Pointing out how the children gain from the satisfaction of giving something away is missing Savage's point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn't theirs. This obviously apocryphal story isn't about yelling at children or even about lemonade, it's about the problems with the government giving "free" hand-outs of all kinds to people using someone else's money.
I don't care if you agree with Savage or not, but could you at least address the real issue she raises, instead of focusing on the children? I know berating her for yelling at children is easier than talking about her real point, but you should give it a shot anyway.
I know open source software is cheaper, and easier to manage, but if the BSA comes in for an audit, how does being an all-open source shop help you? They can still close you down for the whole day while going through your computers, they can still harm your reputation with your clients and employees. In the long run they'll have nothing, of course, but they can still harass you.
A mall opens its parking lot to any and every body, allowing anybody who wants to sell stuff a place to do it. Food vendors show up, the mall says "hey, it's not up to us to make sure the vendors are selling food that won't kill you; we just provide the space."
Now you get food poisoning from a vendor who claims to be Taco Bell, but it turns out they aren't. By the time you're sick, the fake TB vendors are long gone, with no records of who they were or where they were from. The mall management *could* have prevented this by not allowing a free-for-all, or by requiring some kind of verification of who you are, but chose not to be involved in any of that nonsense.
Either the woman screwed up and put the wrong piece of paper in, or when she put the right piece of paper in she didn't get the confirmation she was supposed to. She let someone know, and the official finally went to check it out. After finding her piece of paper, and another party verified that there was a problem, they took it out of the system and allowed her to cast her vote again so that it would be properly counted.
If they hadn't, the voter in question (who is Black) may well have claimed that she was denied her right to vote. After all, if officials can't even check IDs to make sure the person voting is who she says she is without being accused of racism and/or intimidation, it's unlikely they could get away with "sorry, you voted wrong that's your problem." Anybody have any idea of what they should have done?
And if I were the officials at that office, regardless of the reason for my actions I would be concerned about how someone got the security film in question. It's obviously someone who shouldn't have it, otherwise they wouldn't have remained anonymous. So the person is claiming something illegal happened (which it may well have), and uses proof he or she obtained illegally. If you allow that, you have to allow cops to present evidence of a crime that they obtained through an unlawful search.
I make no apologies that I recommend to everyone of my clients that they secure their wireless network. It's too easy to do to justify not doing it. Maybe someone won't download illegal files through your unsecured connection, or send out a huge amount of spam, but why invite them to in the first place?
For the life of me, I can't see why it's considered "fear mongering" to warn people of these possibilities and inform them of just how easy it is to lock the connection down. Sure, a determined evil-doer with the right knowledge can break into it regardless, but it still makes sense to at least put up a speed-bump.
The normal guy, even a geek, who chats for 4 hours with a girlfriend is just increasing their chances of saying something stupid and pretty much guaranteeing no sex for quite some time.
You can argue about the legality or ethics of sites like allofmp3.com, but it's really not the musicians that are hurt by sites like that, at least not directly. The recording industry is hurt by them, but it's mainly their own fault for wanting to hold on to an obsolete distribution method and mentality.
If I was in the market for a house and saw one I liked but the price was too high, I might be willing to leave negative feedback on it to 1) affect other people's interest in it and 2) hope to drive the price down.
Anyway you look at it, it's a shit idea.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
I'd love a la carte programming, personally. I'd get rid of all of the religious channels (hell, who wouldn't?), any channel that shows Golden Girls or Full House, and any "music" channels that don't actually show music. Come to think of it, I haven't watched a music channel in years anyway, so those would go too.
I bet I could get by with, like, 20 channels and never miss a beat. The only reason I pay for the tier of programming I get now is because to get the few I really want I have to have a shit load that are completely useless to me.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
First, I should modify my statement to the governmentS make 50 to 60 cents per gallon, as State and Local taxes are taken into account as well as the Federal taxes. State and local taxes vary widely.
As originally stated, I made it sound as though the Federal taxes alone are 50 to 60 cents, which is incorrect.
My source for this is from Energy Information Administration's Primer on Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)
Another source is from the company ConocoPhillips, located at http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm. I understand that you might not consider either the Government or oil company's information to be reliable, and I will be willing to review opposing information from other sources.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Considering Oil Companies on average make about 9 cents per gallon, and the government makes 50 to 60 cents per gallon, any boycott should logically be focused on our goverments (this applies for Americans only, because I don't know or care how the rest of the world does it.) If you think the US government really needs all that money they get in taxes, that's fine but don't complain about high gas prices or blame it all on the oil companies.
Boycotting the government makes more sense than boycotting one single gas provider.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Perhaps he should sue KAM for infringement. They obviously stole his idea, since he developed it first. The patent office is so screwed up that he could probably apply for a patent and get it at this point, then the sparks would fly.
