But how would you know whether I was giving accurate information or just the half-thought-through ancdotal silliness that gets modded up as insightful or informative.
Epistemological roadblocks aside, it's called "trust" - the reader decides how much of it they want to lend you, based on their ability to understand your thought process, and who you are.
It's generally the tone of the song, which contrasts with the depressive mood of the nation. Although I doubt CC thought of it, it's also the fact that "What a Wonderful World" was also the song in the main death scene in Twelve Monkeys.
It's either theory, or practice - there is little middle ground. Practice can "descend" (concretely) from theory, and theory from established practice, but I think this statement sums it up most cohesively.
Grip is basically cdparanoia and an encoder. Turn off the aggressive error correction in Grip's ripping preferences (they are enabled by default) and it rips much faster.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in automotive accident liability, either - I've always wondered what precedent got started that made my family responsible for getting crippled in an accident that wasn't our fault. Se la vie.
In short, EULA's needs to look a lot less like an intellectual property gang-bang.
I don't think you can draw a line that well in software liability - most consumer software is too interwoven to make it easy to separate critical from non-critical components. Safety and security cost time and money that most companies don't have (but Microsoft certainly does, and has chosen to spend neither). My employer is more worried about safety than security, but I work in the embedded market:\.
Bruce Schneier sketched out the basics of what software security insurance would look like in Secrets and Lies. It's very much like medical malpractice - if a company can prove that they follow best practices they would be rewarded with a lower premium, better deductible. It would be intrusive as hell, and I don't want to even start on the idea of how rampant corruption would be - but the possibility that large software companies (read: Microsoft) might pony up the dough (or get rampantly screwed) makes it an entertaining notion.
I don't think the EULA is the answer for software liability - the standard shareware or GNU application liability disclaimer covers all the liability bases in less than a page. I don't have a problem with software disclaiming liability when there is no commercial contract at stake - but when commercial products have been exchanged between two parties in good faith, this should be reflected in the EULA. Most EULA's are just too long, and ask too much of the consumer - they need to be made shorter, more understandable, and convey the information of what they are asking in less space - consumers should not require a legal team to decipher them.
IANAL, but IME, every party in a two-car accident is (at least) 10% liable, since the accident would not have happened without their collective presence. Liability can never be reduced below that level - I don't know how that works outside of automotive accidents, though.
You can't legislate liability for security problems without (unintentionally, at best) spinning off a security insurance collective ("malpractice insurance" for software). If you believe this is a good idea (I'd like to, Bruce Schneier does), more power to you. Security is a nasty, difficult business - whether insurance would help depends on how it's implemented.
Disclaiming liability for software failure is standard industry practice outside of the embedded market - in the embedded market (for example) automated control, medical, aeronautic, and automotive software have regulatory agencies to report to. A general software regulatory agency could easily become the lagest (and most widely abused) government agency in any country.
The ex post facto nature of a law for enforcing security liability (as you seem to want) will ensure that the major of OS and desktop suites will only become clunkier and less likely to be prosecuted. They lack traceability of codebase changes through history, and instrumentation to determine the source of a failure in the wild. Even if they baselined today, development would slow to a crawl to comply with regulations on change control, and performance would suffer from in-line instrumentation to detect faults.
<UltimateMetroid> who here plays metroid? <Daishi> I only play it cause you gotta know samus is hot under that suit <UltimateMetroid> fag <Daishi> dumbass
We have a combination tumble-table/autoclave at work that is affectionately referred to as "the shake-n-bake". This story is only giving me ideas . . .
I won't be satisfied until voting machines are subjected to the same safety criteria as automotive or aerospace software (e.g. FAA's DO178B). This means clear requirements, traceability from requirements to implementation, formal verification by third parties, and an audit trail. Infrastructure already exists for this purpose - the FAA could take this on with little difficulty.
I thought our government was a bureaucracy - why didn't they think of this first?
Since the employees are tech-savvy enough to answer questions about the programs in advance, what if only the employees operate the machine for the entire store. The business problem is inventory - the consumer problem is finding rare/cost-effective titles. Keep a bunch of empty CD cases with the cover art for all the available titles up front for the customers to gawk at and take slips from in order to buy (a la Toys R Us); replenish stock with the machine in the back. Alternatives abound, since almost every electronics store already has a shrink-wrap machine, and affixing theft-proofing tags is easy to do. If there's a run on a game, a customer can wait hours instead of days to get a copy. Combine with previous ideas on stocking glossy manuals for extra in a backroom, or POD cases/cover art. Price is down for everybody involved.
Then businesses get the impulse buy of people who say "Ooh! Abe's Odyssey" combined with the much-improved distribution overhead. CD copiers/printers are almost cheap enough nowadays to make it work - if you can queue up CD printing for overnight, come next morning you're ready to re-stock.
They were better when he was working with Helaman Ferguson (who is a world-class artist who has made a career out of mathematical structures and sculptures) - at least they didn't cave in on themselves as much.
Slashdot Mirror
But how would you know whether I was giving accurate information or just the half-thought-through ancdotal silliness that gets modded up as insightful or informative.
Epistemological roadblocks aside, it's called "trust" - the reader decides how much of it they want to lend you, based on their ability to understand your thought process, and who you are.
It's generally the tone of the song, which contrasts with the depressive mood of the nation. Although I doubt CC thought of it, it's also the fact that "What a Wonderful World" was also the song in the main death scene in Twelve Monkeys.
Except that we have no basis but your word to take your statement on, so you're not right until you can show it in some way.
Has this ever happened to you?
