August 2006 Archive
August 29, 2006 Posted by mitch |
politics |
Here's another rant about an article that showed up in the Salt Lake Tribune today... its titled: Protecting data: Bennett's bill favors businesses over consumers. I'll summerize it real quick if you don't want to read it yourself... It comes down to who's responcible for protecting *YOUR* personal identification information? In the age of Identity theft, its true that its ultimately our responcibility to protect our own identity. However, businesses that require this sacred information for whatever purpose, and store it also have a responcibility to you, to keep it safe. That means that if these businesses were to loose that information or somehow this information were to be compromized, by a cracker (yes cracker is the correct term *NOT* hacker as the media types like to use) or a lost/stolen laptop. They should be required to inform you of this information should they not? They also should be responcible for the outcome of said compromize. Well good o'll Sen. Bob Bennett thinks that even the first thing is to much and to costly for businesses. Yeah, thats right. Notifying you that they have lost or there was a possible compromize of your personal information is not "cost effective" for a business to notify you about. I ask then, why is this information imporant for them to have? Oh thats right, it allows them to make money, and this pesky thing of notifying "customers" about this breech could hurt their reputation, cost them future and current customers, and cost them alot of money as well.... hmmm yeah, I can see why its in their best interests to have this law...
Which brings me back to Mr Bennett, showing his true colors isn't he. Hes not out for his voting public, hes out for this company that most likely gave something to Mr. Bennett for which he was able to personally benifit from. As for the people, the "consumers", they get the shaft. Thanks so much!
What I think should happen in the very least, is that these companies that retain this personal and confidential information on their consumers, should become legally responcible for it. If the information is compromized in *ANY* way, the customers affected should be notified within 20 - 30 days(maximum! I would personally say a week or less). Also the company is also legally responcible for clearing said customers credit if it turns out that they are an unfortunate vicitim of Identity theft. This includes all financial problems resulting from such fraud. I would also leave it open to emotional distress resulting from the effects of having your identity stolen. Yes I very well understand the implications of these requirements, and that they could bankrupt companies because of it. However, *THAT* is just how important this information is. The idea is, that it would make the company NOT want to retain this information if it really doesn't need to. Also, they would stop storing this information on Laptops, which, to me, is insane. It would, by default, enforce the use of encryption, and I think it would even help with the push for greater broadband speeds and the like over the longer term. Being a geek myself, I love the thought of getting more bandwidth.
August 28, 2006 Posted by mitch |
technology |
Seems as if the infamous DRM is back in the news again. I have to say, I am not a fan of DRM, much like I'm not a fan of gun control as they're both from the same breed of illogical thought. DRM(digital rights management for those not in the know) like Gun control only prevents and causes problems for consumers doing legal things. The fact remains (and has been proven time and time again) those that wish to do ill and don't care for the "laws" such as those saying you can't circumvent DRM, and even those that say conviced fellons cannot buy guns (least I believe thats part of the current gun control laws). Will always find a way around it and continue with their ill ways. So I ask you, what part of DRM says it will stop music/software piracy? As I've always said, if you can play it, you can pirate it. Prevent people from playing it and you might be able to stop them from pirating it, but then you also stop people from wanting it as well. So, whats left? If only the people that are going to go about things the "proper" way, are the ones that buy whatever these media types say... then they'll believe that if they want to play a song in their car, in their house, and on their poratble device, then they have to purchase three copies. When the law (see Fair Use) says that if you purchase it once you can use it in all of these places.
Again, so who is the DRM for? Its not to stop piracy. I would even dare say that DRM (especially to the scale Windows Vista is going to take it to) will actually encourage more Piracy. Why? Why will so many current consumers turn to a supposidly "illegal" activity such as this? Media types are going to far, I believe people will eventually notice they don't like paying three times for the same thing. Who's at fault? Ultimately we the consumers are responcible for DRM, if we wouldn't have bought off on it, as a way to "make sure the artists get paid"(which is also one of the biggest lies in the industry), then we wouldn't be in the current situation. Secondly, the providers of this DRM are at fault. Microsoft (and even Apple to some degree tho they do get very minor props for giving alot more freedom[far from being actual freedom], considering the era, than anyone prior and since) certainly has enough clout to have said "No, we won't do it", however, that would only be looking after *THEIR CUSTOMERS* best interests... but I guess we can all figure out who's their real customers can't we?
August 27, 2006 Posted by mitch |
website |
Not sure if anyone has noticed yet, since they haven't worked for a year or so... but I do have working comments again. So please feel free to leave a message if you choose.
Also, I've been making other minor changes to my CSS file and a few other things, so if things break for you... let me know. I don't test anything with IE, so I don't currently know how things look there. My reasoning: Download firefox! its better.
August 24, 2006 Posted by mitch |
house |
After 3 months of waiting, our landscaping is finally going to be finished by next week some time. I need to find out how much it will cost for the backyard, since only the front yard came with the purchase....
