The answer to what? Are cameras the answer to muggings and murder? No, not at all -- muggers will just do their "business" faster and learn where the blind spots are.
Are cameras the answer to convincing the public that the police are doing something, while simultaneously convincing them that something needs to be done? Absolutely.
Company X requires you to spend large sums of money to bring your security up to date, so that you can pay them for something that is far less likely to happen. Company Y with lower premiums does not, but is less likely to pay. Your investors could not care less which company you go with, as long as you maximize profits. Which would your company go with?
Priorities. A virus that computes Bitcoin through the evenings is pretty low priority -- nobody is going to pressure an AV maker to defeat it. A virus that raids bank accounts is going to hit the front pages and the AV makers will make stopping it a top priority.
There is a lot of money at stake in MMOs. If people cheat too often, the revenue stream will start drying up.
Now, if people were running their own servers, this would be less of a deal -- servers that had strict no-cheating policies would attract serious players, and servers that allow cheating would attract cheaters (assuming that people even had an incentive to cheat).
Perhaps we could phrase it as, "These are secure documents, I should not leave them in plain view where anyone with a camera might make a copy."
If we trace this to its logical conclusion, corporations will be doing the following:
Using MLS systems to prevent people from sneaking documents onto their personal devices.
Fingerprinting documents with user IDs whenever the documents are accessed, and hiring someone to monitor filesharing and hacker sites.
Installing spyware on user computers.
Nobody wants to let someone access confidential documents if they might leak them to an industrial spy, any more than they would want to allow a spy to have direct access. The employees will be pissed off as security becomes more rigid (MLS) or invasive (spyware), and the articles about tyrannical bosses will flow freely, but nobody wants the formula for their secret sauce to be leaked out. If people do not learn to (a) understand the technology they are using and (b) not be idiots, I really do not see things playing out any other way.
Or the policy will only cover a certain maximum amount of loss, certain kinds of security breaches, etc. Why spend the money auditing when you can just not spend money and not pay out when a company is attacked?
Security requires experts with experience in the field. Security is not something you buy, it needs to be adapted to the particular needs of an organization, and it is often counter-intuitive. Worse still, after paying a lot for an expert who tells you to do things that seem weird and not what you were expecting, you have no way to tell whether or not the security policy accomplished anything at all. Insurance is cheaper, and it is something your investors and board members can understand.
I get the gist, but more likely we will hear this sort of state:
Hackers attacked our security system and stole customer data. We have been partially covered by our insurance policy, but will still have to deal with a $400 trillion loss.
It does not matter, these companies can now go tell their investors that they are "prepared" for when those evil hackers breach their security systems. Naturally, the idea that they could employ better security practices never occurs to the investors, who have been steeped in the "evil hackers are wizards who can do magic things that no ordinary person could possibly imagine" mindset.
students aren't going to drop three grand for software
No but schools will drop hundreds of thousands of dollars on site licenses. What do you think a typical college pays for a site license for Autocad or Matlab? These companies would rather see students learning how to use their software in a trade school.
More work for law enforcement? Or just the standard, "If politicians say this will help American workers, then we as a union stand with our fellow workers and support this measure."
I would like to hear arguments against this position though.
Simple: Autodesk would rather force people to go to a trade school, community college, or university to learn how to use their products, since schools are willing to pay for expensive site-licenses for software. Autodesk still benefits from everything you said, while also receiving license payments.
When guns are as widespread as they are in the US it is reasonable to hold a gun for protection. I just don't think highly efficient automatic guns should ever be considered for that. I have nothing against using guns as a hunting implement, and I consider that a reasonable use for it. I don't see your point, really.
What I do not understand is why you have repeatedly advocated people carrying semiautomatic pistols for self defense, while simultaneously talking about the need to prevent people from owning semiautomatic weapons. Nobody hunts with full-automatic weapons, as I said before, and we already regulate full automatic weapons -- individual citizens cannot own full automatic weapons, regardless of their caliber, and registered corporations must have a special permit to procure such weapons. People do hunt with semiautomatic weapons, in various calibers, and that includes old military rifles (I have heard the SKS referred to as a poor man's deer rifle, and have even heard of people using the M1 Garand as a deer rifle).
