Do you know what your cookies would cost after you lost the class-action lawsuit and paid damages to all your ex-customers?
"What you are saying is, if someone hacks in and steals that text file with credit card numbers, the store owner would be at fault?"
HELL YES. If you do something as stupid as putting credit card numbers in a text file with no security, you shouldn't be allowed to have those numbers.
Any transaction implies that the users information will be held in confident. If you hand your friend your wallet and ask him to hold on to it while you run into the restroom, wouldn't it be frustrating to come back and see him standing there, wallet on the table next to him, while he has his eyes closed, ears plugged, and sings "lah lah lah"? 50 years ago or not, that's neglecting your JOB, namely securing the individuals belongings.
YES, criminals are responsible for their actions. YES, it would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to protect ourselves. But in a world where we both have to protect ourselves and have the knowledge and capacity in most cases to do so, we have an OBLIGATION to be smart, ESPECIALLY when handling other people's valuable property.
No, you shouldn't be held guilty of theft. You SHOULD be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if you caused someone loss by neglecting to secure their property.
The mentality you are advocating is like saying "We shouldn't repair bridges. In an ideal world, there would be no entropy and no decay and bridges would just stand there, invincible. Since that's the way it should be, we'll pretend that's the way it IS. Therefore, if a bridge falls down, it's gravity's fault. Don't look at us just because we didn't run out there with some duct tape when the pavement started to form ravines.
It's just plain stupid to say what you are saying.
That's not "much less." It's also very much worth pointing out that homicide rate isn't necessarily an accurate index of crime as a whole, and chances are the statistics mentioned don't take into account all sorts of things completely unrelated to the moral state of man that would boost the statistics.
Yes, it's bad to rob a store. It's also foolish to leave a store undefended against robbery, and you are responsible if you lose other people's property because of your failure to take appropriate measures against a known threat. Just like if you lost their stuff or exposed it to corrosive materials on accident. You aren't responsible for the robbery, but you are responsible for the loss.
Alternatively:
You put something in a safety deposit box at a local company. The building burns down / is robbed / blows up / melts / ceases to exist. You want your something back, right? The company which promised to hold it for you owes it back, right?
Wow. A moment ago I was mocking this, but as a replacement for split-screen, this has REAL potential.
Oh wait, I forgot, consoles suck. Yeah. And Microsoft too.
Long live the PC! Or Mac! Or whatever we're long-living today!
Except that you have to sit in a certain place, you won't have GOOD sound, let alone surround sound, and you're still wasting your time in front of a TV.
Anyway, for the likely price, you could buy three or four LCDs yourself, position them at angles, and marvel at your problem-solving.
The Concorde was a passenger aircraft. The Space Shuttle is, for all intents and purposes, a bleeding-edge experiment (even though it's old). It's certainly different from something that Joe Civilian plunks down a few thousand bucks to ride on from New York to Paris.
Let's not mix apples and oranges, eh?
If it's any comfort, private schools still do this. I attended a private Christian school and we started diagramming in 7th/8th grade. They also started Latin in 5th/6th grade, and a rudimentary study of Latin is an INVALUABLE asset to an understanding of English.
"BTW, the "middle" store recently shut its doors for good, which signals to me the widening gap between rich and poor in this country, but that's another discussion:)"
Well that's a proof if I ever heard one.
When I first watched the Keynote where this OS was shown live, and now looking at the screenshots, I can't help but wonder: Won't these windows be impractical and ugly when maximized? I know I tend to do nearly all of my work in maximized windows, especially web browsing, and I don't think I could take surrendering the top fifth of my screen to some blurry amalgam of my desktop and ten underlying windows, each blurring the next, while the remaining 4/5ths are opaque.
Technology includes high-tech (GPS to monitor delivery trucks progress and check that they did not deviate or stop.), low-tech (steel boxes & locks), social engineering notes (crates stacked up in the warehouses of delivery companies across America are marked: Please Do Not Open Before Midnight), and legal threats (As a final layer of security, booksellers have been forced to sign legal forms acknowledging that if they break the embargo, they will never again be supplied with a book by Scholastic).
Finally, Rowling has devised a truly innovative "DRM" technique which she calls "Quality-retrograded Mercantile Adjustment," in which the books are (apparently deliberately) written poorly so as to discourage theft. So far, the technique seems to have backfired.
In Japan for a decade? Hell, the civilized world's armies have had these in MREs since the dawn of time!
