacts. If properly measured, and since our last activity dates on the moon are known, it would provide a very interesting set of data regarding dust and sedimentary movement on the surface of the moon. With micro-gravity and (depending on your view) a trace atmosphere (one that does not well-protect against solar winds and magnetic influences), we could learn much more about the moon. Who knows? Maybe there are faint winds that were not measurable by then-contemporary measurement devices. Perhaps solar wind is able to affect particles on the surface. Our knowledge of the moon is still quite limited.
Not to mention that camera-based controls for the X-box will be subject to environmental interference. No more joking around and jostling your buddy during gameplay. Hope that your younger siblings, dog, or friends don't pass through the camera-controller's area of control. It's a whiz-bang technology, but I think MS has whizzed on their own foot and will bang themselves in the forehead later.
While IANAL, my understanding is that the US legal system bars illegally gained evidence as a protection of civil rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. I agree, morally, that someone is either guilty or not guilty, regardless of the source of the evidence that is used, but our legal system has decided that it does not want to use any such "tainted" evidence. In addition (again if my non-lawyerly understanding is correct), US courts bar any further evidence that may have been discovered as the result of any action taken on illegal evidence. For example, if an illegal wiretap led to a search at a residence that turned up a suspected murder weapon, the search and the weapon are considered "fruit of the forbidden tree" and are barred from evidence if it is proven that the wiretap was conducted illegally.
I, for one, tend to believe that the law-abiding have nothing to hide, so there are times when I abhor our system for letting people off on technicalities. At the same time, I've known people who were falsely accused, and I'm glad they were able to use the legal system to their benefit.
Set up a guest account (without admin rights), then configure a software firewall profile under that account to limit web traffic and other user interaction to a limited set of websites and services. Go ahead and allow access to whichever of the webmail services you trust, decide whether or not to allow ActiveX, and even block access to social networking sites, if desired. Disable AutoRun. If using a Windows box, you can run TweakUI or a similar tool to limit menu options. Once you've limited the machine to your satisfaction, you're ready for the next time you're asked to let them do A, B, or C on your laptop.
Have you even considered that some of us may be using our laptops to take notes?
I'm pursuing my M.A. in Organizational Leadership. Typically, I'm the only one in class with a laptop (at most, I've seen two others in one of my courses). As the instructor is going through his spiel, I'm taking notes using the laptop. I find it makes compiling my assignments and final paper much easier (since I already have many of the key concepts entered electronically). It also allows me to hop online and check into statistics or specific cases cited by the prof during the class, allowing me to engage in discussions at a different (more informed) level, or providing me additional resources for my ongoing assignments.
To top it off, the video doesn't really show anything that exciting or innovative. There have been a number of search services over the years that tried to organize results, and I don't know if any of them are still around (because I never switched to using them).
Microsoft always seems to come up with ideas it believes will enhance the user experience, but their track record in that area is poor. I've been using Office 2007 for over a year now, and I still run into brick walls where it takes me time to find features that were intuitively placed before. Think of headers/footers (that was the first one that caused me grief). In pre-Office 2007 releases, you would "view" a header or footer. In Office 2007, you need to "insert" a header or footer. Thinking of page layouts, the header and footer is already there--there's nothing to insert--so its not intuitive. That's just one example. I hope their categorization system in Bing doesn't try to improve the search experience too much, or they'll simply cement their position as the loss leader in search.
Actually, that's an interesting concept. Each program in its own wrapper, and able to run on any platform that has the right interface. In some ways, a parallel thought to the whole Java-will-be-everything mantra, but something a bit different, too. This could be used atop a BIOS-as-OS model--the BIOSOS would provide the interface to the hardware (regardless of the machine type), and the application wrapper (AW) would simply pass information to the BIOSOS.
I don't know how well it would work on specialized or high-intensive needs (e.g., 3D modeling), but something worth considering...
Though IANAL, their copyright would be on the way they express the search results on the page (the way the content is displayed, ranked, any graphic design elements, etc.). They do not actually have standing to claim copyright on the content that is displayed (e.g., song lyrics, citation from a book), but only the way they display it.
