Let me guess, you live in an area where public transit is practical and available. Sell that to the rural poor. Not the ones a few miles out of town, but the ones who need to go 30 miles to a hospital or 15 miles to a supermarket.
There is a lot of territory in the U.S. that is just too sparsely populated to support public transit. Period. Would your solution be to move the poor closer to services? That's been done, my friend. The results are not clearly superior to not doing so.
The poor people who don't live close to public transportation often have cars. Your poor friends are just somewhere they can buy tokens instead of gallons.
"All day long, you can drive up and down Ashland Ave and there will be one Suburban or Nissan Armada or Navigator or some other ridiculously huge vehice with a single person driving all by herself. Those drivers need to pay a higher gas tax to cover the externalities they are forcing the rest of us to pay."
I do. Compared to a Prius driver, I pay about 225% more in gas taxes per mile.
Of course the Prius driver is paying perhaps a 40% of the taxes per mile for road maintenance, and I'm waiting to hear if a Prius causes that much less wear than an Explorer does. Maybe so, maybe not.
So indeed, I do pay a higher tax per mile, and more tax by using more gallons.
"higher fuel taxes to compensate for increased road damages"
Diesel fuel taxes.
You got it right.
And expect gas taxes to increase as MPG increase, since they mostly pay for roads, and cars driving the same number of miles using less gas will need to pay the same taxes. Fewer gallons=more $/gallon.
1. SOPA is so important to U.S. corporate interests that they are exerting enormous pressure on our Legislature.
2. Our Legislature, being so dependent on corporate insider trading, is willing to do their will.
3. Our Executive branch, being utterly bereft of ethical standards, is willing to threaten Spain with actual economic damages for no more reason than to support U.S. corporate interests, which uktimately serve to enrich the Legislature (and other insiders) to the disadvantage of the general population.
4. There are virtually NO U.S. corporations that would not benefit from the enactment of SOPA, in some way. Virtually none would suffer any damages from enactment of SOPA. Even Internet-based corporations would benefit from having clear rules to follow. Ambiguity is not always profitable.
Well, of course he can make up departments, appoint directors, essentially play Monopoly and just plain have fun. And he can pay for it out of something discretionary.
But a department that actually *does* anything? Outside of law? Only until the courts (fat chance) or the Congress (fat chance) choose to or are embarassed into doing something about it, whatever that is.
Our current President doesn't seem to be letting nuances stand in his way.
Oh, by the way, complaing of the hypocrisy of our current President is just plain specious. The overwhelming majority, if not virtuall ALL of our politicians are hypocrites in several broad areas of policy. Not just flexible, but outright hypocrites. Picking on one misses the point. We need to throw them all out.
I'm almost to the point of accepting that a candidate's sincere and driving interest in running for office disqualifies them. Wanting to serve is nearly synonymous with premeditated corruption. Name me one of our Representatives that isn't corrupted, and I'll take that back. And that will be the one no other Representative trusts.
...we are starting to see Win 7 machines coming into the field. Just in the last month. Yes, we work exceedingly slow, but there is a lot to security here, and XP was well understood. I've got XP SP3 on my machine, and expect to keep it for another few months minimum.
What I'm tired of are the websites that both warn me I'm using an outdated browser and then helpfully offer to start the installation of IE9.
I'm using IE9. They don't detect it. I'm trusting these sites? One of which is Yahoo!?
First, you can expect us griefers to flag the government sites, police especially, of any nation we have a burr under our saddle about. Then the site of whatever corporation just sold us s defective product, tainted food, or just whatever we think *other people* should not be buying. McDonalds anyone?
Then move on to flag your competitors' sites, etc.
And while they're at it, why not flag your ex, their kids, etc. Jilted lovers will make good use of this feature.
Seriously? They think this stuff up? All in the name of what, copyright?
A pox on them all. Maybe the non-EU nations will resist this and ignore any such flagging.
And yes, I know this is about 'terrorism'. Abuse will abound. Pointless.
Maybe stuff like Lookout Mobile can trap those premium SMS messages and at least warn you.
But this is a cat and mouse game now, and we'll have to explore how to punish the carriers and operators that enable fraudulent services by permitting them to bill victims. That's about the only way to deal with this sometimes.