(Nevermine the inherent contradictions in "civilized armies," "armies since the dawn of time," "MREs since the dawn of time," "civilized armies," etc. It's still all true, I promise.)
There's a distinction you have to make among SUVs. Sure, a Lexus SUV or just about any smallish SUV designed for city-use would probably spontaneously explode if you took it off-road, and the owners would in most case be better off with a Minivan. However, the same cannot be said of large SUVs -- really the form factor the vehicle was designed for.
They're called sport utility vehicles for a reason: You've got the "sport" (off-roading, which just about any large SUV could do some share of, though they aren't designed with it in mind anymore; some small/medium SUVs (Jeeps, Land Rovers) excel here too. Then you've got the "utility"; no way a Buick or a minivan or even a full-sized van could tow my family's boat. Our '97 Suburban, on the other hand, can accelerate from 75 up a hill whilst fully loaded with 9 people, a dog, and cargo. Do that with a minivan or a "green" Escape and I'll be sold on the vehicle.
Plus, we can drive the Suburban safely over the passes when it snows, carry 9 people and their skis, and rescue other peoples' cars when they get stuck.
Yeah, we pay a premium in gas and initial cost (the Suburban itself ran about 8000 when we got it two years ago, with ~100,000 miles on it and some cosmetic damage. The insurcance company paid for it as a replacemetn for our '92 suburban, which was on its dying legs when it was stolen from my school's parking lot by unprosecutable juveniles being paid off by a chop-shop.) That premium is more than worth the advantages; 650-mile range on a single tank, huge towing capacity, reasonably good safety features (if you roll a Suburban, you did something quite wrong), huge cargo/passenger capacity, all-weather/all-terrain ability, etc. It's not the same for everyone; when I buy my first car, no chance it'll be an SUV, as I don't have a boat to tow or a family to haul around in snowy mountains. It'll probably a little cheap car with as much gas mileage as I can get without paying more for the car than it saves in the long-run.
(My family also owns a 1969 Jeep CJ-5 (running, still has its original engine), which is a whole different class of vehicle. It has horsepower-- probably couldn't tow our boat, but it has horsepower. However, take that thing off-road and you'll see what it's _really_ built for.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know what your cookies would cost after you lost the class-action lawsuit and paid damages to all your ex-customers?
"What you are saying is, if someone hacks in and steals that text file with credit card numbers, the store owner would be at fault?"
HELL YES. If you do something as stupid as putting credit card numbers in a text file with no security, you shouldn't be allowed to have those numbers.
Any transaction implies that the users information will be held in confident. If you hand your friend your wallet and ask him to hold on to it while you run into the restroom, wouldn't it be frustrating to come back and see him standing there, wallet on the table next to him, while he has his eyes closed, ears plugged, and sings "lah lah lah"? 50 years ago or not, that's neglecting your JOB, namely securing the individuals belongings.
YES, criminals are responsible for their actions. YES, it would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to protect ourselves. But in a world where we both have to protect ourselves and have the knowledge and capacity in most cases to do so, we have an OBLIGATION to be smart, ESPECIALLY when handling other people's valuable property.
No, you shouldn't be held guilty of theft. You SHOULD be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if you caused someone loss by neglecting to secure their property.
The mentality you are advocating is like saying "We shouldn't repair bridges. In an ideal world, there would be no entropy and no decay and bridges would just stand there, invincible. Since that's the way it should be, we'll pretend that's the way it IS. Therefore, if a bridge falls down, it's gravity's fault. Don't look at us just because we didn't run out there with some duct tape when the pavement started to form ravines.
It's just plain stupid to say what you are saying.
That's not "much less." It's also very much worth pointing out that homicide rate isn't necessarily an accurate index of crime as a whole, and chances are the statistics mentioned don't take into account all sorts of things completely unrelated to the moral state of man that would boost the statistics. Yes, it's bad to rob a store. It's also foolish to leave a store undefended against robbery, and you are responsible if you lose other people's property because of your failure to take appropriate measures against a known threat. Just like if you lost their stuff or exposed it to corrosive materials on accident. You aren't responsible for the robbery, but you are responsible for the loss. Alternatively: You put something in a safety deposit box at a local company. The building burns down / is robbed / blows up / melts / ceases to exist. You want your something back, right? The company which promised to hold it for you owes it back, right?
No, duh. The kid's at fault. Didn't you read the grandparent?
Wow. A moment ago I was mocking this, but as a replacement for split-screen, this has REAL potential. Oh wait, I forgot, consoles suck. Yeah. And Microsoft too. Long live the PC! Or Mac! Or whatever we're long-living today!