While I am not a lawyer, I am a musician who has spent some time studying parody under copyright law. There is nothing in law that requires a parody artist to compensate the original artist for the music. Wierd Al decided to do get permission from artists proactively, and has gone so far as to not continue with a piece if the artist will not agree. I cannot attest to whether or not money has changed hands when Wierd Al has negotiated with artists.
Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that the law does not require payment for parody, which is considered a form of fair use. Parody does have a legal definition, however. Simply ripping off someone else's tune and re-wording it does not constitute parody.
Marketers...want to reach the largest possible audience and convince them to buy or do something.
I'd make one clarification to your argument:
They're not always after the "largest possible audience". They're after a target audience that is most likely to be influenced to "buy or do something".
Given that environment, it's hard to call it a backup--more like redundancy. If one of their servers failed, they had the other that could have been brought online. It will take them years to rebuild (upload or recreate) most of the content.
The flaw with your comparison to a library is that the library has a finite number of copies, thereby limiting how many others have access to the book at any given time. With a book that is scanned and made available, there's no 1:1 relationship between what is owned by the library and the user who borrows it. If someone checks out a library book and never returns it, they pay fines or are eventually charged the cost to replace the book so that the library may purchase another copy. With the distribution of an electronic file, the downloader has no reason to "return" (delete) the book, so that one purchased copy is now permanently available to everyone who downloads it.
I can understand that argument. I had a car stolen from me once, and received a citation some time later in the mail. Since I had reported the car stolen, it was fairly easy to get it cleared up.
Regardless of how the tracking is done, however, I'd find it inappropriate for the GPS or vehicle location logs alone to be enough evidence for a conviction. As supporting evidence, perhaps, but not as the only evidence. Besides, it should be relatively simple for most persons to claim (and substantiate) that they (as the vehicle owners) were not the only ones driving.
Agreed. Take away the need to chase them. I pitched the paint gun idea to the head of the national police chiefs' association, but he simply thought it amusing.
Besides, I think cops would find shooting the suspect vehicle with a paint gun immensely gratifying.;)
I work in the field. I always picked a shelterd location when there for work--screen to a wall or corner. Client-side firewall on before the card came on, and then an immediate launch of our VPN client, RADIUS authentication with an RSA token... Never a breach (had there been, you would have heard about it in the news).
The library in my hometown (exurban/rural) has very limited hours, so that wasn't an option. Besides, I wanted a triple espresso and a muffin. I could neither get those nor consume those at the library (whether in my current home town, or in the city where I lived previously).
I didn't coin the phrase "road warrior" for business people who remotely connect on a regular basis. I just use the term as used in the vernacular of the day.
I've been in the industry a long time, too, though not as long as your 25 years (I only have 16 to my credit). My former employer had over 1,100 employees and I was (for many years there) responsible for supporting a department of 100 travelers, before I moved to the IT security function. I know the risks, and I know the compensating controls. The point of my post was to counter a stereotype that the majority of those who park at Wi-Fi hotspots are self-centered ego-stroking tech-braggards who want to represent themselves as part of some lifestlye or subculture. My point was that there are those of us who have other reasons for being there aside from surfing the web, and that not all of us take advantage of free Wi-Fi by purchasing the cheapest item on the menu.
In closing, I'm not a road warrior. I'm an IT manager who uses free Wi-Fi when I have a need. From reading articles some years ago as McDonald's planned to pilot Wi-Fi, I remember that "road warriors" were the crowd McDonald's was attempting to target, so that's the audience McDonald's was trying to please--now at the displeasure of some of their franchise owners. Although I'm not hiring security services at the moment, were I in a position to do so, I'd pass you by. There's a fine line between pointing out legitimate risks and belittling those you wish to educate, serve, and support. You crossed that line and there'd be no place for you here.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that some people just don't get it. They don't take the time to look at this universe in awe and wonder and simply don't care about being able to see the Milky Way at night. They're not bad people. They're just ignorant.
