Recent Posts

9226

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 06, 2010, 04:55 PM »

I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion.

Best to all & carry on!  

9227

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 06, 2010, 12:05 PM »

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." -- I think that's just bunk. Esoteric laws and reasonable mistakes...

The US has about 3/4 of a percent of its population in prison -- higher than any other country. Laws in the US have run amok and are destroying the country. http://en.wikipedia....in_the_United_States

In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults.

WOW! That's simply stunning. Over 3%. There is something seriously wrong there. I have a hard time believing that Americans are really all that evil/bad. No. The problem isn't the people. It's the legislators and the judiciary.

-Renegade (May 06, 2010, 10:03 AM)

To be honest I think there are three other factors which have direct bearing on the number of people incarcerated in the US beyond what I too will agree is partly caused by its ridiculous hodge-podge of laws and jurisdictions.

First, the US has a very large and well-connected number of detection and enforcement agencies. In the words of St. Mung:"Anyplace you got a whole lotta COPS - a whole lotta LAW gets done."

And like you, I also don't believe the US is home to a lot of intrinsically evil people.

But it is home to a huge number of people...

And there are a huge number of very complex laws on its books...

 And it has a very large number of well-equipped police agencies actively out looking for violations.

So I think a good bit of that is simple statistical probability. To paraphrase St. Mung:

Lotta People + Lotta Laws + Lotta Cops = Whole Lotta People getting busted.

Is the "crime" rate and the high incarceration level merely indicative of a higher level of crime? Or is it just that the US is better equipped (i.e. funded) to spot it and take some sort of action? More to the point, is the well documented American fascination with law and jurisprudence (and our Puritan moral heritage) so great that we're more willing than most countries to lock up our own?

Which leads to the second factor which contributes to incarceration.

The US can better afford to lock people up than most other countries.

People pay taxes. People want bigger jails. Bigger jails get built.

Parkinson's Law says that: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

I'd like to propose Renegade's Incarceration Corollary:

The prison population expands so as to fill the space made available to hold it.

So why does the US lock so many people up? Because it's equipped itself to do so.

In a nutshell: We do because we can.

(Remember. You read it here first folks!  )

The third factor that I think contributes to the high incarceration level is our near-religious belief in in the notion of individualism.

We would much rather jail somebody than try to change the way they think.

Putting somebody in a concrete and steel 8 X 10 box for several years to sit and (hopefully) change their own mind is considered far less morally repugnant than doing something to directly force them to think differently.

In a way, it's almost like we're saying it's ok to think and act any way you like as long as you understand you're not going to be allowed out in the general public if you step over the line.
So now the message is: If you wanna be bad, there's a place to do that. It's called jail.

As a result, the new American jails have pretty much abandoned the old rehabilitation ethos they had prior to the 80s. Nobody in their right minds will argue jails rehabilitate anybody anymore. Now they're simply viewed as correctional institutions - facilities primarily designed to hold people as a form of punishment - and to administer the occasional lethal injection in such places where it's still permitted.

But interestingly enough, even in capital cases, at no time does the government do anything to get the the convicted to see their actions in a different light. Although the law may be willing to take human life, it's not willing to force a change in person's attitudes or beliefs.

The individual is sacred. We may punish or hang you. But we will never force you to think in a certain way.

So that's my take on the primary causes for the size of the US prison population:

• higher statistical probabilities for breaking the law and getting caught
• economic factors which allow for a large prison population to exist in the first place
• and a preference to punish rather than attempt to force psychological or moral changes in the individual.

-----

It's fairly easy to break the law...
   And it's also fairly easy to get caught.

      So there are lots of jails....
         Which we're quite willing to put people in....

            Because we'd rather jail somebody than tell them what to think.

Or at least so it seem to me.

9228

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 06, 2010, 08:44 AM »

No, not at all.  

It just means that there are statutes on the books that you have to be aware of and also be careful not to run afoul of.

One big advantage traditional news agencies have that blogger-journalists don't is ready access to expert legal counsel.

I'm willing to bet that there isn't one single news agency, newspaper, magazine, or television station that would have been foolish enough to have bought that iPhone. And that's not because Apple is so politically "connected" as some people infer.

It's because any sane attorney would have told them it would be a generally stupid idea, likely be illegal, and definitely be open to question as far as ethics were concerned.