August 17, 2006 Posted by mitch |
website |
Its a sad, sad, day. I removed my display of my amazon wish list. It used SOAP to load it and it was really cool... however the time it took to load my web page was really anoying... if only it could do some kind of cashing or background fetching of the data. Anyway, I have a link that should go directly to my wish list still... and if you want to buy me anything thats where to look ;)
August 15, 2006 Posted by mitch |
internet |
I've had Digital Cable from comcast for the last couple months, and I have to say, i've not impressed. The only reason I got it was because of the discount and free install which ended up to be almost the same price as what I would have done anyway. I don't like the digital cable box, and changing channels studders and really bothers me. The picture isn't that great over all... and these are all the things I can live with. What I really dislike is the price. I'd say its barely worth what I'm paying and I currently have it for half price. So, I need to call and cut back to my 12.95/month plan as soon as my discount runs up. Also, I'm extremely annoyed that about commercials in general. These big media company types are wondering why people are sick of commercials? And are currently trying to find ways to use technology to force people to watch commercials, while we the consumers are busy finding technology reasons to avoid commercials. Guess who's winning? Let me tell you what I hate about commercials and why I use my MythTV box to avoid them.
- I hate the volume increase when commercials come on.
This extremely annoys me, I get my volume set so its just right when I'm watching a show, but when a commercial comes on its atleast 10 decibles louder than the show was. This is extermely annoying, and does nothing but make me upset, and I currently will mute commercials or change channels to avoid this. Which is a disservice to the people paying for these commercials, because I am no longer watching what they paid me to watch.
- I do not care about tampons/herpes/joint pain/osteoperosis/etc...
I am an early 20's male, married, no kids yet, and I don't care about any of these things, and I will *never* buy them. I "ok" with watching very few commercials and much much fewer still even convice me to buy anything.
This is why I don't watch commercials and why I will continue not to watch them. This needs to stop, it needs to change. Instead these media companies should be using technology to give people what they "want" instead of force feeding us. We are entirely capable of figure out how to make things the way we want without you, why do you insist on thinking and treating us like we're idiots? .... We'll get what we want, with or without you... question is... do you want to be on making some money from it or not... you only have a few chances before the market will take it away from you. Just look at Tivo... they're still the king in the Commercial DVR market. Even after all the attemps and who knows how much money you've invested to try to compete.
Anyway, I'm done with my rant for now, will be interesting to watch the market over the next couple years.
August 9, 2006 Posted by mitch |
internet |
What is this world comming to... more and more we seem to be drifting towards a Police State. The reason for this rant? Well its over a situation reported on by TIME.
Wolf was thrown into federal prison for refusing to testify before a U.S. grand jury and for failing to hand over unpublished video footage he shot during a raucous clash on the streets between San Francisco police officers and anti-G8 protesters last year. Wolf posted some of the video on his blog, and some clips were aired on TV newscasts that later paid Wolf for the footage. But the feds are demanding to see everything that wasn't made public. They allege that the unused portion of Wolf's video may show the patrol car being set afire — part of a federal crime, the government asserts. Wolf denies there is an attempted arson on his videotape. The feds say they have jurisdiction over the case because the police car is partly U.S. government property since the S.F.P.D. receives federal anti-terrorism money.
So... because the US government gives money to the SFPD that means they used that money to buy a police car that was later set on fire by some anti-G8 protesters? Wha?!? It doesn't make sense... I mean an employer has no right to any of the property or other posessions an employee might buy as a result of their pay check from the employer... so why would they have any right to this police car, assuming the money that paid for it came from the government? I'm not entirely sure about Mr. Wolf's rights as far as refusing to testify before a U.S. grand jury, but I don't see how or why he should be required to give up his video footage. When multiple parties have said there is no information on the tape that the police/government are looking for. It seems they just want the tape to identify those at the protest, but traditional journalists are protected by California Law to not require them to give up information while gathering news. Why can't an independant journalist be afforded this same protection? To make it worse... hes looking at a year in prision just because he won't stand before a grand jury on the issue. The whole situation stinks to be honest. I don't condone the act of violence that the anti-G8 protesters performed by burning the police car, however, they still have their right to protest, which is why he shouldn't have to give up the tape, since it doesn't have the actual act of burning the police car on it.
This is just one more instants that I feel the police(and/or our executive branch) have over stepped boundries they they really shouldn't be crossing. I haven't written on the previous ones, but there have been a few in the news over the last couple months, and I'm really at a loss for words about it... It seems we as a people are giving up everything that was fought for by our founding fathers and since. Many people died to give way to the freedoms we've enjoyed over the last 2 centuries, and this is how we repay their sacrifice... I close this with a quote from one of those founding fathers
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Ben Franklin
Well, I was very supprised that Oracle actually has a .deb package for Ubuntu Dapper Drake believe it or not! I didn't, but I was using google, and noticed a page on oracle.com that had ubuntu listed... was wondering what it was about and, I got to the oracle download page with a package for ubuntu for Oracle XE! I was shocked! I mean... all this time and all I had to do was just go to Oracle website and actually look at what they supported. This is new within the last few months as I don't ever recall it being there.... but it may also just be that I wasn't ever looking for Ubuntu when I was going to download something from oracle. Anyway, It installed without much problem, I was missing one package for X, and my swap space was only 1022MB instead of the package required 1024MB, so instead of going through a new install yet again, I just added a swap file off the root partition and added that to my available swap for the install. After that, everything is working perfectly.
