[quote]Of course, the irony is that - once they get paint like this, people will feel overly secure - reduce the more sensible types of encryption - and then leave the loading bay doors open, right next to a wireless repeater, pouring forth their unencrypted secrets.[/quote]
This is government we're talking about. Reducing encryption would require/repealing/ previous mandates -- and the government (ANY government) never likes to do that. They'll just keep piling them on, like layers of... uh, old paint.
I think this goes to support the growing swell of "I'm willing to pay if you're willing to give me what I want". I couldn't quite tell from your post -- does this mean you're willing to steal if not? Or just that you will do without? (Hopefully the latter, as a significant number people choosing to do that and/not/ stealing is the only way to really show the industry that they're wrong.)
I work for an IT organization and we pay a company called Iron Mountain $100's monthly to schlep our boxes and boxes of backup tapes to their offsite storage facility.
You seem to be implying that this is somehow difficult, at least I assume this by the three question marks following "easy to offsite". Personally, I'd rather have a company that is insured and accountable for the safety and preservation of my data -- the company I work for generates a lot of data (billions of transactions every day); attempting to manage those backups ourselves would be an administrative nightmare.
All we need to do is make tapes (automated), label them (automated), and have the backup vendor (we also use Iron Mountain) pick them up a couple times a day. How is this not easy?
Government money doesn't come from the ether, it comes (mostly) from the wealthy. Saying 'you're still paying the other $80' isn't quite correct, since it's more likely you're paying $5 of that $80, and the upper class are paying $75 for you (depending on who 'you' are, of course). You do have a valid point, but that does raise the other issue -- whether you make $500,000 a year, or $25,000 a year, 50% is a lot relative to your income.
If you're going to cause unnecessary danger, which we certainly are when we speed, than at least fucking pay attention. That includes knowing how fast you're going so you know how much distance you'll need to stop or slow down. If you have to look at your speed to calculate your stopping distance, you should probably leave the speeding to those better qualified. When I speed, I know to an exact point how much distance I need to stop at any given time and in any number of different possible circumstances -- and I don't have to look at the speedo to do it.
There are countries outside the US, with public healthcare, and in those countries enormous amounts of money are spend by the government on drugs.
By eliminating patents, the Prices on drugs would be as low as 20% (happens already when after 20 years patent-lifespan competition kicks in).
Also you should notice how little of the Budget is spend on R&D in the Pharma industry. That's an interesting theory -- but all that's really happening is that the time of expenditure is getting shifted. Instead of paying $100 at the pharmacy, you're paying $20 -- but you're still paying the other $80 in taxes. Government money doesn't come from the ether...
Averaging the data of a dozen cars in ten minutes (late at night, low traffic area) will give each car considerably greater weight (and more overall vulnerability to issues like GP posted). Unless there is at least moderate traffic to provide sufficient population, I don't see averaging as a reliable/safe solution.
Except that the programmer might know what they're doing. But I guess we're getting past the point of trusting people more than machines;)
Not that it's wrong to have failsafes in place, and not that XHTML isn't fine without document.write, but this "validity guarantee" argument is a little worrying. That's right up there with saying it's a little worrisome that an invalid cast in a strictly typed language generates a compiler error. After all, can't we trust humans to know what they're doing?
That is such a bad analogy. This is more like two cars of similar class, where one is sold with the windows down, the other up. Of course the one with the windows up can go faster, but any moron can roll up the windows. Correct me if I'm wrong -- you just accused someone of making a bad analogy, then wheeled out the tired old/OS car analogy yourself? Comparing OS's to cars is like... well, it's just as pointless as comparing OS's to cars. Please stop.
Glad I could help. Another useful doc I just found is this page at the FCC, where they also do say that you need to add your cell number to the DNC list (which was actually news to me, as well). Once that's done, and if you're getting calls after 30 days, they provide a number for complaints/violations.
A month after signing up, ALL for-profit telemarketing calls have stopped. The only ones that remain are the not-for-profit-beg-for-money-so-80%-can-go-to-the- telemarketing-company variety. While annoying, it's a lot less than it used to be.
Any sentiment I have that is disparaging towards females is because they insist on attempting to seize control of any and all relationships in which they are involved, be it romantic, just friends, or sexual and for the purpose of reproduction. One way I like to say it, is that they will constantly try to take your balls away from you and if they succeed they will hate you for it. Now this is just a slim possibility, but it/could/ be that the problem lies in your choice of women...
The supply is only infinite if the suppliers wish to make it so. They do not. Stating that "well it should be nothing" not justify stealing it. The fact remains that it is not free, and that is the choice of those who own the rights to it -- not the consumers.
Please don't cite supply and demand when discussing intellectual "property".
The theory of supply and demand was created explicity to deal with situations where the supply is limited. Todays market where coorporations tries to artifically limit supply using different means is nothing more than an abomination that spits right in the face of the words "free market". Artificial limitations are still limitations -- it is still a scarce resource if it's not being produced. Whether it's not being produced because the supplier doesn't wish too or the supplier cannot do so is irrelevant.
Also note that while the free market is the most efficent way to deal with supply and demand issues, it may not always be the best way. I personally am against pure free market on labor, not because it isn't efficent, but because it also has a huge impact on the happiness of society due to the large salary gaps between different people. Treating humans as things without feelings is a fault and downfall of many economic theories. That's a completely separate discussion. I'll say only that I believe that the underlying assumption that all humans have equal potential is flawed -- and that a free market seems to be the only one that recognizes this.
Then simply buy it "anywhere else" and plug it in. You can do that, you know. Doesn't even void your warranty. Easy to do, even on their laptops (the slots are usually accessible underneath the battery or underneath the keyboard.)
There another anti-Mac-troll bashed with truth.
