If the claim in TFA were true, wouldn't we see lots of manufacturers pushing Linux? If they see pirated software as having a significant effect on demand for their product, they should see free software as having the same effect?
Full disclosure: I've never, TTBOMK, either sent or deliberately aquired any copyrighted work without proper consent. On the one occasion in which my copyrighted work was posted without my consent the poster - who had received a version withgout copyright notice attached - happily complied upon the first request.
Excellent, so you fall under the RIAA's "Senile Grandmother, Deaf-Mute, and the Unborn" clause. Your subpoena is in the mail.
Why does P so readily make the assumption that to make use of the net, you have to steal intellectual property? Has it come to the point that for some people the primary purpose of the net is for theft - and if you aren't stealing you therefore must be in some manner disabled or non-fuctioning?
In other news, German prosecutors annnounced today that they will only be prosecuting auto thefts when more than 200 are committed, and car break-ins when 3000 are committed. "Our goal is to prevent organized crime", said their spokesperson, "we don't care about the occasional junkie or joy-rider."
Ok, I admit that the above paragraph is a bit down the slippery slope, but the point is that the slope exists. This problem should be solved by the legislative branch, not the executive. If the law is faulty, it should be re-written by the legislature, not kluged by the prosecutors. Otherwise we have unelected officials effectively making the law.
[ Full disclosure: I've never, TTBOMK, either sent or deliberately aquired any copyrighted work without proper consent. On the one occasion in which my copyrighted work was posted without my consent the poster - who had received a version withgout copyright notice attached - happily complied upon the first request. ]
It would make a point, but I fear that the reaction would be the opposite of what many of us would like. If we showed holes in the security theater that has been built, stricter measures would be put in place and all travellers would be inconvenienced even more.
I'm actually really surprised that the summary suggests that.
The result would be that most travellers would realize how ineffective and useless the current TSA security is, then things might change for the better. Right now, you can't test them without commiting a crime, and if you do see that they have a weak spot, and speak about it, you have also probably commited a crime. If you photograph them, you have commited a crime. Basically, criticizing the TSA - except for in the vauges of terms - or investigating it has become a crime.
So you need one guy with moderate IT skills, read access to just about everything, and a questionable moral compass. That sounds like an enormous insider security threat to me. Why wouldn't this guy just sell the data to competitors?
Becuse - as mentioned twice now - the guy is given stock options. The way many execs are paid is not just a paycheck, but stock options also. An option is the right to buy/sell a certain number of shares of a certain stock on a certain day for a certain price. In the case of retirement accounts for employees, it is often the right to buy hundreds of thousands or even milions of dollars worth of stock for a nominal dollar or two, during the years or decades following the employee's retirement. Sometimes they are spaced out so that the employee must cash in bit by bit over many years. So if the company is worth a bunch during the employee's retirement, he has a retirement. It is a way of buying loyalty.
If the employee does something that harms the company, he loses money. Lots of it.
On Inspiron 1420s the Nvidia is an option - and was back in early 2007 when I got mine. Unless you specifically paid for the 'better' chip, you got an Intel® GM965 Express chipset, with Graphics Media Accelerator X3100.
So, you advocate a strategy where the IT guys are forced to lie under oath about what discoverable data exists in company archives?
No, not at all. That's the whole point in GP of one guy doing it after hours. Nobody else need know about it. So the IT guys can honestly say that to the best of their knowledge and belief, no, your honor, there are no other backups.
And if some employee does happen to see him doing something at night, and does mention this, he 'admits' to using the company computers for porn. If pressed further on the matter, he ashamedly produces a disk filled with legal porn. "Yes, your honor, I didn't want my wife to know."
And the one guy who does know will not go to the SEC because - as noted in GP - he holds lots of stock options. The point if that is that he burns his reirement fund if he talks.