Seriously, you've got to kind of want this one to actually go to court, and hope that KAM gets bitch-slapped by some savvy judge. Like, a huge punitive penalty for bringing suit in the first place, awarded to Jacobsen, and revoke KAM's patent, and force them to pay Jacobsen for every copy of the software they've sold. Not likely, but that would be sweet.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Maybe Apple Corp. should start reselling computers, to even the score. Wouldn't that be roughly equivalent to what Apple Computers is doing with music?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
For a little more balance on this story, here's the article that was posted at Slashdot: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3646075. It's not as slanted against Diebold as the article linked to here.
That being said, I'm not sure Diebold is the company I'd trust with my voting machines. Not until they make a paper trail a default part of the process. There's no good reason other than the potential to sway election results to not have a verifiable paper trail.
However, in this case the county manager probably isn't the Dudley Doright everyone wants to think he is.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
eHarmony is a private organization and should be allowed to provide it or not to whomever they wish. Unfortunately, in America, that isn't the case for traditional brick-and-mortar companies, so it could be an issue for web-based service providers.
Anyway, if you're that concerned about the rights of same-sex couples, you should focus on local and federal government discrimination. Bible thumping rednecks and their "god don't like that" bullshit have to be taught that their book of silly myths and lies is not a basis for civil law anymore than the books of silly myths and lies of other religions are.
You don't like eHarmony's policies? Don't use their service. Stop trying to force them to provide a service that they don't want to provide. You don't like the discriminatory actions of your government based on nothing more than juvenile "the bible sez it, I believe it, end of story" mentality? Get people in office who have an ounce of sense. Fortunately for all of us, the Christian religion is on its way out in this country, though it may be replaced with Islam, which is just as bad.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
"Actually there are only 10 kinds of people who understand binary, those that do and those that don't.
If you are gonna steal quotes from Bash.org, at least don't misquote them... "
I think you were directing this at me, and I'll have you know that I did not steal that quote from bash.org (though I've recently found the site and I really love reading the quotes.) I saw the "10 kinds of people" thing 3 or 4 years ago in a mailing list I belonged to at the time from topfive.com. I don't know who the guy I stole it from stole it from (unless he actually was the author), but I've used it as my signature line ever since.
Besides, your version doesn't make any sense. 10 kinds of people understand binary, those who do (understand) and those who don't (understand)? How does that even remotely scan?
I can't believe the number of people here who completely miss the whole "innocent until proven guilty" point when it comes to criminal or civil law. You are innocent until "proven" guilty only as long as there is no evidence against you. Once evidence against you is presented, you can sit there and quote "innocent until proven guilty" all you want, but I'm going to start working on proving the evidence isn't sufficient to convict me.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
It seems to me that if something illegal is done over my network (i.e. it's traced back to the IP address that I had at the time of the illegal activity), then it's my responsibility prove that I did not perform the illegal activity. Never mind the RIAA, if downloading or, heaven forbid, uploading of child porn was done over my network, why shouldn't I be considered the primary suspect? Why shouldn't I have the burden of proof?
I can claim that since I have an open, unsecured wireless network that it must have been someone else, but shouldn't I have to prove that it wasn't me, or that it wasn't my specific computer(s)? Is there some way to prove that none of my computers were involved in that activity at that time, even though it was behind my router?
It may be fear mongering to tell people that there is a danger in leaving their wireless networks open, but it's probably a good fear to have for the average person. If you aren't able to document who was sharing your network at any given time, it seems to me that you can (and maybe should) have to answer for whatever occurs on that network.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
I for one welcome speed cameras, as well as red light cams. I'm so sick and tired of assholes who have this idea that speed limits and stop lights are only for when cops are around (and cops who think they are for everyone but them.) If it will keep people from driving 40+ mph in my 25 mph neighborhood while I'm trying to walk my dogs, especially the guys from the Dept. of Transp, who's motor pool is right up the street, I'm all for it.
Sure, there may be issues at this time with the cams giving false positives, but on balance I think it would be a good thing. Best case scenario would be like it was in Germany 15 years ago; the cams aren't everywhere, but they are movable so they could show up at anytime. I got "blitzed" once, and my German wife explained how it was, and you can believe I didn't speed again. You never know when you're going to go by one, so you tend to be more careful.
And the dumbasses who just keep on speeding regardless? Hey, they get away with it 9 times out of 10, but that 1 time they get "caught" is more than worth it.
Are you all missing the point?
Pointing out how the children gain from the satisfaction of giving something away is missing Savage's point: the children are giving away something (and presumably deriving pleasure therefrom) that isn't theirs. This obviously apocryphal story isn't about yelling at children or even about lemonade, it's about the problems with the government giving "free" hand-outs of all kinds to people using someone else's money.
I don't care if you agree with Savage or not, but could you at least address the real issue she raises, instead of focusing on the children? I know berating her for yelling at children is easier than talking about her real point, but you should give it a shot anyway.