So while it's all well and good to take umbrage with politicians and corporations, the fact remains the same situation would have come about for Gizmodo - no matter which company was involved - had they decided to push it.

The presence of Apple, and the possible mis-issuance of a search warrant adds a little frisson to the mix. But that's just another manifestation of the 'show biz' that is California.

I'm sure Apple's attorneys made a few phone calls. But that's hardly sufficient grounds to spin it into a whole scenario positing political influence peddling, corrupt police officials, and overly compliant judges.

Maybe a little bit of Apple's hype-machine is starting to rub off on all of us?

Either way, it will have it's day in court, at which time I suspect a very different story will emerge from what's been told so far.

In the mean time, we'll all have to do our best to conserve our outrage.

----

P.S. Individuals aren't alone when it comes to getting royally screwed over by California's legal system. California courts have a long-standing reputation for regularly doing a number on  government agencies and business entities. And sometimes for the most ridiculous and far fetched legal reasoning imaginable.

If Dave Chen gets screwed in court, it won't be the first time an individual took on a corporation and lost. If Apple gets screwed in court, it won't be the first time a big company took on 'the little guy' and lost.

Welcome to the Hotel California folks!

9229

Site/Forum Features / Re: Discussion: How can we Improve DonationCoder?

« Last post by 40hz on May 06, 2010, 07:54 AM »

I have even gone so far as changing the color in the usercontent.css file of my browser to make it stand out more.

-app103 (May 06, 2010, 07:05 AM)

Just out of curiosity, what color do you use?

 

9230

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 06, 2010, 06:40 AM »

^Very good questions.

The actual warrant authorizes the search and seizure for two reasons. It was believed that:

- the items in question were used in the commission of a crime

- the items in question tend to show a felony was committed OR a particular person committed a felony

I'm guessing they're looking for correspondence or other data that could show Dave Chen or Gizmodo had engaged in a conspiracy to illegally obtain the phone prior to it actually being taken - or for something that could show Chen had knowingly involved himself in an act he knew to be illegal. (Something as simple as an e-mail where he casually referred to the phone as being  'swiped' would be one example of the sort of thing they might look for.)  And I'm also sure the police were very interested in obtaining the names of anyone else who might have been involved.

There's also the intimidation factor being brought into play here. Police searches are incredibly intrusive and upsetting to most people. So "rattling the cages" is a common tactic when police are conducting an investigation.

Fishing expedition is exactly what it sounds like. And that's become far too common with post-911 search warrants.

I thought courts were only supposed to issue warrants to search for specific items such as drugs, stolen goods or illegal weapons when evidence has been presented to justify the intrusion.

-Carol Haynes (May 06, 2010, 03:53 AM)

That's always been a problem with searches in the US. Warrants are usually quite specific as to the where and the what. But they're considerably less specific when it comes to why. Why they're issued is based on probable cause. "PC" has a much lower burden of proof than evidence to be presented in a courtroom.

Basically all that's required is for someone to find a judge who can be convinced there's sufficient probable cause based on something called the "totality of the circumstances" to issue a warrant. It's all very subjective. Different judges have different opinions as to what constitutes probable cause. Some are exceptionally strict while others are very lenient. Police usually know one or two "cooperative" judges they can call on when they need a warrant issued  in a hurry.

Although abusive and illegal searches occur with some frequency, in most cases the evidence they obtain is not admitted in court. Judges seem to be willing to grant fairly broad leeway when it comes to issuing warrants so the police can do their job. But they're generally much less willing to cut them any slack once a case comes to trial.

Note too that US search warrants are issued both to allow the polices to obtain evidence - and to prevent evidence from being destroyed.

That's why any time a computer system is involved, the police tend to grab anything that has a cable connected to it "just in case." Ridiculous as this practice may seem to those of us who know better, it's still generally allowed by the courts since advances in computer technology make it very difficult for the police to stay caught up - and which is something they freely admit is a problem.

If it was a fishing trip for information surely that would be equivalent to denying him the right to silence?

Unfortunately, no. That would only apply to his own verbal testimony.

A defendant can't be compelled to make statements or comments that could result in self-incrimination. But anything else in his possession that's been legally discovered can be treated as evidence. That includes paper, photos, computer files, personal diaries - and whatever else the police can dredge up.

So while you can't be forced to admit you've done something wrong, you can be forced to to give up "personal" papers and decrypt "private" files on your laptop if a judge so orders.