Information wants you to give me a dollar.
It's either theory, or practice - there is little middle ground. Practice can "descend" (concretely) from theory, and theory from established practice, but I think this statement sums it up most cohesively.
Here's my problem:
Statement 1: "Apparently with $200 worth of sound equipment and software, these keyboard clicks can be translated to within 80% accuracy."
Statement 2: "Of course, a whole lot of this is just theory."
My Statement: No, only one of those statements can be true
Grip is basically cdparanoia and an encoder. Turn off the aggressive error correction in Grip's ripping preferences (they are enabled by default) and it rips much faster.
Like, you know, foxen ;-)
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense in automotive accident liability, either - I've always wondered what precedent got started that made my family responsible for getting crippled in an accident that wasn't our fault. Se la vie.
In short, EULA's needs to look a lot less like an intellectual property gang-bang.
I don't think you can draw a line that well in software liability - most consumer software is too interwoven to make it easy to separate critical from non-critical components. Safety and security cost time and money that most companies don't have (but Microsoft certainly does, and has chosen to spend neither). My employer is more worried about safety than security, but I work in the embedded market :\.
Bruce Schneier sketched out the basics of what software security insurance would look like in Secrets and Lies. It's very much like medical malpractice - if a company can prove that they follow best practices they would be rewarded with a lower premium, better deductible. It would be intrusive as hell, and I don't want to even start on the idea of how rampant corruption would be - but the possibility that large software companies (read: Microsoft) might pony up the dough (or get rampantly screwed) makes it an entertaining notion.
I don't think the EULA is the answer for software liability - the standard shareware or GNU application liability disclaimer covers all the liability bases in less than a page. I don't have a problem with software disclaiming liability when there is no commercial contract at stake - but when commercial products have been exchanged between two parties in good faith, this should be reflected in the EULA. Most EULA's are just too long, and ask too much of the consumer - they need to be made shorter, more understandable, and convey the information of what they are asking in less space - consumers should not require a legal team to decipher them.
IANAL, but IME, every party in a two-car accident is (at least) 10% liable, since the accident would not have happened without their collective presence. Liability can never be reduced below that level - I don't know how that works outside of automotive accidents, though.
You can't legislate liability for security problems without (unintentionally, at best) spinning off a security insurance collective ("malpractice insurance" for software). If you believe this is a good idea (I'd like to, Bruce Schneier does), more power to you. Security is a nasty, difficult business - whether insurance would help depends on how it's implemented.
Disclaiming liability for software failure is standard industry practice outside of the embedded market - in the embedded market (for example) automated control, medical, aeronautic, and automotive software have regulatory agencies to report to. A general software regulatory agency could easily become the lagest (and most widely abused) government agency in any country.
The ex post facto nature of a law for enforcing security liability (as you seem to want) will ensure that the major of OS and desktop suites will only become clunkier and less likely to be prosecuted. They lack traceability of codebase changes through history, and instrumentation to determine the source of a failure in the wild. Even if they baselined today, development would slow to a crawl to comply with regulations on change control, and performance would suffer from in-line instrumentation to detect faults.
We have a combination tumble-table/autoclave at work that is affectionately referred to as "the shake-n-bake". This story is only giving me ideas . . .
I won't be satisfied until voting machines are subjected to the same safety criteria as automotive or aerospace software (e.g. FAA's DO178B). This means clear requirements, traceability from requirements to implementation, formal verification by third parties, and an audit trail. Infrastructure already exists for this purpose - the FAA could take this on with little difficulty.
I thought our government was a bureaucracy - why didn't they think of this first?
Stage Manager: But Mr. Woo! There aren't any doves on Zebes!
John Woo: They're compulsory, damnit! How else will people know I directed the movie?
When benefits run out, rinse and repeat.
There are now caps in the U.S. on how much unemployment you can claim over the full course of your life for just this reason.
Since the employees are tech-savvy enough to answer questions about the programs in advance, what if only the employees operate the machine for the entire store. The business problem is inventory - the consumer problem is finding rare/cost-effective titles. Keep a bunch of empty CD cases with the cover art for all the available titles up front for the customers to gawk at and take slips from in order to buy (a la Toys R Us); replenish stock with the machine in the back. Alternatives abound, since almost every electronics store already has a shrink-wrap machine, and affixing theft-proofing tags is easy to do. If there's a run on a game, a customer can wait hours instead of days to get a copy. Combine with previous ideas on stocking glossy manuals for extra in a backroom, or POD cases/cover art. Price is down for everybody involved.
Then businesses get the impulse buy of people who say "Ooh! Abe's Odyssey" combined with the much-improved distribution overhead. CD copiers/printers are almost cheap enough nowadays to make it work - if you can queue up CD printing for overnight, come next morning you're ready to re-stock.
To clarify Monsignor AC, his wife is Joan Hutchinson. Elsewise, I'd be forced to agree with most of Monsignor AC's statements.
Longhorn Killing, Gutting, and Dressing Still a Dream.
(Make a ridiculous post, get a ridiculous reply!)
Invisible Robot Fish!
They were better when he was working with Helaman Ferguson (who is a world-class artist who has made a career out of mathematical structures and sculptures) - at least they didn't cave in on themselves as much.
He was my first year advisor. The man wreaks of geek.
Stan Wagon, the inventor of the bike, has been quoted (in Ripley's Believe It or Not, I believe) as saying "it would make a good pothole bike".
Really, the worst part of being a math student at Mac was hearing about the square-wheeled bike . . . every . . . single . . . day . . .