How does open source software help?
I know open source software is cheaper, and easier to manage, but if the BSA comes in for an audit, how does being an all-open source shop help you? They can still close you down for the whole day while going through your computers, they can still harm your reputation with your clients and employees. In the long run they'll have nothing, of course, but they can still harass you.
Almost, but not quite
A mall opens its parking lot to any and every body, allowing anybody who wants to sell stuff a place to do it. Food vendors show up, the mall says "hey, it's not up to us to make sure the vendors are selling food that won't kill you; we just provide the space."
Now you get food poisoning from a vendor who claims to be Taco Bell, but it turns out they aren't. By the time you're sick, the fake TB vendors are long gone, with no records of who they were or where they were from. The mall management *could* have prevented this by not allowing a free-for-all, or by requiring some kind of verification of who you are, but chose not to be involved in any of that nonsense.
Now who do you sue?
Did anybody bother reading the article?
As it turns out, there wasn't any fire, the fire department was simply called as an SOP precautionary measure.
Verizon sucks, but let's not make this any more sensational than it needs to be.
Probably what happened is...
Either the woman screwed up and put the wrong piece of paper in, or when she put the right piece of paper in she didn't get the confirmation she was supposed to. She let someone know, and the official finally went to check it out. After finding her piece of paper, and another party verified that there was a problem, they took it out of the system and allowed her to cast her vote again so that it would be properly counted.
If they hadn't, the voter in question (who is Black) may well have claimed that she was denied her right to vote. After all, if officials can't even check IDs to make sure the person voting is who she says she is without being accused of racism and/or intimidation, it's unlikely they could get away with "sorry, you voted wrong that's your problem." Anybody have any idea of what they should have done?
And if I were the officials at that office, regardless of the reason for my actions I would be concerned about how someone got the security film in question. It's obviously someone who shouldn't have it, otherwise they wouldn't have remained anonymous. So the person is claiming something illegal happened (which it may well have), and uses proof he or she obtained illegally. If you allow that, you have to allow cops to present evidence of a crime that they obtained through an unlawful search.
Why make it any easier for the evil-doers?
I make no apologies that I recommend to everyone of my clients that they secure their wireless network. It's too easy to do to justify not doing it. Maybe someone won't download illegal files through your unsecured connection, or send out a huge amount of spam, but why invite them to in the first place?
For the life of me, I can't see why it's considered "fear mongering" to warn people of these possibilities and inform them of just how easy it is to lock the connection down. Sure, a determined evil-doer with the right knowledge can break into it regardless, but it still makes sense to at least put up a speed-bump.
Chating 4 hours with a girlfriend?
The normal guy, even a geek, who chats for 4 hours with a girlfriend is just increasing their chances of saying something stupid and pretty much guaranteeing no sex for quite some time.
You can argue about the legality or ethics of sites like allofmp3.com, but it's really not the musicians that are hurt by sites like that, at least not directly. The recording industry is hurt by them, but it's mainly their own fault for wanting to hold on to an obsolete distribution method and mentality.
If I wanted to buy a house....
If I was in the market for a house and saw one I liked but the price was too high, I might be willing to leave negative feedback on it to 1) affect other people's interest in it and 2) hope to drive the price down.
Anyway you look at it, it's a shit idea.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Biggest opponents of ala carte programming
I'd love a la carte programming, personally. I'd get rid of all of the religious channels (hell, who wouldn't?), any channel that shows Golden Girls or Full House, and any "music" channels that don't actually show music. Come to think of it, I haven't watched a music channel in years anyway, so those would go too.
I bet I could get by with, like, 20 channels and never miss a beat. The only reason I pay for the tier of programming I get now is because to get the few I really want I have to have a shit load that are completely useless to me.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re: Re: I've got a better boycott
First, I should modify my statement to the governmentS make 50 to 60 cents per gallon, as State and Local taxes are taken into account as well as the Federal taxes. State and local taxes vary widely.
As originally stated, I made it sound as though the Federal taxes alone are 50 to 60 cents, which is incorrect.
My source for this is from Energy Information Administration's Primer on Gasoline Prices (http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/brochures/gasolinepricesprimer/eia1_2005primerM.html)
Another source is from the company ConocoPhillips, located at http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm. I understand that you might not consider either the Government or oil company's information to be reliable, and I will be willing to review opposing information from other sources.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
I've got a better boycott
Considering Oil Companies on average make about 9 cents per gallon, and the government makes 50 to 60 cents per gallon, any boycott should logically be focused on our goverments (this applies for Americans only, because I don't know or care how the rest of the world does it.) If you think the US government really needs all that money they get in taxes, that's fine but don't complain about high gas prices or blame it all on the oil companies.
