While it may appear that you aren't paying money for alarm systems, because they are covered by insurance, look at the real costs that alarm companies have. They charge people monthly fees with minimal cost to themselves because, they don't police the systems themselves. You are paying, not only for your own house but everyone elses. A disproportionately large number of calls from alarm companies are false alarms that you pay to be checked out and the ones that aren't often don't get police there in time to make a difference but you pay for those as well. This takes resources away from often overworked and underfunded police forces.
A good book that talks about this and many others is "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston
From the article it didn't seem like a drill. From the article it seemed like they were away at camp, my district called it outdoor school, and this was the "scary story" that they told. When I was a kid the story was very unbelievable by adult standards, but just believable enough by a child's standards to be moderately ( to sometimes very ) scary. It seems the reason they said it wasn't a drill was because they were putting on this ruse. If this is indeed the case, then this was very poor judgement. However, if it was like my outdoor school then the scary story was enacted by the high school aged counselors who were there helping to take care of the kids. Once again, poor judgement, but then it would be by the counselors and the teachers would have had to be more aware of the story that was spread.
I just question everything in these stories because the truth is always colored by our own filters and the filters of the person telling the story.
It would seem that since Senator Kennedy of Massachussettes is the sponsor of the bill this has something to do with the Mooninite fallout. IANAL but I still didn't read anything much that would put the guerilla marketing company in too much extra trouble. The thing that stands out to me is that the amended version still says
`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever engages in any conduct with intent to convey false or misleading information under circumstances where such information may reasonably be believed and where such information indicates that an activity has taken, is taking, or will take place that would constitute an offense listed under subsection (a)(1) is liable in a civil action to any party incurring expenses incident to any emergency or investigative response to that conduct, for those expenses.
The key I think is in the first part of the sentence that says "...with intent to convey false or misleading information...". I guess a case could be made that their intent was to convey false or misleading information by not providing any information but it seems like that is stretching it.
Flash Player 9 is more than just an update to what you all have known as flash. Sure, it will still play older flash content but new content written in Actionscript 3.0 using the new Actionscript Virtual Machine to playback will be way more efficient. The new methodologies for programming have a large base in JAVA, so JAVA developers will have any easy time using this new tool to make true ( rich internet ) applications that have greater ubiquity than JAVA on the web. To be honest, I think it will help take flash away from being a great tool for building horribly intrusive banner ads to being better know as one of the great tools for building rich internet experiences.
On the note of proprietary versus open source, sure it is a proprietary program but Macro-Dobe ( Macromedia / Adobe ) have done a great job of using the open source community ( http://www.osflash.org/ ) to push themselves into making a better product. They support the open source development, even if it competes ( http://osflash.org/red5 ) directly with one of their products.
I found and learned from a good book called Pro PHP Security by Chris Snyder and Michael Southwell. It is publisheshed by apress. http://www.apress.com/
Good points for winning linux favor: In the meantime, good points from the article to win favor for Linux and its future:
evangelize, but don't be religious (there's a difference).
educate
give good support...
(mine) don't give Linux to someone for whom it isn't going to make any sense... that's a disservice to your "client" and Linux
As a fairly savvy computer user I have had quite a bit of difficulty installing linux on different systems. I keep trying though because I'm stubborn like that and I want to see for myself if it really is as great as everyone says. Before you quote that line let me remind you that "I want to see for myself". So far I haven't been happy enough yet.
On the flip side, as a savvy computer user I have never had problems with my windows boxes more than once, except with hardware issues ( drives failing, ram going bad ). I've learned how to deal with those issues. Some might posit that the linux base has all learned from your linux experiences and as fairly intelligent people don't have those issues again. From a useability standpoint you should always ask "What about someone who doesn't want to do that?". Maybe you don't create a system for them and maybe you do, but the linux contributor base should always be asking questions like that if they want to build something for the mainstream. Be honest with yourself. Microsoft has the market. They must have done some things right. Keep looking for what they do and have done right ( instead of what they do wrong ) and put that into your linux distro.
Finally, people want their OS to work out of the box for them. They don't want it to work out of the box for you. To make linux the mainstream OS linux pride needs to be checked at the door and real world, mom and pop, grandma and grandpa useability studies have to be done. Many of them have already been done, the articles just have to be read.