What is your point, exactly? That nobody should own a semiautomatic firearm, except for easily concealable handguns like the ones the Virginia Tech shooter used?
If a gun allows you to be that efficient, it should be regulated. Be it.22 or.50. Prove you have a need for it before you get one. Or two, in that case.
If you are concerned with efficiency, we should see stricter regulations on ammonium nitrate and fuel oil -- components used in the Oklahoma City attack (if we are going to focus on rare cases like shooting sprees, why not discuss other rare cases like terrorist bombings?). Would you rather have a neighbor with a semiautomatic hunting rifle, or a barrel full of ANFO?
What exactly constitutes a proof that someone "needs" a gun of any sort? I want to go moose hunting; does that "prove" that I need a.50BMG rifle, or does that only "prove" that I need a.30-06? Or maybe moose hunting is not a valid reason to own a gun, but self defense is? Why should Americans have to prove that they need any particular kind of weapon for hunting?
In my mind I can see no need for anyone to own more than a glock 19 for self defense, even if others might be better for it.
You have an unusual obsession with shooting people. I do not think that anyone should be able to claim that they need a handgun for self defense, and that a 12-gauge or 20-gauge shotgun used to defend a home or business should be the end of discussion when it comes to "defense." When I think of firearms, hunting is the first thing that comes to my mind, and should be the first thing that anyone thinks of. Rifles are hunting tools; it does not matter what sort of action the firearm has or what it is chambered for, it should be considered a hunting implement first, and should never be pointed at another human being.
Did you even read the Wikipedia articles you linked to? From your own link about the VT tragedy:
Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a.22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun
Semiautomatic means the gun is designed to load a new cartridge into the chamber after it is fired, or in other words that you can fire the gun as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Most handguns that people buy today are semiautomatic or else revolvers.
When I said a pistol for self defense, I was thinking about something you can carry
Assuming that you even get the chance to draw your gun and that you have received training in defending yourself with a gun, you might be able to defend yourself. Most civilians will not be able to defend themselves with a handgun, and it is an absurd justification for carrying one. The only reasonable way that could happen is if the necessary permits required regular training.
I'm talking about sheer destructive power if someone were to flip out and start shooting without thinking of consequences, not biased statistics
That is an extremely rare event, and the only source of bias I can see is your continued focus on such events. A couple dozen -- just 19 university shootings in the past hundred year -- is a small fraction of the number of murders committed with guns that occur each year.
Every so often someone will go nuts and open fire on a crowd of people, I will not deny that. This often happens with handguns, but yes, sometimes people use rifles. What you have neglected to mention, and what warrants more study in general, is that the number of school shootings has increased in the decades since the first gun-control laws were passed. I doubt there is a causal relationship, however; more likely, some other significant change in society has led to an uptick in the number of tragic shootings.
I cannot understand how can AK 47's and MA41s or any automatic high caliber weapon can ever be allowed to exist in the hands of civilians. If one of those ever gets stolen (and it happens) it's another weapon in the hands of the wrong people that will contribute for the 12k homicides/year the US has.
Actually, there are a number of misconceptions here:
Not all AK-47s are full-automatic; owning one that is requires a special license. Most AK-47 rifles purchased by American civilians are semi-automatic.
It is pretty rare for people to steal rifles, and pretty rare for rifles to be used to commit homicide. Stolen firearms tend to be handguns, because of demand: criminals prefer small, concealable guns and so stealing a handgun is more lucrative.
More people are killed with the lowest-power caliber in common use, the.22LR, than by any other. This is probably because.22LR cartridges are cheap, roughly 4 cents per cartridge if you buy in bulk, and because a handgun chambered in.22LR can be very small. 9mm is also common among criminals, and is of much lower power than the 7.62x39mm cartridges that an AK-47 fires.