The right to silence only applies to your own spoken words.

9231

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 11:00 PM »

I think that my little tirade above points out that there is a problem with equating "legal/right/desirable" and "illegal/wrong/undesirable".

-Renegade (May 05, 2010, 08:32 PM)

Good gracious Renegade! You certainly live up to your forum name...

But I think you may be equating a little too much of "everything" with "everything else."  

And Justice Holmes' famous quote is not a "red herring" at all. It's a very succinct clarification of what actually goes down in a US courtroom.

Courts deal with the law as it is currently written. Not the way we'd like the law to be.

So while I very much enjoyed your "tirade" (along with some of the interesting points you raised along the way  ) I can't really say they'd be all that relevant in a courtroom or criminal investigation.

This isn't meant as a knock. Just a semi-rueful nod towards the realities of the legal process itself.

 

9232

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 06:55 PM »

@StoicJoker-

Like it!

-40hz (May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM)

That's a relief, I had a feeling if nobody got the humor I'd get hammered for it  ...but I hit post anyway.

-Stoic Joker (May 05, 2010, 06:10 PM)

Could be worse. I have the exact opposite problem.

People (esp. my GF) often start laughing when I'm being dead serious. 

Still, like you, I continue to hit post anyway. 

 

9233

General Software Discussion / Re: Need some input on CMS for a kinda, sorta webby ...

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 03:05 PM »

@JavaJones- thanks for pointing out SilverStripe.

I've given several CMS systems a spin. But I never tried that one despite seeing very favorable comments wherever it got discussed. Seeing it mentioned here at DC inspired me to finally look into it.

I downloaded and gave it a run on one of my test systems last night. Very impressive. One of the easiest to use CMSs I've ever seen. Remarkably powerful too. Definitely gonna add this to the short list next time I have a client who wants to talk about setting up "a simple CMS system."

Thx again.



 

9234

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 01:35 PM »

So is that what you're doing?

-wraith808 (May 05, 2010, 01:22 PM)

Ummm...I think 'Stoic' was only trying to insert a little levity into the discussion.

And I'd suspect he is also a very nice person.

 

9235

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 01:30 PM »

@StoicJoker-

Like it!

But there's a few problems with the analogy.

• Bookie Jim is engaged in an illegal activity. Apple isn't. (At least on paper.)
• Sleazy Pete is working for the police as a paid informant. Gizmodo isn't.
• A paper notebook isn't an engineering prototype. It may contain secrets, but there isn't anything in its form or function that is inherently proprietary. The iPhone contains both proprietary data and embodies proprietary intellectual property in its hardware and design.
• The DA has made it clear he's after Jim. Regardless of how any of us may feel, nobody in authority is actively going after Apple. (At least not yet.)

We have to be careful with analogies. That's why the article by Prof. Green was so valuable. He basically forces us to confront the facts in the actual incident - and the relevant laws - rather than the philosophical and moral issues surrounding them.

As former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once remarked:

"This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

And that's an important and very real distinction.

 

9236

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 01:04 PM »

I honestly don't feel that great about seeing the journalist shield laws coming up for argument with possible criminal complications in the mix when the root of the story is a mere tech gadget.

-JavaJones (May 05, 2010, 12:03 PM)

Spot on!

You're one of the very few people to have said that, and I couldn't agree more.

I think it very well might be disastrous for the "new press" movement if this became the test case for determining what the definition of "journalist" is.

What we need to be especially careful to not succumb to is something Clay Shirky referred to as "the conservation of outrage" should we discover our original anger was the result of erroneous information we'd been given.

Something to think about.

Mr. Shirky is an interesting writer on media topics,  and my little summary doesn't do justice to his presentation. You can (and should) read it in full at his weblog:

http://www.shirky.co...ilure-of-amazonfail/

The Failure of #amazonfail

In 1987, a teenage girl in suburban New York was discovered dazed and wrapped in a garbage bag, smeared with feces, with racial epithets scrawled on her torso. She had been attacked by half a dozen white men, then left in that state on the grounds of an apartment building. As the court case against her accused assailants proceeded, it became clear that she’d actually faked the attack, in order not to be punished for running away from home. Though the event initially triggered enormous moral outrage, evidence that it didn’t actually happen didn’t quell that outrage. Moral judgment is harder to reverse than other, less emotional forms; when an event precipitates the cleansing anger of righteousness, admitting you were mistaken feels dirty. As a result, there can be an enormous premium put on finding rationales for continuing to feel aggrieved, should the initial rationale disappear. Call it ‘conservation of outrage.’