But lots of people agonized over their *first* latte. When they tasted it, and it was good, they were over the price very quickly.
$1 apps are a risk. If it's no good, you've spent a buck for nothing, not even a lousy cup of coffee. If it's hohum, you'll probably use it, but the equation is $1certainty. In fact, a $1 app is something you either expect to suck, or will be surprised at how good it is. And since most apps suck (they do, get over it), you're rolling the dice. And you don't have winning odds.
Now if most apps were $1, then we could get into the habit of springing for an app at a dollar, and usually getting something useful.
But most apps suck. Even free is a loss, you've lost your time finding it, 'buying' it, and trying it out. 'Free' isn't even free.
There's an economic theory that shows kids will take a sure thing rather than the apparently better deal that is not so obvious. This persists into adulthood.
I have no such expectations of privacy at work. My duties are monitored and evaluated. If I make use of 'my' workstation for personal purposes, I am actually using the company's workstation.
I can't access web based or personal email at work - primarily to complicate transferring data to non-company storage. I can't access Facebook, Linkedin, and a host of other social systems. I can't access a multitude of sites that are either known to provide information about compromising systems, or are known to host malware of any sort. I cannot use several commenting and interaction systems such as Disqus.
Antivirus software is the least of the security measures on 'my' workstation. The corporate LAN, both wired and wireless, require certificates for me to connect. DLP processes on 'my' workstation track every read and write. Specific filters look for characteristic types of data, and prevent its transmission in emails and instant messages. Documents of al types, even text, are required to be categorized by the nature of their confidentiality, and are blocked from being stored on certain storage if they require more security than is afforded by that media.
Email can be encrypted by a method that requires the recipient to register at the corporate website to read and interact with it. Certain data cannot even be sent encrypted without specific certificates that are given only to employees for whom this is a required function.
Mind you, I have the privilege of using removable media. Not many employees do, or need to. I need to share data with non-corporate entities regularly. I assume my activities are scrutinized.
And yes, I post to Slashdot from work. Not now, but that's one reason why I share a little more info.
In the largest, most vulnerable corporations, the stakes are much higher than most people imagine. And the largest corporations are the most vulnerable.
And ultimately, everything here and in similar forums on the Internet is cataloged, analyzed, and processed. By several entities, here and abroad. It's not like Slashdot is a secret. Pretty much everything without an HTTPS in front of it is no secret, and some of the HTTPS stuff is also.
"Why American Corporate Software Can No Longer Be Trusted"
This should read:
"Why Corporatations Cannot Be Trusted"
And I'm not sure TFA answers that very well.
Today's global economic situation is not much different than that of 1932. After years if not decades of reckless investment, currency and market manipulation, leveraged investment, and rapacious profit-making, US corporations and banks conspired in a way that ultimately led to a economic meltdown.
In 1929 they didn't need computers and software to do this. They needed a willing and complicit Legislature, courts, and government agencies. The results then are well known, as they are today.
We started back down this path in 1999 with the repeal of the Glass-Steagell Act. Couple that with the continuous pressure to expand home ownership, a Federal Reserve inappropriately tasked with controlling inflation and economic growth, and lack of oversight into multiple industries (Accounting firms audting a corporation while their banking divisions floated the IPO, for instance) and you had the makings of a perfect storm. It came.
Corporations, by design, cannot be 'trusted' to act in the 'public interest'. They need to be at least minimally regulated, if for no other reason than to prevent the most egregious abuses.
What this has to do with software is beyond me. It's more than that, a lot more.
Slashdot Mirror
Why shouldn't drivers of small cars pay more since they place themselves in significantly more jepoardy?
Which way should we assess the responsibility?
Let me guess, you live in an area where public transit is practical and available. Sell that to the rural poor. Not the ones a few miles out of town, but the ones who need to go 30 miles to a hospital or 15 miles to a supermarket.
There is a lot of territory in the U.S. that is just too sparsely populated to support public transit. Period. Would your solution be to move the poor closer to services? That's been done, my friend. The results are not clearly superior to not doing so.
My truck chassis based SUV takes speed bumps just fine. My '98 Saab 900 does not.
Do you listen to yourself? I know your lips were moving when you typed that.
