|
|
If it isn't "reasonable" to demand that people have at least combination-lock security on their cars to prevent the remote possibility of unnecessary DEATHS, then it isn't reasonable to expect people to use advanced encryption technology to prevent the remote possibility of a few cents' loss of theoretical profit to some strange company you never even knew existed.
The problem with car analogies is that they so rarely equate. Enabling encryption in a wireless network is as simple as enabling a feature that is already present on both your router and your wireless devices. However, adding a combination lock to an automobile is a complicated and expensive process.
Not to mention that a keyed door lock is already fairly secure. While an unencrypted wireless access point, broadcasting it's id, is completely insecure.
That's why it's such a PITA to collect sales tax. It's a big enough headache to keep track of one states tax laws, and tax boundaries (which rarely correspond with ZIP codes).
"We did get an indication that the vaccine was protecting people, not only from the numbers of people who got flu but also from looking at their T-cells before we gave them flu. The people we vaccinated had T-cells that were more activated. The people we hadn't vaccinated had T-cells as well but they were in a resting state so they would probably have taken longer to do anything. The volunteers we vaccinated had T-cells that were activated, primed and ready to kill. There were more T-cells in people we vaccinated and they were more activated."
This test appears to be about safety and confirming some sort of t-cell response, not effectiveness.
Just because the damn things work for you doesn't mean they work everywhere.
And just so you know that I'm not "whining and whimpering like a neocon" I have CFLs in every fixture that they will fit in and still give me a decent amount of light.
Remote attestation isn't something that needs to be built into the average PC. On a typical user's desktop, remote attestation doesn't really have any legitimate uses, only evil ones.
You're assuming manufacturers are going to produce a separate line of motherboards for home use and office use? I think that would drive the cost of hardware up.
If those workstations came with a switch on the side for forging attestations,
On a typical user's desktop forging attestations doesn't really have any legitimate uses, only evil ones.
Honestly, turning the attestations off may happen, but do you really think the hardware manufacturers are going to let you forge them?
This case isn't about if school's can have Zero-Tolerance rules, but did they act inappropriatly when they involutarily, and without parental consent, strip-searched a 13 year-old girl, because they suspected she had ibuprofen (Advil, that's right plain, old, ADVIL ) on her.
If this case actually involved illegal possession, they should have contacted the police and let them handle it. Since it was simply a case of an over-zealous enforcement of a zero-tolerance policy, I think school administrators should have been limited to suspending the student.
And I do feel the need to mention, they didn't even find any pills.
How's this for a rule, School administrators DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES get to strip-search anyone. Pat them down, search their bags, remove them from the general student body, call the police and let them do their thing, but you, as school administrators, do not have the authority to strip anyone naked, for any purpose.
if a musician records a work of his own accord , and without having entered into any agreement with that musician or deceiving him in any way, I copy his songs, then it's not called "theft of labor".
Note the emphasis. Slaves did not do work of their own accord. Your silly little analagy is even more inaccurate that a car metaphor.
Second copying a song is not "theft of labor." Theft of labor would be someone hiring you for a job and not paying you (as the post you quoted was trying to point out.) Legally copying a song is unauthorized copying, not theft. Neither is ethical, but there are very distinct differences.
Third, copyright is not an inalienable right. It was initially a temporary monopoly granted to an idea's creator. It has since been perverted by corporations (such as Disney) so that it is granted virtually in perpetuity.
Do you get it yet?
Presidency: The greased pig in the field game of American politics. -- Ambrose Bierce