<more>

9237

Living Room / Re: One of my cats, Titch, passed away yesterday

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 12:43 PM »

Alexis and I both want to offer our condolences. Losing a feline family member of 19 years has got to be hard.

Best.

9238

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 12:37 PM »

I feel much the same way about the 'Singularity' event leading up to the Big Bang.

But I expect we'll probably get an answer to that question sooner.

9239

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 12:30 PM »

The bigger question for me is what the revenue split is between various types of pages.

-JavaJones (May 05, 2010, 11:58 AM)

I'm not sure what you're asking here. AdWords is where Google makes it's big money.

But if you want to know what the split is among the advertisers who are in the AdWords program, you're right in assuming Google isn't ever going to share that information. Especially since AdWords is an auction based "pay to play" system. Not allowing advertisers to obtain what economists call "perfect information" prior to placing a bid generally results in higher bids all around. And that's good for Google.

That's the sort of stuff that usually falls under the heading of Company Proprietary Private and gets a big honkin' blue CONFIDENTIAL stamp on it.

If they told ya - they'd have to kill ya!  

-------


@superboyac - Yeah,...Bloody Damn huh?
Like I said - I knew they were doing good, but I never knew it was that good.

 

9240

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 07:06 AM »

that's a good point, i have no idea what share of their revenue comes from where.  would be nice to know.

-mouser (May 03, 2010, 01:36 PM)

Advertising accounts for 97% of Google's revenue according to their 2009 annual report. It appears the AdWords and AdSense combo is what's paying the bills.

The full details of how it works can be found under the heading How We Generate Revenue on pages 37-39.

Screen shot of financials below - click to expand:





Sorry for the GIF. But if you try to copy any of Google's report to the clipboard, it drops all the spaces between words for some reason, making it very hard to read.

 
---------------------------------
Addendum:

I've got Google's whole 2009 annual report on PDF if anybody wants it. It butchers in at 1.15Mb (for 132 mostly text pages) which is why I hesitated to upload it. It's a mildly interesting read. I learned a thing or two by skimming it. The 'how we make money' section I mentioned above was particularly enlightening. But there's nothing in it that really surprised me other than the size of Google's reported revenue stream.

Gadzooks! I knew they were making money... but I had no idea they were making that much money.
 

9241

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 05:31 AM »

The case is in a very grey area.

-Renegade (May 04, 2010, 07:26 PM)

True. But maybe not as much as some might think.

Privacy and shield laws offer a degree of protection to journalists. But they don't provide protection if a journalist becomes accessory to a criminal act.

If Dave Chen and Gizmodo were merely investigating and reporting, they wouldn't have a problem. And to be perfectly honest, they probably wouldn't have had much of a story either. Unfortunately, they were also a significant part of what actually made up the story itself. So rather than just reporting the news - they became the news.

That's where it gets dicey for the journalistic shield argument.

There's a degree of professional distance reporters need to maintain if they're going to claim constitutional protections in order to do their job. Much as I dislike  Apple (and personally feel the police behaved in an overzealous manner) I still think there's a very good chance Gizmodo might have stepped over the line on this one. One indication this may be the case is that all the usual legal advocacy groups (ACLU et al) don't seem to be an any rush to defend Gizmodo's actions. Since these groups are experts in cases such as this, it doesn't bode well they have yet to step forward on Gizmodo's behalf.

 

9242

Living Room / Re: The conflict of interest that is Google

« Last post by 40hz on May 05, 2010, 04:36 AM »

I'm always curious why I keep hearing the argument that Google is tweaking its algorithms to favor its own offerings.

Why would they need to?

Since Google (and only Google) knows exactly how their search engine works, who is in a better position to engineer a web page for maximum visibility and ranking than Google?

That's the problem with SEO strategies. Most of them are based  on some combination of common sense, deductive reasoning, and observation. Many also include a healthy dose of wishful thinking.

This leads to a fundamental problem:

For Google, SEO is an exact science. For everybody else - it's an educated guess.

Small wonder Google can precisely place a 'hit' anyplace they want in their rankings.

Mouser said it best. There is a conflict of interest that Google is never going to be able to get completely around as long as their business works both sides of their search engine.