The poor people who don't live close to public transportation often have cars. Your poor friends are just somewhere they can buy tokens instead of gallons.
"All day long, you can drive up and down Ashland Ave and there will be one Suburban or Nissan Armada or Navigator or some other ridiculously huge vehice with a single person driving all by herself. Those drivers need to pay a higher gas tax to cover the externalities they are forcing the rest of us to pay."
I do. Compared to a Prius driver, I pay about 225% more in gas taxes per mile.
Of course the Prius driver is paying perhaps a 40% of the taxes per mile for road maintenance, and I'm waiting to hear if a Prius causes that much less wear than an Explorer does. Maybe so, maybe not.
So indeed, I do pay a higher tax per mile, and more tax by using more gallons.
Your point?
"higher fuel taxes to compensate for increased road damages"
Diesel fuel taxes.
You got it right.
And expect gas taxes to increase as MPG increase, since they mostly pay for roads, and cars driving the same number of miles using less gas will need to pay the same taxes. Fewer gallons=more $/gallon.
1. SOPA is so important to U.S. corporate interests that they are exerting enormous pressure on our Legislature.
2. Our Legislature, being so dependent on corporate insider trading, is willing to do their will.
3. Our Executive branch, being utterly bereft of ethical standards, is willing to threaten Spain with actual economic damages for no more reason than to support U.S. corporate interests, which uktimately serve to enrich the Legislature (and other insiders) to the disadvantage of the general population.
4. There are virtually NO U.S. corporations that would not benefit from the enactment of SOPA, in some way. Virtually none would suffer any damages from enactment of SOPA. Even Internet-based corporations would benefit from having clear rules to follow. Ambiguity is not always profitable.
"The chances that one lone delegate will make the difference between winning and losing the nomination are effectively zero."
Make that decision 45 times and you lose the nomination.
Well, of course he can make up departments, appoint directors, essentially play Monopoly and just plain have fun. And he can pay for it out of something discretionary.
But a department that actually *does* anything? Outside of law? Only until the courts (fat chance) or the Congress (fat chance) choose to or are embarassed into doing something about it, whatever that is.
Our current President doesn't seem to be letting nuances stand in his way.
Oh, by the way, complaing of the hypocrisy of our current President is just plain specious. The overwhelming majority, if not virtuall ALL of our politicians are hypocrites in several broad areas of policy. Not just flexible, but outright hypocrites. Picking on one misses the point. We need to throw them all out.
I'm almost to the point of accepting that a candidate's sincere and driving interest in running for office disqualifies them. Wanting to serve is nearly synonymous with premeditated corruption. Name me one of our Representatives that isn't corrupted, and I'll take that back. And that will be the one no other Representative trusts.
I get that error on my win 7 and Vista machines at home.
...we are starting to see Win 7 machines coming into the field. Just in the last month. Yes, we work exceedingly slow, but there is a lot to security here, and XP was well understood. I've got XP SP3 on my machine, and expect to keep it for another few months minimum.
What I'm tired of are the websites that both warn me I'm using an outdated browser and then helpfully offer to start the installation of IE9.
I'm using IE9. They don't detect it. I'm trusting these sites? One of which is Yahoo!?
First, you can expect us griefers to flag the government sites, police especially, of any nation we have a burr under our saddle about. Then the site of whatever corporation just sold us s defective product, tainted food, or just whatever we think *other people* should not be buying. McDonalds anyone?
Then move on to flag your competitors' sites, etc.
And while they're at it, why not flag your ex, their kids, etc. Jilted lovers will make good use of this feature.
Seriously? They think this stuff up? All in the name of what, copyright?
A pox on them all. Maybe the non-EU nations will resist this and ignore any such flagging.
And yes, I know this is about 'terrorism'. Abuse will abound. Pointless.
I use the start page mostly to avoid gmail in my face. Funny how I use Google more to search than for mail. And Bookmarks. And Reader.
Being anonymous will do that also...
First post?
Maybe stuff like Lookout Mobile can trap those premium SMS messages and at least warn you.
But this is a cat and mouse game now, and we'll have to explore how to punish the carriers and operators that enable fraudulent services by permitting them to bill victims. That's about the only way to deal with this sometimes.
Rating manipulation is rampant in the $1 app business. I read the feedback and it's often useless.