Boycotting the government makes more sense than boycotting one single gas provider.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Turn-about's fair play
Perhaps he should sue KAM for infringement. They obviously stole his idea, since he developed it first. The patent office is so screwed up that he could probably apply for a patent and get it at this point, then the sparks would fly.
Seriously, you've got to kind of want this one to actually go to court, and hope that KAM gets bitch-slapped by some savvy judge. Like, a huge punitive penalty for bringing suit in the first place, awarded to Jacobsen, and revoke KAM's patent, and force them to pay Jacobsen for every copy of the software they've sold. Not likely, but that would be sweet.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
How would Apple Computers feel?
Maybe Apple Corp. should start reselling computers, to even the score. Wouldn't that be roughly equivalent to what Apple Computers is doing with music?
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Not the whole story
For a little more balance on this story, here's the article that was posted at Slashdot: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3646075. It's not as slanted against Diebold as the article linked to here.
That being said, I'm not sure Diebold is the company I'd trust with my voting machines. Not until they make a paper trail a default part of the process. There's no good reason other than the potential to sway election results to not have a verifiable paper trail.
However, in this case the county manager probably isn't the Dudley Doright everyone wants to think he is.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Same-Sex couples need more...
eHarmony is a private organization and should be allowed to provide it or not to whomever they wish. Unfortunately, in America, that isn't the case for traditional brick-and-mortar companies, so it could be an issue for web-based service providers.
Anyway, if you're that concerned about the rights of same-sex couples, you should focus on local and federal government discrimination. Bible thumping rednecks and their "god don't like that" bullshit have to be taught that their book of silly myths and lies is not a basis for civil law anymore than the books of silly myths and lies of other religions are.
You don't like eHarmony's policies? Don't use their service. Stop trying to force them to provide a service that they don't want to provide. You don't like the discriminatory actions of your government based on nothing more than juvenile "the bible sez it, I believe it, end of story" mentality? Get people in office who have an ounce of sense. Fortunately for all of us, the Christian religion is on its way out in this country, though it may be replaced with Islam, which is just as bad.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re: Re: Robs Reply
"Actually there are only 10 kinds of people who understand binary, those that do and those that don't.
If you are gonna steal quotes from Bash.org, at least don't misquote them... "
I think you were directing this at me, and I'll have you know that I did not steal that quote from bash.org (though I've recently found the site and I really love reading the quotes.) I saw the "10 kinds of people" thing 3 or 4 years ago in a mailing list I belonged to at the time from topfive.com. I don't know who the guy I stole it from stole it from (unless he actually was the author), but I've used it as my signature line ever since.
Besides, your version doesn't make any sense. 10 kinds of people understand binary, those who do (understand) and those who don't (understand)? How does that even remotely scan?
I can't believe the number of people here who completely miss the whole "innocent until proven guilty" point when it comes to criminal or civil law. You are innocent until "proven" guilty only as long as there is no evidence against you. Once evidence against you is presented, you can sit there and quote "innocent until proven guilty" all you want, but I'm going to start working on proving the evidence isn't sufficient to convict me.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
I'm not so sure..
It seems to me that if something illegal is done over my network (i.e. it's traced back to the IP address that I had at the time of the illegal activity), then it's my responsibility prove that I did not perform the illegal activity. Never mind the RIAA, if downloading or, heaven forbid, uploading of child porn was done over my network, why shouldn't I be considered the primary suspect? Why shouldn't I have the burden of proof?
I can claim that since I have an open, unsecured wireless network that it must have been someone else, but shouldn't I have to prove that it wasn't me, or that it wasn't my specific computer(s)? Is there some way to prove that none of my computers were involved in that activity at that time, even though it was behind my router?
It may be fear mongering to tell people that there is a danger in leaving their wireless networks open, but it's probably a good fear to have for the average person. If you aren't able to document who was sharing your network at any given time, it seems to me that you can (and maybe should) have to answer for whatever occurs on that network.
Rob Miles
--
There are only 10 types of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.
Re: Typo
"Locale" is not a misspelling.
Bring 'em on!
I for one welcome speed cameras, as well as red light cams. I'm so sick and tired of assholes who have this idea that speed limits and stop lights are only for when cops are around (and cops who think they are for everyone but them.) If it will keep people from driving 40+ mph in my 25 mph neighborhood while I'm trying to walk my dogs, especially the guys from the Dept. of Transp, who's motor pool is right up the street, I'm all for it.
Sure, there may be issues at this time with the cams giving false positives, but on balance I think it would be a good thing. Best case scenario would be like it was in Germany 15 years ago; the cams aren't everywhere, but they are movable so they could show up at anytime. I got "blitzed" once, and my German wife explained how it was, and you can believe I didn't speed again. You never know when you're going to go by one, so you tend to be more careful.
And the dumbasses who just keep on speeding regardless? Hey, they get away with it 9 times out of 10, but that 1 time they get "caught" is more than worth it.