9243

Living Room / Re: Do you collect anything?

« Last post by 40hz on May 04, 2010, 03:38 PM »

Collecting is a little too formal a term for what I do. It implies a conscious and rational plan for acquisition. Something I freely admit I lack. Some other people called themselves "accumulators" which I think adequately describes what I do.

Things I regularly accumulate (and in no particular order):

• Books
• Tarot Cards
• Books
• Art Glass Globes (when I can afford it)
• Books
• Sacred Scriptures - all faiths and belief systems (and yes, I've read 'em all too!)
• Books
• Musical Instruments
• Books
• Quotations
• Books
• Movie Scripts
• Oh! Did I mention books yet?

and trouble!

 

9244

Living Room / Re: Steve Jobs tells us how he really feels about Flash...

« Last post by 40hz on May 04, 2010, 12:00 PM »

Precedence for openness has little legal bearing on the matter. Unfortunately.

And while precedence may have some bearing - on "this side of the pond" it still doesn't pack the wallop it does in most civilized countries. Heck, the US often prides itself on just how little respect it generally has for precedence and history.

US antitrust and anti-competitive restrictions have traditionally only been invoked to enforce some level of open competition in emerging markets. Once a market has reached a level of sustainability or maturity, US law backs off and lets the market decide who the ultimate winners will be. These so-called natural monopolies are usually left alone by US regulators unless some outside party can make a convincing argument that the dominant company is engaging in some form of anti-competitive behavior specifically forbidden by law.

Being so big and powerful that nobody else can compete in the monopoly's market is not sufficient grounds for government intervention. At least not in the USA.  Belief in the doctrines of "last man standing" and "to the victor go the spoils" has a long tradition in American business and law. US antitrust laws are not designed to enforce ongoing competition - only to prevent a company from securing an "unfair advantage" when a market is being created or a new industry is emerging.

To a certain extent, you can say that the US business model almost assumes natural monopolies will emerge once a market reaches maturity. This is viewed as both natural and, in many cases, a desirable outcome since economies of scale and cost efficiencies often result. Some see a further advantage in having a single dominant supplier because it tends to bring about product standardization which results in lower consumer prices and the creation of "add-on" businesses.

Or at least so the theory goes...

( Yeah, right! )

On the other hand, European antitrust regulations do seem to have the creation and enforcement of ongoing competition as part of their goal. So if I'm correct in that belief, Apple will likely have a much harder time with European regulators over Xcode.

And be far more likely to face sanctions in the EU.

Go EU!  

---------------------

ADDENDUM::

I forgot to add that I strongly doubt this will ever make it to court.

Apple has way to much to lose by pushing the issue. The minute it looks like they risk having a judgment rendered, they'll relent on the developer tool restrictions. The minute they do that, the issue will become moot.

There's also a lot they could do to Flash such that it could be allowed on the iPad without actually being workable once it got there. One way would be to wrap so many OS-level security 'safeguards' around it that Flash's performance and stability would drop right through the floor.

It's a long way from over folks.

This puppy isn't even the opening act.  It's more like hearing the overture music while queuing up for popcorn in the lobby...

(Butter on mine, please?)

   

9245

Living Room / Re: Steve Jobs tells us how he really feels about Flash...

« Last post by 40hz on May 04, 2010, 07:31 AM »

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

In many ways, Apple's Xcode requirement isn't much different from arguments that embedded device manufacturers have used for years to justify requirements that developers purchase and use their proprietary SDKs.

Apple could argue that the iPhone and iPad are embedded devices, and that their restrictions are no different than those placed on many game box, telephone hardware, and industrial control developers by other hardware manufacturers.

One key point is that Apple has always insisted on calling itself a hardware developer. And even more important, has always insisted their hardware remain a closed system. So this is one instance where an argument that they are not trying to influence or control anything other than their own hardware platform could gain legal credence by the fact Apple always rabidly defended its proprietary base. Far from trying to go outside their domain, they've actively and routinely discouraged 3rd party hardware and system level software being integrated into their products. And they've absolutely forbidden the use of their software on anything other than their own devices.

So the only argument that can be made is that the simple marketplace success of the iPad/iPhone is actively hampering competition from similar devices because Apple requires its developers to use tools it alone provides - even though such tools are intended for exclusive use with its own hardware.

Yoiks! That's gonna be a tough one.