I would say there is more of a case for people owning AK-47s or M1 carbines than there is for handguns. Handguns are not the best weapons for home defense (shotguns are much better), and most people would have difficulty using a handgun to defend themselves if they were being mugged (and a mugger is likely to take a person's handgun during the incident, leading to yet another black-market firearm on the streets). Old military rifles can at least be effectively used by hunters.
this one isn't a distraction used to blind people because
FTFY. The corporate system and the cozy relationship between the US government and corporations affects every American citizen; only a small minority are affected by gay marriage or abortion.
The industry now seems to have realised this and is trying to spend more money on educating young people that "piracy is bad". This is far more likely to work on the next generation but that is far from guaranteed
They can educate all they want, but people are still going to violate copyrights. When I was in middle school they tried to "educate" us on copyrights, but guess what? When Napster came out, we all started downloading music from Napster, and the day before the injunction took effect we downloaded as much as we possibly could. Why the hell would a bunch of 12 and 13 year olds care about copyrights? In what universe would those children have enough money to buy $20 CDs (yes, $20 was the price of a typical album back then)? We downloaded our music because it was the only way we could get the music, plain and simple.
Trying to indoctrinate children into the "copyright is property!" school of thought will fail. The "bad ass" children will download music then hand it out to all their friends, and they will become "cool" for doing so -- and there goes any hope that copyrights will matter to anyone in that social circle.
Users do not give a damn about copyrights either. That is the problem here: on the one hand, you have an industry that depends on copyrights for its survival, and on the other hand technology has allowed a bunch of people who could not care less about copyrights to make copies rapidly and with very few errors. The industry has more than just votes to push its interests, it has money and lobbyists and even the ability to try to indoctrinate children in elementary schools, which is how this became such a big deal.
The truth is that people were sharing copyrighted data long before Napster, using anonymous FTP, Usenet, BBSes, etc. The law is out of touch with the realities of technology and has been for a long time now, and because of RIAA/MPAA/BSA lobbying it is only getting more out of touch.
Slashdot Mirror
are cameras really the answer?
The answer to what? Are cameras the answer to muggings and murder? No, not at all -- muggers will just do their "business" faster and learn where the blind spots are.
Are cameras the answer to convincing the public that the police are doing something, while simultaneously convincing them that something needs to be done? Absolutely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_Band_Devices
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spaces_%28radio%29#FCC_decision
Company X requires you to spend large sums of money to bring your security up to date, so that you can pay them for something that is far less likely to happen. Company Y with lower premiums does not, but is less likely to pay. Your investors could not care less which company you go with, as long as you maximize profits. Which would your company go with?
Priorities. A virus that computes Bitcoin through the evenings is pretty low priority -- nobody is going to pressure an AV maker to defeat it. A virus that raids bank accounts is going to hit the front pages and the AV makers will make stopping it a top priority.
There is a lot of money at stake in MMOs. If people cheat too often, the revenue stream will start drying up.
Now, if people were running their own servers, this would be less of a deal -- servers that had strict no-cheating policies would attract serious players, and servers that allow cheating would attract cheaters (assuming that people even had an incentive to cheat).
If we trace this to its logical conclusion, corporations will be doing the following:
Nobody wants to let someone access confidential documents if they might leak them to an industrial spy, any more than they would want to allow a spy to have direct access. The employees will be pissed off as security becomes more rigid (MLS) or invasive (spyware), and the articles about tyrannical bosses will flow freely, but nobody wants the formula for their secret sauce to be leaked out. If people do not learn to (a) understand the technology they are using and (b) not be idiots, I really do not see things playing out any other way.
Or the policy will only cover a certain maximum amount of loss, certain kinds of security breaches, etc. Why spend the money auditing when you can just not spend money and not pay out when a company is attacked?