If you live in a smaller town and even suggest the concept of "light pollution", people look at you and assume you are some sort of left-leaning-environmental-wacko. It doesn't matter how conservative your politics are--some people hear you discuss "light pollution" and they lump you into the same camp as all of the "tree huggers", "greens", "liberals", "communists", or whatever other groups they hold as "the enemy". I've even advocated just going a few nights a year without lights, coinciding with various meteor showers. Again, I must be a "nut job". After all, there's "no such thing as light pollution".
Of course, it doesn't help if you live in a town that is home to a major manufacturer of lighting components for public spaces and industry, either. Then such "light pollution" comments are viewed as attacks on the town's economy, too.
The word isn't as narrow as I think you'd like it to be.
Not knowinig the jurisdiction in which you reside, I don't know the details of your tax burden. The Feds collect about 8.5% (simplified and not looking at limits, if memory serves) for Social Security and Medicare (and your employer pays another portion, unless you are self-employed in which case you pay it all). I don't know if you included your property taxes in your "nearly 20 cents out of every dollar I earn" figure. I don't like the weight of the tax burden more than anyone else (I wish we would go back to taxes on goods and services in international commerce rather than a Federal income tax here in the States, but that's just me), but was just trying to point out that a minimal surcharge for something that is creating requiring additional government spending is a reasonable topic for discussion.
At least it wasn't my model rocket. I always wondered where it went.
Increase the number of bullets going each way, and the odds would drop (though I cannot vouch for the 1:20 figure presented, it may be possible). Have you even considered how many flights are in the air at any moment? Just spend some time near a major airport and the feasability may seem more plausible.
That would explain the bright flash...
I know that initial reactions tend to run along the lines of "There's no way they're going to tax my Internet access!", but let's give it some thought for a moment.
The Internet has largely become similar to a public utility or similar public accommodation. [I realize that IANAL and that such terms have specific legal meanings, but allow me to continue to present my case.] While we may not always like it, most jurisdictions have the authority to collect fees, levees, or taxes to support administrative costs associated with certain public accomodations or utilities: there are fees for curb and gutter, lighting, sewer, water, and road maintenance. "Wait", you say, "those are all items owned by the municipality. Municipalities don't own the data cabling or the ISPs (in most cases)." True, but agents of government do collect taxes, fees, and other surcharges pertaining to telecommunications, certain entertainment venues, and who knows how many other things.
In each of those cases (and yes, I acknowledge that many may argue that government does a poor job of what I will describe), the monies collected are used to provide various municipal or government services. In some cases, the collected funds may be used for services or things directly related to the surcharge or fee for which the monies were collected (e.g. curb and gutter improvements), but in other cases the fees are used to support other administrative functions within a municipality (e.g., filing costs, police services, fire services). If a city sees an uptick in citizen consumption of specific services tied to specific activities (e.g., the number of fire calls relating to backyard fire pits), it only makes sense that the fees associated with the activity (e.g., burning permit, residential fire permit) would increase to help defray any increased costs (e.g., adding members to the fire squad, purchasing additional brush-fire mitigation gear).
If, therefore, law enforcement agencies are finding more and more of their resources are being allocated to crimes or investigations that hinge on Internet usage, is it not reasonable for those agents of government to collect some minimal renumeration to defray their costs (e.g., investigators with the appropriate skils, computer forensic technologies)?
I'm not proposing suggesting that such a path is without danger. Logically, however, it does seem reasonable. My biggest concern would be that such government-imposed fees, taxes, and surcharges would grow to the level we see them in general telecommunications, or that they would be revised to be based on throughput used (data transfer volumes) rather than as a flat fee that applies to all users of the service. So, yes, it is a slippery slope, but not one without merit or one to be dismissed without much dialogue.