Successfully dominating a market because you have the product people want isn't, in itself, a violation of law. And for some to argue they can't afford to develop for multiple platforms because they need to concentrate their efforts on developing for the market leader doesn't make the market leader culpable for their lack of resources.

Right now, the FTC and DOJ will have a pretty tough case to prove if it comes to that. I think of this more as a the government putting Apple on notice they're beginning to look at some of their business practices in a different light than previously. Apple will no longer automatically be viewed as an underdog going forward. This is just the proverbial warning shot across the bow.

In the end, the real battle will likely come down on the lock-in with AT&Ts network. That would have a lot more traction in court because the success of a hardware product combined with its lock-in to one network provider does have ramifications beyond the device itself. Especially when the designated network provider's bandwidth can't adequately support the full capabilities of the device.

Of course, Apple already has an inkling of that looming threat, hence the leaks about the iPhone possibly going to additional carriers "real soon now." And note how that rumor only talks about the iPhone - not the iPad. Cute!

Smoke and mirrors...

9246

Living Room / Re: Steve Jobs tells us how he really feels about Flash...

« Last post by 40hz on May 03, 2010, 08:57 PM »

On a related note, Uncle Sam may soon tell us how he really feels about Apple.

Sources are reporting today that the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are wrangling over which one of them should lead a preliminary antitrust investigation of Apple. The action was spurred by Apple's new developer agreement which forces app designers to use only Apple programming tools. The inquiry may be launched in a matter of days, and will seek to determine if the policy damages competition in the mobile app space.

Links:

http://www.maximumpc..._investigation_apple

http://www.nypost.co...vCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO

 

9247

Living Room / Re: KVM switch woes -- any recommendations?

« Last post by 40hz on May 03, 2010, 08:46 PM »

I've tried many different KVM products over the years.

The only absolutely reliable ones I've ever found are made by a company called Raritan.

They're pretty much the industry standard. Raritans can be found in many major data centers and corporate server rooms.

Not cheap by any stretch. A simple 4-port SwitchMan model runs about $100 - 150 depending on which one you need. (Some of their other models sport price tags that can easily cause dizziness and nosebleed. )

But if you want "no BS" absolutely bulletproof hardware-based KVM switching, this is the only brand AFAIC. If you're setting KVM up for a client, get a SwitchMan.

If you don't insist on a hardware-based solution, then I'd definitely go with Shades' recommendation for Synergy. I use Synergy at home to handle my rag-tag and ever changing 'harem' of PCs and NIX boxes.  Synergy is cross-platform, easy to set up, reliable in use - and free!

So what's not to like?

9248

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 02, 2010, 02:14 PM »

I love Carol! She make me think.

Ok...

First and foremost it is virtually impossible to sue large corporations unless you plan to devote your life and every penny you can raise to it...

-Carol Haynes (May 02, 2010, 07:50 AM)

I don't know how true that that is. Large corporations (at least in the USA) are routinely and often successfully sued by smaller challengers. What keeps most such cases from reaching a verdict is the all too frequent willingness on the part of the entities bringing suit to accept financial and other settlements rather than risk going to a jury. And the reason so little is heard about them is that the plaintiffs will also almost always agree to a non-disclosure clause as part of the settlement.

So from my perspective, we're often just as guilty as the next for allowing ourselves to be bought off. When I used to be very involved in consumer advocacy causes, I learned a bitter lesson from one attorney I got friendly with. I was extremely frustrated with the number of times we got the rug pulled out from under us when the people we were advocating for cut a deal.

She had a terrific phrase that summed up the problem very neatly:

"It's just baseball."

Out on the field, we're all in it together. But up on the plate, we each stand alone.

But I'd like to go back to my original point about legalities.

As I said, I keep hearing people, and to be fair (on rare occasions) even corporate officers, assert that corporations can be held legally liable for not availing themselves of every and any means at their disposal to maximize revenue. And that would include immoral, amoral, or borderline legal actions.

And to which I again say: Simply not true.

The requirement to exercise fiduciary responsibility neither allows nor justifies illegal or immoral activity on the part of a business. Whether or not they routinely do, in fact, get away with such behaviors is up for debate. But there is absolutely nothing in any corporate law that either states or implies a requirement for businesses to act in such a manner.

And that was what I was taking issue with.

How about the US company that released poisonous gas at Bhopal in India and is still to admit responsibility or pay compensation to the families that are still suffering to this day?