But lots of people agonized over their *first* latte. When they tasted it, and it was good, they were over the price very quickly.
$1 apps are a risk. If it's no good, you've spent a buck for nothing, not even a lousy cup of coffee. If it's hohum, you'll probably use it, but the equation is $1certainty. In fact, a $1 app is something you either expect to suck, or will be surprised at how good it is. And since most apps suck (they do, get over it), you're rolling the dice. And you don't have winning odds.
Now if most apps were $1, then we could get into the habit of springing for an app at a dollar, and usually getting something useful.
But most apps suck. Even free is a loss, you've lost your time finding it, 'buying' it, and trying it out. 'Free' isn't even free.
There's an economic theory that shows kids will take a sure thing rather than the apparently better deal that is not so obvious. This persists into adulthood.
1) 666 is the number of man, short of perfection, which would be 777.
2) I completely missed the Christian propoganda. Could you explain it to me pleeze? I b confuzed.
Wow. thanks for distilling the essence of the right-wing.
Not. Go call Bill Maher and ask him for a more insightful analysis, as even that would indeed be more insightful.
I have no such expectations of privacy at work. My duties are monitored and evaluated. If I make use of 'my' workstation for personal purposes, I am actually using the company's workstation.
I can't access web based or personal email at work - primarily to complicate transferring data to non-company storage. I can't access Facebook, Linkedin, and a host of other social systems. I can't access a multitude of sites that are either known to provide information about compromising systems, or are known to host malware of any sort. I cannot use several commenting and interaction systems such as Disqus.
Antivirus software is the least of the security measures on 'my' workstation. The corporate LAN, both wired and wireless, require certificates for me to connect. DLP processes on 'my' workstation track every read and write. Specific filters look for characteristic types of data, and prevent its transmission in emails and instant messages. Documents of al types, even text, are required to be categorized by the nature of their confidentiality, and are blocked from being stored on certain storage if they require more security than is afforded by that media.
Email can be encrypted by a method that requires the recipient to register at the corporate website to read and interact with it. Certain data cannot even be sent encrypted without specific certificates that are given only to employees for whom this is a required function.
Mind you, I have the privilege of using removable media. Not many employees do, or need to. I need to share data with non-corporate entities regularly. I assume my activities are scrutinized.
And yes, I post to Slashdot from work. Not now, but that's one reason why I share a little more info.
In the largest, most vulnerable corporations, the stakes are much higher than most people imagine. And the largest corporations are the most vulnerable.
And ultimately, everything here and in similar forums on the Internet is cataloged, analyzed, and processed. By several entities, here and abroad. It's not like Slashdot is a secret. Pretty much everything without an HTTPS in front of it is no secret, and some of the HTTPS stuff is also.
Privacy is what you do by yourself.
"Why American Corporate Software Can No Longer Be Trusted"
This should read:
"Why Corporatations Cannot Be Trusted"
And I'm not sure TFA answers that very well.
Today's global economic situation is not much different than that of 1932. After years if not decades of reckless investment, currency and market manipulation, leveraged investment, and rapacious profit-making, US corporations and banks conspired in a way that ultimately led to a economic meltdown.
In 1929 they didn't need computers and software to do this. They needed a willing and complicit Legislature, courts, and government agencies. The results then are well known, as they are today.
We started back down this path in 1999 with the repeal of the Glass-Steagell Act. Couple that with the continuous pressure to expand home ownership, a Federal Reserve inappropriately tasked with controlling inflation and economic growth, and lack of oversight into multiple industries (Accounting firms audting a corporation while their banking divisions floated the IPO, for instance) and you had the makings of a perfect storm. It came.
Corporations, by design, cannot be 'trusted' to act in the 'public interest'. They need to be at least minimally regulated, if for no other reason than to prevent the most egregious abuses.
What this has to do with software is beyond me. It's more than that, a lot more.
You need a new job. And your admins need to be fired.
Just saying. I'm keylogged here too, but the admins are watched as well.
No, strike that, Wired is gone over to the dark side of popular culture, but I read it still.
Come to think of it, been years since Wired was very geeky, or computing-centric. Feh.
"their practice of rate limiting Whois queries is Whois abuse".
There, more honest.