I'd be in favor of protecting the sites, but not as a means of protecting the evidences and artifacts of the earlier activities of themselves. I believe the real opportunity here would be to inspect and test the area to see if any measurable amounts of dust or other materials have settled on the previous tracks and artifacts. If properly measured, and since our last activity dates on the moon are known, it would provide a very interesting set of data regarding dust and sedimentary movement on the surface of the moon. With micro-gravity and (depending on your view) a trace atmosphere (one that does not well-protect against solar winds and magnetic influences), we could learn much more about the moon. Who knows? Maybe there are faint winds that were not measurable by then-contemporary measurement devices. Perhaps solar wind is able to affect particles on the surface. Our knowledge of the moon is still quite limited.
Not to mention that camera-based controls for the X-box will be subject to environmental interference. No more joking around and jostling your buddy during gameplay. Hope that your younger siblings, dog, or friends don't pass through the camera-controller's area of control. It's a whiz-bang technology, but I think MS has whizzed on their own foot and will bang themselves in the forehead later.
LOL...thankfully, I can say that I've done neither!
While IANAL, my understanding is that the US legal system bars illegally gained evidence as a protection of civil rights and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. I agree, morally, that someone is either guilty or not guilty, regardless of the source of the evidence that is used, but our legal system has decided that it does not want to use any such "tainted" evidence. In addition (again if my non-lawyerly understanding is correct), US courts bar any further evidence that may have been discovered as the result of any action taken on illegal evidence. For example, if an illegal wiretap led to a search at a residence that turned up a suspected murder weapon, the search and the weapon are considered "fruit of the forbidden tree" and are barred from evidence if it is proven that the wiretap was conducted illegally.
I, for one, tend to believe that the law-abiding have nothing to hide, so there are times when I abhor our system for letting people off on technicalities. At the same time, I've known people who were falsely accused, and I'm glad they were able to use the legal system to their benefit.
Set up a guest account (without admin rights), then configure a software firewall profile under that account to limit web traffic and other user interaction to a limited set of websites and services. Go ahead and allow access to whichever of the webmail services you trust, decide whether or not to allow ActiveX, and even block access to social networking sites, if desired. Disable AutoRun. If using a Windows box, you can run TweakUI or a similar tool to limit menu options. Once you've limited the machine to your satisfaction, you're ready for the next time you're asked to let them do A, B, or C on your laptop.
Have you even considered that some of us may be using our laptops to take notes?
I'm pursuing my M.A. in Organizational Leadership. Typically, I'm the only one in class with a laptop (at most, I've seen two others in one of my courses). As the instructor is going through his spiel, I'm taking notes using the laptop. I find it makes compiling my assignments and final paper much easier (since I already have many of the key concepts entered electronically). It also allows me to hop online and check into statistics or specific cases cited by the prof during the class, allowing me to engage in discussions at a different (more informed) level, or providing me additional resources for my ongoing assignments.
To top it off, the video doesn't really show anything that exciting or innovative. There have been a number of search services over the years that tried to organize results, and I don't know if any of them are still around (because I never switched to using them).
Microsoft always seems to come up with ideas it believes will enhance the user experience, but their track record in that area is poor. I've been using Office 2007 for over a year now, and I still run into brick walls where it takes me time to find features that were intuitively placed before. Think of headers/footers (that was the first one that caused me grief). In pre-Office 2007 releases, you would "view" a header or footer. In Office 2007, you need to "insert" a header or footer. Thinking of page layouts, the header and footer is already there--there's nothing to insert--so its not intuitive. That's just one example. I hope their categorization system in Bing doesn't try to improve the search experience too much, or they'll simply cement their position as the loss leader in search.
Actually, that's an interesting concept. Each program in its own wrapper, and able to run on any platform that has the right interface. In some ways, a parallel thought to the whole Java-will-be-everything mantra, but something a bit different, too. This could be used atop a BIOS-as-OS model--the BIOSOS would provide the interface to the hardware (regardless of the machine type), and the application wrapper (AW) would simply pass information to the BIOSOS.
I don't know how well it would work on specialized or high-intensive needs (e.g., 3D modeling), but something worth considering...
Which one brings SkyNet online?