I assume that you're referring to Union Carbide's chemical plant disaster here?

Probably not the best example to cite for corporate irresponsibility...

I was outraged as the next person when that story originally came out. However, if you look beyond the original headlines, and follow up on what went on before, during, and after that tragedy, a very different picture emerges. And that picture involves political posturing, collusion on the part of the Indian government to limit the scope of the investigation in order to deflect shared responsibility for numerous questionable actions initiated at their request; and the refusal of the Indian government to allow an independent international investigation to be conducted into plant design changes and circumstances leading up to the occurrence.

Then there's the unresolved scientific debate surrounding exactly what the proximate cause for the explosion was. Something which remains unanswered to this day due to India's insistence on gathering and controlling all the evidence and testimony in the original and subsequent investigations. It just goes on and on.

I also have to take issue with the characterization they "released poisonous gas." In keeping with the demonetization theme, that implies some huge uncaring giant villain deliberately or carelessly elected to kill a few thousand helpless and unsuspecting people. It paints a picture of actual intent where none exists. Far more accurate to say "an explosion at a plant jointly owned by Union Carbide and a consortium of public and private Indian investors resulted in the release of a toxic cloud of gas which caused the death of many people." Maybe not as catchy and righteously indignant as headlines like "Union Carbide Kills Thousands in India!!!"  But it would be a lot more accurate statement.

I'm not defending Union Carbide. It's their plant, it's their responsibility. But I strongly question whether it should fairly be considered theirs alone.

Unfortunately, there's a tendency with most governments to take the easy way out in situations like this one. The formula seems to be: unilaterally blame the foreign interest for everything; if at all possible, demonize said foreign interest to deflect domestic criticism; accept no local governmental responsibility for anything despite having regulatory authority; and stonewall any and all requests for independent outside review.

Bophal was tragic. But what was even more tragic was how the survivors are still waiting for some relief, largely because of the Indian government's absolute demand that Union Carbide USA be held solely to blame. Something which they continue to insist on despite a large amount of evidence to show there's plenty of blame to be shared by all parties involved.

The posturing continues to this day with the refusal of the Indian judiciary to vacate a warrant for manslaughter against Warren Anderson, who was the CEO of Union Carbide at the time of the incident. It's of interest to note that Anderson was given advance notice, taken into custody and placed under house arrest for a few hours, allowed to post a bond of something like $2,000 dollars - and then placed on an Indian government owned plane and flown out of the country.

It's generally understood that charging Anderson was primarily done as a symbolic gesture intended to pressure Union Carbide into more rapidly settling charges made against it.

But apparently this little bit of puppet theater continues to make hay for some local politicos. Because the warrant is still outstanding. And there ain't nuthin' better than a bad guy on the loose to make people want to vote for the guy who promises to bring him in.

Someday....

But despite the fact that the United States has an extradition treaty with India, and the fact that Anderson is still under indictment - AND officially listed as a fugitive under Indian law since the early 90s -  absolutely no real efforts have ever been made to seek a US extradition warrant for his return to India to face these charges.

Sic transit gloria mundi...

By definition corporate life is (and has to be) amoral - it is precisely why corporations were originally conceived as business entities that had a limited scope of operation. They had a corporate charter with a remit to perform one task for a limited fixed period of time and in one particular place.

That isn't, nor has it ever been the case in the US.

The primary reason the corporate structure was created in the US was to provide for legal continuity. Prior to that, businesses couldn't legally survive the death of their founders. Corporations were initially designed to create a separate and immortal legal entity to act as the perpetual "owner" and representative of the business.

And that's not purely symbolic either.

Over here, a corporation has always been thought of as some amorphous but very real person who exists as a citizen with all the rights and responsibilities any other person has under the law. It can own property; enter into contracts; petition for relief and redress for grievances; and seek protection under the rules of due process just like any other citizen. In short, it is guaranteed full protection under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights in all matters of law.

And this legal theory isn't a loophole that got created by sleazy lawyers and judges. It was something put there by design from day one.

Then there's the issue of scope...

US corporations can have as broad or as limited a charter as they choose to elect.

Yes, US Corporations are chartered to do specific things. But a US corporate charter almost always includes a clause which says "and any other business it may legally conduct." Under US law, all incorporated American businesses are generally presumed to operate with 'unlimited scope' and 'in perpetuity' except when a company self-elects to limit its charter (note: hardly any ever do) or when it is in an industry that has specific rules regulating its range of legal activity.