Security requires experts with experience in the field. Security is not something you buy, it needs to be adapted to the particular needs of an organization, and it is often counter-intuitive. Worse still, after paying a lot for an expert who tells you to do things that seem weird and not what you were expecting, you have no way to tell whether or not the security policy accomplished anything at all. Insurance is cheaper, and it is something your investors and board members can understand.
I get the gist, but more likely we will hear this sort of state:
Hackers attacked our security system and stole customer data. We have been partially covered by our insurance policy, but will still have to deal with a $400 trillion loss.
It does not matter, these companies can now go tell their investors that they are "prepared" for when those evil hackers breach their security systems. Naturally, the idea that they could employ better security practices never occurs to the investors, who have been steeped in the "evil hackers are wizards who can do magic things that no ordinary person could possibly imagine" mindset.
students aren't going to drop three grand for software
No but schools will drop hundreds of thousands of dollars on site licenses. What do you think a typical college pays for a site license for Autocad or Matlab? These companies would rather see students learning how to use their software in a trade school.
More work for law enforcement? Or just the standard, "If politicians say this will help American workers, then we as a union stand with our fellow workers and support this measure."
I would like to hear arguments against this position though.
Simple: Autodesk would rather force people to go to a trade school, community college, or university to learn how to use their products, since schools are willing to pay for expensive site-licenses for software. Autodesk still benefits from everything you said, while also receiving license payments.
Can someone please post a link that is accessible to everyone, not just Google users?
When guns are as widespread as they are in the US it is reasonable to hold a gun for protection. I just don't think highly efficient automatic guns should ever be considered for that. I have nothing against using guns as a hunting implement, and I consider that a reasonable use for it. I don't see your point, really.
What I do not understand is why you have repeatedly advocated people carrying semiautomatic pistols for self defense, while simultaneously talking about the need to prevent people from owning semiautomatic weapons. Nobody hunts with full-automatic weapons, as I said before, and we already regulate full automatic weapons -- individual citizens cannot own full automatic weapons, regardless of their caliber, and registered corporations must have a special permit to procure such weapons. People do hunt with semiautomatic weapons, in various calibers, and that includes old military rifles (I have heard the SKS referred to as a poor man's deer rifle, and have even heard of people using the M1 Garand as a deer rifle).
What is your point, exactly? That nobody should own a semiautomatic firearm, except for easily concealable handguns like the ones the Virginia Tech shooter used?
Here I was thinking that we were supposed to be connected to our jobs 24x7, accepting calls and emails after hours at no extra pay:
http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/02/1350229/us-senator-proposes-bill-to-eliminate-overtime-for-it-workers
Oh, wait, Volkswagen is not an American company. Carry on then, respecting your workers and whatever it is that you foreigners do...
...the end of the world?! God damned Mayans...
If a gun allows you to be that efficient, it should be regulated. Be it .22 or .50. Prove you have a need for it before you get one. Or two, in that case.
If you are concerned with efficiency, we should see stricter regulations on ammonium nitrate and fuel oil -- components used in the Oklahoma City attack (if we are going to focus on rare cases like shooting sprees, why not discuss other rare cases like terrorist bombings?). Would you rather have a neighbor with a semiautomatic hunting rifle, or a barrel full of ANFO?
.50BMG rifle, or does that only "prove" that I need a .30-06? Or maybe moose hunting is not a valid reason to own a gun, but self defense is? Why should Americans have to prove that they need any particular kind of weapon for hunting?
What exactly constitutes a proof that someone "needs" a gun of any sort? I want to go moose hunting; does that "prove" that I need a
In my mind I can see no need for anyone to own more than a glock 19 for self defense, even if others might be better for it.
You have an unusual obsession with shooting people. I do not think that anyone should be able to claim that they need a handgun for self defense, and that a 12-gauge or 20-gauge shotgun used to defend a home or business should be the end of discussion when it comes to "defense." When I think of firearms, hunting is the first thing that comes to my mind, and should be the first thing that anyone thinks of. Rifles are hunting tools; it does not matter what sort of action the firearm has or what it is chambered for, it should be considered a hunting implement first, and should never be pointed at another human being.
Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic handgun and a 9 mm semi-automatic Glock 19 handgun
Semiautomatic means the gun is designed to load a new cartridge into the chamber after it is fired, or in other words that you can fire the gun as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Most handguns that people buy today are semiautomatic or else revolvers.
When I said a pistol for self defense, I was thinking about something you can carry
Assuming that you even get the chance to draw your gun and that you have received training in defending yourself with a gun, you might be able to defend yourself. Most civilians will not be able to defend themselves with a handgun, and it is an absurd justification for carrying one. The only reasonable way that could happen is if the necessary permits required regular training.
I'm talking about sheer destructive power if someone were to flip out and start shooting without thinking of consequences, not biased statistics
That is an extremely rare event, and the only source of bias I can see is your continued focus on such events. A couple dozen -- just 19 university shootings in the past hundred year -- is a small fraction of the number of murders committed with guns that occur each year.
Every so often someone will go nuts and open fire on a crowd of people, I will not deny that. This often happens with handguns, but yes, sometimes people use rifles. What you have neglected to mention, and what warrants more study in general, is that the number of school shootings has increased in the decades since the first gun-control laws were passed. I doubt there is a causal relationship, however; more likely, some other significant change in society has led to an uptick in the number of tragic shootings.
I cannot understand how can AK 47's and MA41s or any automatic high caliber weapon can ever be allowed to exist in the hands of civilians. If one of those ever gets stolen (and it happens) it's another weapon in the hands of the wrong people that will contribute for the 12k homicides/year the US has.
Actually, there are a number of misconceptions here:
I would say there is more of a case for people owning AK-47s or M1 carbines than there is for handguns. Handguns are not the best weapons for home defense (shotguns are much better), and most people would have difficulty using a handgun to defend themselves if they were being mugged (and a mugger is likely to take a person's handgun during the incident, leading to yet another black-market firearm on the streets). Old military rifles can at least be effectively used by hunters.
this one isn't a distraction used to blind people because
FTFY. The corporate system and the cozy relationship between the US government and corporations affects every American citizen; only a small minority are affected by gay marriage or abortion.
Yes, plenty of people do not have rights -- like you and me. At least that is how the copyright lobbyists view things.
The industry now seems to have realised this and is trying to spend more money on educating young people that "piracy is bad". This is far more likely to work on the next generation but that is far from guaranteed
They can educate all they want, but people are still going to violate copyrights. When I was in middle school they tried to "educate" us on copyrights, but guess what? When Napster came out, we all started downloading music from Napster, and the day before the injunction took effect we downloaded as much as we possibly could. Why the hell would a bunch of 12 and 13 year olds care about copyrights? In what universe would those children have enough money to buy $20 CDs (yes, $20 was the price of a typical album back then)? We downloaded our music because it was the only way we could get the music, plain and simple.
Trying to indoctrinate children into the "copyright is property!" school of thought will fail. The "bad ass" children will download music then hand it out to all their friends, and they will become "cool" for doing so -- and there goes any hope that copyrights will matter to anyone in that social circle.
Bits don't give a damn about copyright.
Users do not give a damn about copyrights either. That is the problem here: on the one hand, you have an industry that depends on copyrights for its survival, and on the other hand technology has allowed a bunch of people who could not care less about copyrights to make copies rapidly and with very few errors. The industry has more than just votes to push its interests, it has money and lobbyists and even the ability to try to indoctrinate children in elementary schools, which is how this became such a big deal.
The truth is that people were sharing copyrighted data long before Napster, using anonymous FTP, Usenet, BBSes, etc. The law is out of touch with the realities of technology and has been for a long time now, and because of RIAA/MPAA/BSA lobbying it is only getting more out of touch.
Who used Limewire, kazzaa, etc to download thier linux distros
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/Fedora-16-x86_64-DVD.torrent
Yeah, downloading a GNU/Linux distribution using a P2P filesharing system is unheard of .