Slashdot Mirror
While it may appear that you aren't paying money for alarm systems, because they are covered by insurance, look at the real costs that alarm companies have. They charge people monthly fees with minimal cost to themselves because, they don't police the systems themselves. You are paying, not only for your own house but everyone elses. A disproportionately large number of calls from alarm companies are false alarms that you pay to be checked out and the ones that aren't often don't get police there in time to make a difference but you pay for those as well. This takes resources away from often overworked and underfunded police forces. A good book that talks about this and many others is "Free Lunch" by David Cay Johnston
From the article it didn't seem like a drill. From the article it seemed like they were away at camp, my district called it outdoor school, and this was the "scary story" that they told. When I was a kid the story was very unbelievable by adult standards, but just believable enough by a child's standards to be moderately ( to sometimes very ) scary. It seems the reason they said it wasn't a drill was because they were putting on this ruse. If this is indeed the case, then this was very poor judgement. However, if it was like my outdoor school then the scary story was enacted by the high school aged counselors who were there helping to take care of the kids. Once again, poor judgement, but then it would be by the counselors and the teachers would have had to be more aware of the story that was spread. I just question everything in these stories because the truth is always colored by our own filters and the filters of the person telling the story.
It would seem that since Senator Kennedy of Massachussettes is the sponsor of the bill this has something to do with the Mooninite fallout. IANAL but I still didn't read anything much that would put the guerilla marketing company in too much extra trouble. The thing that stands out to me is that the amended version still says
The key I think is in the first part of the sentence that says "...with intent to convey false or misleading information...". I guess a case could be made that their intent was to convey false or misleading information by not providing any information but it seems like that is stretching it.
For the links I used:
the proposed amendment and its full text
Unamended Section 1038 of Title 18 of the US Code
section 2332b since the amendment adds a reference to section 2332b(g)(5)(B) of this title ( Title 18 )
Flash Player 9 is more than just an update to what you all have known as flash. Sure, it will still play older flash content but new content written in Actionscript 3.0 using the new Actionscript Virtual Machine to playback will be way more efficient. The new methodologies for programming have a large base in JAVA, so JAVA developers will have any easy time using this new tool to make true ( rich internet ) applications that have greater ubiquity than JAVA on the web. To be honest, I think it will help take flash away from being a great tool for building horribly intrusive banner ads to being better know as one of the great tools for building rich internet experiences. On the note of proprietary versus open source, sure it is a proprietary program but Macro-Dobe ( Macromedia / Adobe ) have done a great job of using the open source community ( http://www.osflash.org/ ) to push themselves into making a better product. They support the open source development, even if it competes ( http://osflash.org/red5 ) directly with one of their products.
I found and learned from a good book called Pro PHP Security by Chris Snyder and Michael Southwell. It is publisheshed by apress. http://www.apress.com/
Good points for winning linux favor:
In the meantime, good points from the article to win favor for Linux and its future:
evangelize, but don't be religious (there's a difference).
educate
give good support...
(mine) don't give Linux to someone for whom it isn't going to make any sense... that's a disservice to your "client" and Linux
As a fairly savvy computer user I have had quite a bit of difficulty installing linux on different systems. I keep trying though because I'm stubborn like that and I want to see for myself if it really is as great as everyone says. Before you quote that line let me remind you that "I want to see for myself". So far I haven't been happy enough yet.
On the flip side, as a savvy computer user I have never had problems with my windows boxes more than once, except with hardware issues ( drives failing, ram going bad ). I've learned how to deal with those issues. Some might posit that the linux base has all learned from your linux experiences and as fairly intelligent people don't have those issues again. From a useability standpoint you should always ask "What about someone who doesn't want to do that?". Maybe you don't create a system for them and maybe you do, but the linux contributor base should always be asking questions like that if they want to build something for the mainstream. Be honest with yourself. Microsoft has the market. They must have done some things right. Keep looking for what they do and have done right ( instead of what they do wrong ) and put that into your linux distro.
Finally, people want their OS to work out of the box for them. They don't want it to work out of the box for you. To make linux the mainstream OS linux pride needs to be checked at the door and real world, mom and pop, grandma and grandpa useability studies have to be done. Many of them have already been done, the articles just have to be read.