Except that you have to sit in a certain place, you won't have GOOD sound, let alone surround sound, and you're still wasting your time in front of a TV. Anyway, for the likely price, you could buy three or four LCDs yourself, position them at angles, and marvel at your problem-solving.
The Concorde was a passenger aircraft. The Space Shuttle is, for all intents and purposes, a bleeding-edge experiment (even though it's old). It's certainly different from something that Joe Civilian plunks down a few thousand bucks to ride on from New York to Paris. Let's not mix apples and oranges, eh?
If it's any comfort, private schools still do this. I attended a private Christian school and we started diagramming in 7th/8th grade. They also started Latin in 5th/6th grade, and a rudimentary study of Latin is an INVALUABLE asset to an understanding of English.
What in God's name is the 'chip fag market'?
"BTW, the "middle" store recently shut its doors for good, which signals to me the widening gap between rich and poor in this country, but that's another discussion :)"
Well that's a proof if I ever heard one.
Or why it's left pointing at the shower in the first place.
When I first watched the Keynote where this OS was shown live, and now looking at the screenshots, I can't help but wonder: Won't these windows be impractical and ugly when maximized? I know I tend to do nearly all of my work in maximized windows, especially web browsing, and I don't think I could take surrendering the top fifth of my screen to some blurry amalgam of my desktop and ten underlying windows, each blurring the next, while the remaining 4/5ths are opaque.
Technology includes high-tech (GPS to monitor delivery trucks progress and check that they did not deviate or stop.), low-tech (steel boxes & locks), social engineering notes (crates stacked up in the warehouses of delivery companies across America are marked: Please Do Not Open Before Midnight), and legal threats (As a final layer of security, booksellers have been forced to sign legal forms acknowledging that if they break the embargo, they will never again be supplied with a book by Scholastic).
Finally, Rowling has devised a truly innovative "DRM" technique which she calls "Quality-retrograded Mercantile Adjustment," in which the books are (apparently deliberately) written poorly so as to discourage theft. So far, the technique seems to have backfired.
In Japan for a decade? Hell, the civilized world's armies have had these in MREs since the dawn of time!
(Nevermine the inherent contradictions in "civilized armies," "armies since the dawn of time," "MREs since the dawn of time," "civilized armies," etc. It's still all true, I promise.)
Burnt myself on one of those at the Naval Academy Summer Seminar. Ouch. (... wonder why I didn't get accepted, eh?)
There's a distinction you have to make among SUVs. Sure, a Lexus SUV or just about any smallish SUV designed for city-use would probably spontaneously explode if you took it off-road, and the owners would in most case be better off with a Minivan. However, the same cannot be said of large SUVs -- really the form factor the vehicle was designed for.
They're called sport utility vehicles for a reason: You've got the "sport" (off-roading, which just about any large SUV could do some share of, though they aren't designed with it in mind anymore; some small/medium SUVs (Jeeps, Land Rovers) excel here too. Then you've got the "utility"; no way a Buick or a minivan or even a full-sized van could tow my family's boat. Our '97 Suburban, on the other hand, can accelerate from 75 up a hill whilst fully loaded with 9 people, a dog, and cargo. Do that with a minivan or a "green" Escape and I'll be sold on the vehicle.
Plus, we can drive the Suburban safely over the passes when it snows, carry 9 people and their skis, and rescue other peoples' cars when they get stuck.
Yeah, we pay a premium in gas and initial cost (the Suburban itself ran about 8000 when we got it two years ago, with ~100,000 miles on it and some cosmetic damage. The insurcance company paid for it as a replacemetn for our '92 suburban, which was on its dying legs when it was stolen from my school's parking lot by unprosecutable juveniles being paid off by a chop-shop.) That premium is more than worth the advantages; 650-mile range on a single tank, huge towing capacity, reasonably good safety features (if you roll a Suburban, you did something quite wrong), huge cargo/passenger capacity, all-weather/all-terrain ability, etc. It's not the same for everyone; when I buy my first car, no chance it'll be an SUV, as I don't have a boat to tow or a family to haul around in snowy mountains. It'll probably a little cheap car with as much gas mileage as I can get without paying more for the car than it saves in the long-run.
(My family also owns a 1969 Jeep CJ-5 (running, still has its original engine), which is a whole different class of vehicle. It has horsepower-- probably couldn't tow our boat, but it has horsepower. However, take that thing off-road and you'll see what it's _really_ built for.)