Did I once say that you had to buy it from Apple?::reads his post:: Why no, I didn't. In fact, I specifically mentioned that the same RAM can be purchased cheaper elsewhere. This does not negate the fact that Apple overcharges for RAM. That was the only point under discussion, and it remains valid.
For someone whose sig says to "read my post", you engage in quite a bit of selective reading yourself. I explained in my previous post what that has to do with anything. I don't see a need to do so again.
I don't understand this. Theft is theft. If they went to charge $100.00 per track, that is within their right. It's called supply and demand -- the more people are willing to pay, the more they are willing to supply. If enough people are not willing to pay it, the price will come down. "Enough people being willing to steal it" does not factor into that equation. Your choices as a consumer are: a) buy it or b) don't buy it. Choosing option "c) download it" isn't some political statement, it's just theft.
Another way to look at it. Artist cut when a CD is purchased: $0.12. Probably less, but that's not the point - this is: Artist cut when the tracks are downloaded for free from someone's rip: $0.00 In the name of some petty cause, you justify stealing from the artists. (Not you specifically, but those who argue that they have the "right" to download music for free.)
However, the claim in question -- that there exist artistic works that are not produced because of copyright -- was the only unreasonable claim here that was lacking proof. (Remember, "I can't create a derivative of this copyrighted work" is not an argument -- that work only existed because of copyright.) I've covered my bases You did know that in the US and most nations, copyright is automatic? So claiming a causative relationship between copyrights and artistic expression is a rather specious claim.
Slashdot Mirror
[quote]Of course, the irony is that - once they get paint like this, people will feel overly secure - reduce the more sensible types of encryption - and then leave the loading bay doors open, right next to a wireless repeater, pouring forth their unencrypted secrets.[/quote] This is government we're talking about. Reducing encryption would require /repealing/ previous mandates -- and the government (ANY government) never likes to do that. They'll just keep piling them on, like layers of ... uh, old paint.
I work for an IT organization and we pay a company called Iron Mountain $100's monthly to schlep our boxes and boxes of backup tapes to their offsite storage facility.
You seem to be implying that this is somehow difficult, at least I assume this by the three question marks following "easy to offsite". Personally, I'd rather have a company that is insured and accountable for the safety and preservation of my data -- the company I work for generates a lot of data (billions of transactions every day); attempting to manage those backups ourselves would be an administrative nightmare.All we need to do is make tapes (automated), label them (automated), and have the backup vendor (we also use Iron Mountain) pick them up a couple times a day. How is this not easy?
You do have a valid point, but that does raise the other issue -- whether you make $500,000 a year, or $25,000 a year, 50% is a lot relative to your income.
Try again when you can manage quad-core on a single photon -- we're only interested in serious computing power here..
Averaging the data of a dozen cars in ten minutes (late at night, low traffic area) will give each car considerably greater weight (and more overall vulnerability to issues like GP posted). Unless there is at least moderate traffic to provide sufficient population, I don't see averaging as a reliable/safe solution.
Yeah, because that's been so effective 'til now."some common freaking sense or a chauffeur!"
A month after signing up, ALL for-profit telemarketing calls have stopped. The only ones that remain are the not-for-profit-beg-for-money-so-80%-can-go-to-the- telemarketing-company variety. While annoying, it's a lot less than it used to be.
If they're calling your cell phone, that's against the law.
That's hilarious, thanks for the chuckle.
The supply is only infinite if the suppliers wish to make it so. They do not. Stating that "well it should be nothing" not justify stealing it. The fact remains that it is not free, and that is the choice of those who own the rights to it -- not the consumers.
The theory of supply and demand was created explicity to deal with situations where the supply is limited. Todays market where coorporations tries to artifically limit supply using different means is nothing more than an abomination that spits right in the face of the words "free market".
Artificial limitations are still limitations -- it is still a scarce resource if it's not being produced. Whether it's not being produced because the supplier doesn't wish too or the supplier cannot do so is irrelevant. Also note that while the free market is the most efficent way to deal with supply and demand issues, it may not always be the best way. I personally am against pure free market on labor, not because it isn't efficent, but because it also has a huge impact on the happiness of society due to the large salary gaps between different people. Treating humans as things without feelings is a fault and downfall of many economic theories. That's a completely separate discussion. I'll say only that I believe that the underlying assumption that all humans have equal potential is flawed -- and that a free market seems to be the only one that recognizes this.
There another anti-Mac-troll bashed with truth.
Did I once say that you had to buy it from Apple? ::reads his post:: Why no, I didn't. In fact, I specifically mentioned that the same RAM can be purchased cheaper elsewhere. This does not negate the fact that Apple overcharges for RAM. That was the only point under discussion, and it remains valid.
For someone whose sig says to "read my post", you engage in quite a bit of selective reading yourself. I explained in my previous post what that has to do with anything. I don't see a need to do so again.
Dude, have you priced RAM for a mac? It's 2x-3x as much if you purchase it through Apple. Same memory you can get for 1/3rd the price anywhere else.
I don't understand this. Theft is theft. If they went to charge $100.00 per track, that is within their right. It's called supply and demand -- the more people are willing to pay, the more they are willing to supply. If enough people are not willing to pay it, the price will come down. "Enough people being willing to steal it" does not factor into that equation. Your choices as a consumer are: a) buy it or b) don't buy it. Choosing option "c) download it" isn't some political statement, it's just theft.
Another way to look at it. Artist cut when a CD is purchased: $0.12. Probably less, but that's not the point - this is: Artist cut when the tracks are downloaded for free from someone's rip: $0.00 In the name of some petty cause, you justify stealing from the artists. (Not you specifically, but those who argue that they have the "right" to download music for free.)