Note that the board of directors never formally tasks anybody with this. One director - over martinis at the local 19th hole - laments in a private conversation to someone in middle management that the board is troubled: they can't decide if they need to change the email policy because things can go wrong either way. Oh, and BTW, we've added another block of a thousand options to your retirement account because we appreciate your loyalty and dedication.
No surprise. It's the Business section of a newspaper. All the writers are brainwashed into the cult of "maximize returns for the shareholders." Nothing else is allowed to matter.
Have you ever read the New York Times??? They're socialists.
This is not a return-maximizing cult. This is actually the anti-business cult of " From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." And Jobs is not contributing as they think he should, therefore they attack him.
And surely the public/investors in view of a lack of a full disclosure have the right to sack/not elect politicians/CEO's who will not disclose potentially pertinent information about their ability to work in their role.
There is a difference between CEOs and presidents. You can dump your stock any time you want and reinvest in other companies with other CEOs. But you can't call up your broker and say: "Sell all my Bush, buy Obama at 40", and expect to have a new president.
It's not unreasonable in such a litigious society.
In a litigious society, wouldn't it be best to save all of your email, so you can use it to protect yourself in court?
If you're deleting all your email, then the only evidence that will come out in court will be from the people suing you.
Many times the most damning evidence is your own email. ( "Fred, the folks in accounting say that delays in production will cost more than the wrongful death lawsuits. So forget about re-designing the gas tank." ) Your own email can be used to prove things like knowledge and intent, which can greatly increase your liability.
The best way is to have an official policy that email is deleted as soon as is reasonable, probably just a few months. But have an unofficial policy that all email is saved forever. One guy buys disks with cash and makes copies after hours and stores them off site. ( This guy is probably a corporate officer with lots of stock options. )
Then, when you are sued, you can have your lawyer look at the email and decide if it helps your cause or hurts it. If it hurts, you destroy the disks - which is easy since they never officially existed. If it helps, you 'accidentally' find an old disk that someone 'forgot' to destroy.
Researchers have conducting 'taste tests' have found that recipients of grits in their pants preferred having cold grits poured down their pants rather than hot grits.
I forget who said that "an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee." Sure, you can get paranoid about network design and control, and give the job to a committee. But that is going to be really clumsy.
The issue here really is not about size of the design team, it is about vetting the guy who does it. ( The guy who is in charge of the network for my business is someone who I really know and trust. He was best man at my wedding. )
Here is one way to fix the problem: let the Patent Office be heavily penalized for every patent overturned by the courts. If the Office goes bankrupt as a result of its own negligence, too bad, let it die. Congress can always start a new Office with completely different management.
At the moment, the Patent Office is too unaccountable; there is little penalty for doing shoddy work. The threat of bankruptcy might concentrate a few minds over there.
I like this line of thought, but you are way too generous. Why penalize with money? Give each patent examiner a strike when their decisions are over turned. After three strikes, kill them. ( Most would retire after two )
Hmmm...this plan could bring accountability to other governmental agencies too. Imagine every congressperson getting a strike when a law that he/she passed was found to be unconstitutional.
Rather than try to change planets, it may be easier to genetically engineer people who are resistant to sulfuric acid ( or they may evolve naturally in China if nothing is done about their acid rain which is reaching a pH of 3.5 )
[ Please, no jokes about acid-resistant Chinese overlords ]
Slashdot Mirror
That's ok; I don't RTFA anyway.
I organize mine alphabetically by manufacturer. It gives me something to do on the nights that I can't sleep.
But no matter how sleep-deprived I am, I would never submit such drivel to slashdot, nor, were I an editor, would I post it.
If the claim in TFA were true, wouldn't we see lots of manufacturers pushing Linux? If they see pirated software as having a significant effect on demand for their product, they should see free software as having the same effect?
I suspect that they are just indifferent.
Full disclosure: I've never, TTBOMK, either sent or deliberately aquired any copyrighted work without proper consent. On the one occasion in which my copyrighted work was posted without my consent the poster - who had received a version withgout copyright notice attached - happily complied upon the first request.
