Authority leads to deference.

Deference leads to consensus.

Consensusism kills the soul.

Is non-conformity and freethinking a psychiatric illness?  According to the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), it is.

The DSM-IV is the manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose mental illnesses and compared to the 1950's, the manual has grown in size.  Are we really becoming sicker as a human race?  Is this a consequence of unidentified toxins, synthetic or otherwise?

New mental illnesses identified by the DSM-IV include arrogance, narcissism, above-average creativity, cynicism, and antisocial behavior.  In the past, these were called “personality traits,” but now they’re criteria for certain mental diseases.  And guess what?  Oh, and "treatments" are available, at least for a few generations until the synthetic toxins get black-box warnings after a few generations of exposure.

In the last 50 years, the DSM-IV has more than doubled in the number of psychiatric illnesses.  A majority of these illnesses happen to afflict children.  Although the manual is an important diagnostic and coding tool for the psychiatric industry, it has also been responsible for social changes; ie social engineering, hence the targeting of children.

The rise in ADD, bipolar disorder, and depression in children has been largely because of the manual’s identifying certain behaviors as symptoms.  A Washington Post article noted that, if Mozart were born today, he would be diagnosed with ADD and “medicated into barren normality.”  And we wonder why there are no great philosophers in our era.

Therefore "sanity" is designated and conferred so long as one keeps on track with the established format.

-.-

@ Doc

Who said anything about having to "crack" said encryption.  Encryption data is often very accessible from within so once the attacker is inside the organization there is often no longer a need to crack anything.  Like I said, good hackers can compromise your system, reside there for months while they go digging through your things until they find the keys needed to access whatever it is they want.  That was the point of posting reply #22.  All encryption does is make hackers have to stick around longer in your systems.  While it may sound dangerous for the hacker to do that, many organizations are ill-equipped to handle/run full penetrations sweeps on say a daily basis (not that those types of sweeps guarantee security anyway).

@ Tridus

Sure.  But who uses passwords these days for things other than logins that aren't used 10,000 times a day?  Certificates and keys can be intercepted (often with relative ease) once an attacker is actually within (the proverbial) walls of your organization.  Hence my comments.

That's not at all what I'm saying.  Re-read my original post (reply #22) where I say the best "security" anyone can really hope for (personal or corporate) is to make themselves the least desirable target.  Once you become a TARGET for whatever reason there remains little anyone can hope for in terms of protection from catastrophe.  That was and still remains my point, a point which is proven over and over all over this world.

I don't think that I can think of 1 company that did not put profits ahead of client safety. The only time safety comes into the equation is how much will the law suits cost and lost customers vs protecting clients. Just look at the Car Industries safety record.

In 1965, consumer activist Ralph Nader published "Unsafe at any Speed," a blistering attack on the GM's Corvair compact car.

That prompted Congressional investigations into the industry as a whole, culminating in the National Highway Traffic Safety Act in 1966. The stage was set for a regime of safety regulation that continues to this day.

Within two years of the act's passage, cars were required to have safety belts with shoulder harnesses. That paid off in the coming years: As U.S. states gradually began making belt-use mandatory in 1984, accident injuries and fatalities declined. http://autos.aol.com/article/car-safety-history/

Car companies (except Volvo) had to be made to put in safety features with legislation. This practice of safety last continues today with any product.

I can agree with that but what happens when a company is cracked and then they hide it to protect themselves which they will try. Who will be in charge of overseeing if the company is negligent. Do consumers only have a "wait and see" policy or should there be legislation to make companies conform to curtain standards of protection. I don't like the fix it after its already done and would much rather a you make damn sure this can't happen.

A 'dryer' is one of those bits of white-goods in your laundry ......not the one that cleans stuff....the other one.

'drier' is what your clothes become when that white-good is used ....

If they aren't 'drier' you probably have them in the wrong one...and they're now wetter.

....but cleaner.

I hope we have that all tickety-boo, now ....

Yeah, I know that they have lawyers whose specific job it is to hinder people with legitimate complaints, and that is why I dislike big business so intensely and with a passion.  Customers are the absolute last in their business equation, and they will keep fucking us over until governments everywhere implement uniform laws that prevent the slimy practices that big business currently gets away with.  Trouble is, too many politicians are in the back pockets of big business and are too happy being paid off for inaction.

The thing is here, there were no pamphlets or paperwork inside the case to notify of any EULA or even a 'how to play' guide ....that's downloadable online.  There was some explanation regarding the controls on the disc itself.... after the auto update, that is.  No, there was just the disc, and that automatically went into update mode the moment it was inserted.  There was no opt out, no turning back.... once the process had begun there was no stopping it, not by using the stop,, eject or off buttons. 

I can't even say what the game was called because he took it back and demanded his money back... and with the mood he was in [let's just say he can be very intimidating] , I''d say the person on the other side of the counter would have complied without hesitation. 

I dare say that Rob will take a leaf out of my book and do just that.  I've boycotted companies who pissed  me off, and believe me, there's a quite a few of them... not that my life is any worse off for it.  It hasn't diminished my lifestyle in any way, shape or form and I'm happier for it, knowing that I took a stand.  Yup, I thoroughly recommend it to everyone.... start boycotting today and tomorrows businesses might think twice before they rip you off.

Nah!  Oz for "Orright, then?"

Innocent until proven guilty?  Not really.

The outcome really depends on your skills and your potential for being marketable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/06/us-hackers-fbi-informer

Criminals are indeed glorified...