I've been given to understand the UK, and many other countries, truly think of corporations as "limited" companies, hence the 'Ltd.' that appears in so many business names?

In the US, the use of the term "Ltd." in a corporate name generally serves no purpose other than to try to make a business sound more cosmopolitan and sophisticated than the more usual "Inc." designation would allow.

So maybe part of this debate stems from some very real differences in what various countries think of when they think of corporations. Over here, corporations are artificial albeit real 'people. '

Which is probably why they sometimes look and act like Frankenstein's Monster.

It was only sleazy corporate lawyers and corrupt judges that created loopholes from the law designed to protect freed slaves that allowed the US in particular (and now most countries using the same corporate model) to become completely dominated by multinationals that owe no allegiance to countries or any other entities other than money.

Woo...that's an interesting bit of info! Which law for the protection of freed slaves is it that the US corporate model retooled (or loopholed ?) - and which law(s) was it designed to circumvent?

I actually have a business degree - but that's a new one for me. Obviously that's not an interpretation that gets taught here, so I'm quite interested in gaining some new perspective.

Most of the people running these large multinationals are not even involved in the day to day decisions of their subsidiaries (and their subsidiaries etc.). They only have an overview of how the corporation is performing for personal profit in the first instance closely followed by shareholders. This is precisely why banks that have almost caused the collapse of the world economy are still making profits and paying out huge bonuses.

Ah...the absentee ownership issue. Most excellent point. That is a major problem which plays into our general uwillingness accept responsibility for things which occur remotely even when there is a clear cause and effect relationship. The neuroscience crowd says it's mainly due to a cognitive blind spot in our psyche. What isn't right in front of us isn't as 'real' as what is.

It's the old "out of sight - out of mind" mechanism rearing it's ugly head.

That's one of the reasons I'm so opposed to all this new autonomous and remote military technology. It reduces warfare to the status of a video game, except there's no "new" or "undo previous move" options. Remove any direct awareness of the pain and suffering warfare inflicts from the act of waging war, and you pave the way for untold human misery.

And as with war - so with business.

A faulty analogy, but quite apt in this context.


 

9249

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 01, 2010, 11:22 PM »

^ I think you may be equating rules of corporate governance with capitlist economic theory.

They're not one and the same thing.

And I'm going to need to take issue with the defrauding the shareholder argument. It's one I hear often asserted but never with anything to back it up.

Corporate officers are required to exercise fiduciary responsibility. Corporate officers may be prosecuted for taking unacceptable risks or showing gross dereliction of duty in the governance of the corporation.  But I have never seen or heard of any judicial system that prosecuted a corporation or its officers for not being sufficiently "cutthroat."

If I'm wrong on that point, I'd really appreciate a link to the particulars because AFAIK no such case has ever come before a court. And other than a nusiance suit filed by a disgruntled shareholder (and soon to be summarily dismissed) I doubt there ever will be.
 


 

9250

Living Room / Re: Apple instigates Police Raid over lost/stolen iPhone 4G

« Last post by 40hz on May 01, 2010, 10:28 AM »

I remember reading an article where somebody remarked that she found it incredibly interesting that unacceptable behaviors (such as rampant egotism, lying, cheating, bullying, and a total disregard for others) are often elevated to the status of virtues when they occur in a business context.

Such behaviors are often associated with street crimes. Unless they occur on Wall Street. Commit them there and your market valuation goes up!


As Carol so succinctly noted:

if corporations were real people they would be locked up in a psychiatric hospital as dangerous psychopaths!

-Carol Haynes (May 01, 2010, 04:35 AM)

Go Carol!  

--------------

The Apprentice (which I detest) comes to mind for the complete lack of integrity shown (and applauded) in the quest for the biggest pile of ca$h. Happy customers? Quality Product? Irrelivant... Just as long as a huge pile of dough is raked in. I find the attitude quite disgusting.

-Stoic Joker (May 01, 2010, 07:53 AM)

+1

But what's even more disgusting to me is how well - and often - that attitude actually seems to work.

And that's the really heartbreaking thing for me.

It's not so much that people like Jobs, or Trump and his brethren, are the way they are.

It's more that, given the current state of global business, they just might be 'right' in behaving that way...

With the lunatics running the asylum, is it any wonder so many of us suffer from depression?