Excellent, so you fall under the RIAA's "Senile Grandmother, Deaf-Mute, and the Unborn" clause. Your subpoena is in the mail.
Why does P so readily make the assumption that to make use of the net, you have to steal intellectual property?
Has it come to the point that for some people the primary purpose of the net is for theft - and if you aren't stealing you therefore must be in some manner disabled or non-fuctioning?
In other news, German prosecutors annnounced today that they will only be prosecuting auto thefts when more than 200 are committed, and car break-ins when 3000 are committed. "Our goal is to prevent organized crime", said their spokesperson, "we don't care about the occasional junkie or joy-rider."
Ok, I admit that the above paragraph is a bit down the slippery slope, but the point is that the slope exists. This problem should be solved by the legislative branch, not the executive. If the law is faulty, it should be re-written by the legislature, not kluged by the prosecutors. Otherwise we have unelected officials effectively making the law.
[ Full disclosure: I've never, TTBOMK, either sent or deliberately aquired any copyrighted work without proper consent. On the one occasion in which my copyrighted work was posted without my consent the poster - who had received a version withgout copyright notice attached - happily complied upon the first request. ]
Cue the purists saying: "But it is supposed to have hiss. That's part of its character."
I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
That doesn't sound like Franklin. I think it may have been Einstein?
But telling you this is obviously not going to work. :)
Who modded this 'offtopic'? Critiquing the editors is always relevant.
It would make a point, but I fear that the reaction would be the opposite of what many of us would like. If we showed holes in the security theater that has been built, stricter measures would be put in place and all travellers would be inconvenienced even more.
I'm actually really surprised that the summary suggests that.
The result would be that most travellers would realize how ineffective and useless the current TSA security is, then things might change for the better.
Right now, you can't test them without commiting a crime, and if you do see that they have a weak spot, and speak about it, you have also probably commited a crime. If you photograph them, you have commited a crime.
Basically, criticizing the TSA - except for in the vauges of terms - or investigating it has become a crime.
So you need one guy with moderate IT skills, read access to just about everything, and a questionable moral compass. That sounds like an enormous insider security threat to me. Why wouldn't this guy just sell the data to competitors?
Becuse - as mentioned twice now - the guy is given stock options.
The way many execs are paid is not just a paycheck, but stock options also. An option is the right to buy/sell a certain number of shares of a certain stock on a certain day for a certain price. In the case of retirement accounts for employees, it is often the right to buy hundreds of thousands or even milions of dollars worth of stock for a nominal dollar or two, during the years or decades following the employee's retirement. Sometimes they are spaced out so that the employee must cash in bit by bit over many years.
So if the company is worth a bunch during the employee's retirement, he has a retirement. It is a way of buying loyalty.
If the employee does something that harms the company, he loses money. Lots of it.
If you are worried about a specific machine using Ubuntu, click 'system';'preferences';'hardware information'.
On Inspiron 1420s the Nvidia is an option - and was back in early 2007 when I got mine. Unless you specifically paid for the 'better' chip, you got an Intel® GM965 Express chipset, with Graphics Media Accelerator X3100.
Does anyone have a link to a list of laptop models that use these chips?
Don't throw arrows. Be diplomatic.
You're right, that would be ineffective without a bow. Throw spears instead.
No. Throw chairs!
So, you advocate a strategy where the IT guys are forced to lie under oath about what discoverable data exists in company archives?
No, not at all. That's the whole point in GP of one guy doing it after hours. Nobody else need know about it. So the IT guys can honestly say that to the best of their knowledge and belief, no, your honor, there are no other backups.
And if some employee does happen to see him doing something at night, and does mention this, he 'admits' to using the company computers for porn. If pressed further on the matter, he ashamedly produces a disk filled with legal porn. "Yes, your honor, I didn't want my wife to know."
And the one guy who does know will not go to the SEC because - as noted in GP - he holds lots of stock options. The point if that is that he burns his reirement fund if he talks.