Though IANAL, their copyright would be on the way they express the search results on the page (the way the content is displayed, ranked, any graphic design elements, etc.). They do not actually have standing to claim copyright on the content that is displayed (e.g., song lyrics, citation from a book), but only the way they display it.
While I am not a lawyer, I am a musician who has spent some time studying parody under copyright law. There is nothing in law that requires a parody artist to compensate the original artist for the music. Wierd Al decided to do get permission from artists proactively, and has gone so far as to not continue with a piece if the artist will not agree. I cannot attest to whether or not money has changed hands when Wierd Al has negotiated with artists.
Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that the law does not require payment for parody, which is considered a form of fair use. Parody does have a legal definition, however. Simply ripping off someone else's tune and re-wording it does not constitute parody.
I'd make one clarification to your argument:
They're not always after the "largest possible audience". They're after a target audience that is most likely to be influenced to "buy or do something".
Given that environment, it's hard to call it a backup--more like redundancy. If one of their servers failed, they had the other that could have been brought online. It will take them years to rebuild (upload or recreate) most of the content.
The flaw with your comparison to a library is that the library has a finite number of copies, thereby limiting how many others have access to the book at any given time. With a book that is scanned and made available, there's no 1:1 relationship between what is owned by the library and the user who borrows it. If someone checks out a library book and never returns it, they pay fines or are eventually charged the cost to replace the book so that the library may purchase another copy. With the distribution of an electronic file, the downloader has no reason to "return" (delete) the book, so that one purchased copy is now permanently available to everyone who downloads it.
Not to mention that it didn't seem to affect all of their users. Bravo, Google! Bravo, again for restoring services so quickly.
I can understand that argument. I had a car stolen from me once, and received a citation some time later in the mail. Since I had reported the car stolen, it was fairly easy to get it cleared up.
Regardless of how the tracking is done, however, I'd find it inappropriate for the GPS or vehicle location logs alone to be enough evidence for a conviction. As supporting evidence, perhaps, but not as the only evidence. Besides, it should be relatively simple for most persons to claim (and substantiate) that they (as the vehicle owners) were not the only ones driving.
Agreed. Take away the need to chase them. I pitched the paint gun idea to the head of the national police chiefs' association, but he simply thought it amusing.
;)
Besides, I think cops would find shooting the suspect vehicle with a paint gun immensely gratifying.
I work in the field. I always picked a shelterd location when there for work--screen to a wall or corner. Client-side firewall on before the card came on, and then an immediate launch of our VPN client, RADIUS authentication with an RSA token... Never a breach (had there been, you would have heard about it in the news).
The library in my hometown (exurban/rural) has very limited hours, so that wasn't an option. Besides, I wanted a triple espresso and a muffin. I could neither get those nor consume those at the library (whether in my current home town, or in the city where I lived previously).
I didn't coin the phrase "road warrior" for business people who remotely connect on a regular basis. I just use the term as used in the vernacular of the day.
I've been in the industry a long time, too, though not as long as your 25 years (I only have 16 to my credit). My former employer had over 1,100 employees and I was (for many years there) responsible for supporting a department of 100 travelers, before I moved to the IT security function. I know the risks, and I know the compensating controls. The point of my post was to counter a stereotype that the majority of those who park at Wi-Fi hotspots are self-centered ego-stroking tech-braggards who want to represent themselves as part of some lifestlye or subculture. My point was that there are those of us who have other reasons for being there aside from surfing the web, and that not all of us take advantage of free Wi-Fi by purchasing the cheapest item on the menu.
In closing, I'm not a road warrior. I'm an IT manager who uses free Wi-Fi when I have a need. From reading articles some years ago as McDonald's planned to pilot Wi-Fi, I remember that "road warriors" were the crowd McDonald's was attempting to target, so that's the audience McDonald's was trying to please--now at the displeasure of some of their franchise owners. Although I'm not hiring security services at the moment, were I in a position to do so, I'd pass you by. There's a fine line between pointing out legitimate risks and belittling those you wish to educate, serve, and support. You crossed that line and there'd be no place for you here.