Note that the board of directors never formally tasks anybody with this. One director - over martinis at the local 19th hole - laments in a private conversation to someone in middle management that the board is troubled: they can't decide if they need to change the email policy because things can go wrong either way. Oh, and BTW, we've added another block of a thousand options to your retirement account because we appreciate your loyalty and dedication.
Lying to governments is a fine art.
He has a minor speech impediment. BFD.
Yeah. It's called 'stupidity'. It impairs his speech greatly.
No surprise. It's the Business section of a newspaper. All the writers are brainwashed into the cult of "maximize returns for the shareholders." Nothing else is allowed to matter.
Have you ever read the New York Times??? They're socialists.
This is not a return-maximizing cult. This is actually the anti-business cult of " From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." And Jobs is not contributing as they think he should, therefore they attack him.
And surely the public/investors in view of a lack of a full disclosure have the right to sack/not elect politicians/CEO's who will not disclose potentially pertinent information about their ability to work in their role.
There is a difference between CEOs and presidents. You can dump your stock any time you want and reinvest in other companies with other CEOs. But you can't call up your broker and say: "Sell all my Bush, buy Obama at 40", and expect to have a new president.
It's not unreasonable in such a litigious society.
In a litigious society, wouldn't it be best to save all of your email, so you can use it to protect yourself in court?
If you're deleting all your email, then the only evidence that will come out in court will be from the people suing you.
Many times the most damning evidence is your own email. ( "Fred, the folks in accounting say that delays in production will cost more than the wrongful death lawsuits. So forget about re-designing the gas tank." ) Your own email can be used to prove things like knowledge and intent, which can greatly increase your liability.
The best way is to have an official policy that email is deleted as soon as is reasonable, probably just a few months. But have an unofficial policy that all email is saved forever.
One guy buys disks with cash and makes copies after hours and stores them off site. ( This guy is probably a corporate officer with lots of stock options. )
Then, when you are sued, you can have your lawyer look at the email and decide if it helps your cause or hurts it. If it hurts, you destroy the disks - which is easy since they never officially existed. If it helps, you 'accidentally' find an old disk that someone 'forgot' to destroy.
Researchers have conducting 'taste tests' have found that recipients of grits in their pants preferred having cold grits poured down their pants rather than hot grits.
I forget who said that "an elephant is a mouse designed by a committee." Sure, you can get paranoid about network design and control, and give the job to a committee. But that is going to be really clumsy.
The issue here really is not about size of the design team, it is about vetting the guy who does it. ( The guy who is in charge of the network for my business is someone who I really know and trust. He was best man at my wedding. )
A hundred years from now, whether the readers are C or Fe, they will get a feeling of nausea reading about the 'retail prices' of 'humanoids.'
No, because it will be illegal to talk about the robocaust.
Maybe instead of killing them, just get them to look for trolls to mod down on slashdot.
That would be unconstitutional: a violation of the 'cruel and unusual' clause.
Here is one way to fix the problem: let the Patent Office be heavily penalized for every patent overturned by the courts. If the Office goes bankrupt as a result of its own negligence, too bad, let it die. Congress can always start a new Office with completely different management.
At the moment, the Patent Office is too unaccountable; there is little penalty for doing shoddy work. The threat of bankruptcy might concentrate a few minds over there.
I like this line of thought, but you are way too generous. Why penalize with money? Give each patent examiner a strike when their decisions are over turned. After three strikes, kill them. ( Most would retire after two )
Hmmm...this plan could bring accountability to other governmental agencies too. Imagine every congressperson getting a strike when a law that he/she passed was found to be unconstitutional.
Rather than try to change planets, it may be easier to genetically engineer people who are resistant to sulfuric acid ( or they may evolve naturally in China if nothing is done about their acid rain which is reaching a pH of 3.5 )
[ Please, no jokes about acid-resistant Chinese overlords ]