Slashdot Mirror

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
(2004)

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

- John Gilmore, 1993.

Much wisdom from the key developers of the early Internet has been lost or ignored, to our detriment.

Which is why twitter and Facebook will cease to be relevant in the near future

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

- John Gilmore, 1993.

Much wisdom from the key developers of the early Internet has been lost or ignored, to our detriment.

It was GTA5 vs Sims 3. Not exactly violent games.

Sims 3 is non violent on purpose (Gives a point of comparison)
On the other hand, GAT5 back at its time has been controversial (as is the case with other games in the serie).

Its just that, by the time the study gets designed approved financed and finally launched, the game technology has progressed.

They should be studying modern, violent & hyper competitive games.

Which again, by the time the study gets designed approved financed and finally launched, will have been forgotten.

It's almost a case of "{new technology that I haven't grown up with} will cause the end of civilisation as we know it ! ".
See Douglas Adams's quote from Salmon of Doubt about "Rule of reaction to technology".

You know; the ones where abuse is rampant & swatting occurs at the extremes.

One should make a distinction between toxic culture of some assholes playing games, and the game themselves.

This study partially attempts to solve it by - on purpose - using non-gamers. I.e.: people how aren't part of the "twictch.tv-swearing-and-swatting" scene and see how they react.

Everything you say is true. However, anybody with a quality liberal arts education can see the value in those things. Besides, not long ago Greek, Latin, and Classics were considered requirements. Today they are not.

I would argue that anyone proposing making computer science a hard requirement should have to explain how computer science contributes to a broad-based liberal arts education. For reference, here is a quote from Dijkstra on the topic:

As a result, the topic became â" primarily in the USA â" prematurely known as âcomputer scienceâ(TM) â" which, actually, is like referring to surgery as âknife scienceâ(TM) â" and it was firmly implanted in peopleâ(TM)s minds that computing science is about machines and their peripheral equipment.

That is not to say that it wouldn't be handy to have courses on computing and computer programming. However, many high schools also have courses in automotive maintenance, wood shop, welding, and other trades. None of those are anywhere close to being considered hard requirements for high school graduation, despite the fact that nearly every person in the use drives an automobile on a daily basis, for example. The flavor computer science being advocated by the College Board is closer to automotive maintenance than it is to a core liberal arts subject.

It would be nice if they milked the mac, won't happen soon enough.

It started 22 years ago. The quote is from February 1996, before Steve Jobs was back at Apple. He returned in December 1996, became (interim) CEO in July 1997, then Apple started milking.

With iMac in 1998 -- still running Classic Mac OS -- the Mac platform started making money again. This kept the company solvent and afloat until Mac OS X launched in 2001 and finally Apple had a modern software foundation. In the meantime they launched iPod, which made more money and -- in hindsight, more importantly -- gave the Apple brand mainstream positive reputation for portable technology. Milking the Mac (well, and the iPod's reputation) for all it was worth, Apple took Mac OS X and developed their next great thing: iPhone. Thanks to that milk, Apple is now worth more than any other company in the world.

Apple have milked more value out of the Mac than anyone could have imagined possible in 1996. Here we are in 2018. Apple's still milking, but they've clearly moved focus to their next great thing.

Unactivated Windows 10 is actually pretty usable. I run it in Parallels Desktop on my Macbook.

My cup runneth over!11!

Hopefully the US is building a Rods from God kinetic bombardment system with all those secret launches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The God Emperor will smite North Korean rockets with his mind! With our mind! My cup runneth over!

Shoot the hostage? Standard police procedure.

Why did they bother?

Could be practice in a real-world scenario. These cameras might not offer anything of particular value, but it might help the hackers get some experience in these kinds of things for cases where the cameras might offer much juicier information.

Either that or they're just bored hackers and hacking things is what they do. They compromise a system because it's there.

Or... they just didn't know what they were hacking, just spreading the warez.

You know, an ip is an ip is an ip. Until you get in, you have no idea what it is.

Why did they bother?

Could be practice in a real-world scenario. These cameras might not offer anything of particular value, but it might help the hackers get some experience in these kinds of things for cases where the cameras might offer much juicier information.

Either that or they're just bored hackers and hacking things is what they do. They compromise a system because it's there.

I've never been to California (except a layover at LAX), and I hear it's nice, but there's no way it's that nice.

When you couple the endless feeling of living in a picture-book with provably the nicest weather in the country, it's easy to see why some people place a premium on life in California.

To be fair though, I think a lot of people are just kidding themselves. Perhaps you're familiar with the quote "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." I think most of those people are sure that just around the next corner, they're going to get into the position to be crapping on everyone else, instead of being crapped upon.

How much of that debt was because of the stupid wars of the last President's predecessor and the Great Recession when deficit spending was actually warranted to minimize the economic chaos that ensued. The national debt is only an issue when there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse, otherwise as Dick Cheney said "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.", at least as long as there's a Republican in the Whitehouse.

Remember, remember, the 18th of May, not November
The 2012 "You have no privacy" plot
I know of no reason why Zuckerberg's season
Should NOT be killed off and forgot.

That's the IPO date by the way.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Umm, you mean as Andrew Tanenbaum would have said? https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

I'll accept that logic as soon as they also acknowledge that "a government agency is not empowered to create real property," meaning all patents are invalid, and we can shut down the PATB due to it no longer being needed.

That is as likely to happen as posting a stop sign on the beach is likely to stop the tide coming in.

Although... some people might think that would work. From https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... :

• Bill O'Reilly: I'll tell you why it's [religion's] not a scam. In my opinion, all right? Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that. You can't explain why the tide goes in
• David Silverman: Tide goes in, tide goes out?
• O'Reilly: Yeah, see, the water — the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in
• Silverman: Maybe it's Thor up on Mount Olympus who's making the tides go in and out

Maybe, somewhere, there's a sign posted on a beach ...

What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?

Went over somebody's head, or what, just some asshole with mod points?

What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?

^^ THIS.

Where I work we are drowning in a sea of acronyms because no one has any time to explain what the fuck half of them even mean. You are just supposed to learn them by "osmosis" or some other shenanigans after a few years. I've asked managers who have been there 10+ years and even they still don't know some of them.

One of the biggest (internal) problems we have is that everything is WAY more complicated then it needs to be.

One of my gaming friends who used to work in the healthcase industry says they have the the exact same problem.

I don't know what is about tech that causes this attitude. Job security?

It is like everyone forgot the wisdom of Einstein: "Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler."

--
Over-engineering is the enemy of great.

ter https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill. CEO Nwabudike Morgan "The Ethics of Greed"

> "Science" isn't very scientific and it full of politics and prideful people that decree acceptable theories.

"Science progresses one funeral at a time -- Max Planck, originator of quantum theory

--
Science, noun, trading one set of dogma for another set of dogma.

I always liked this bit of dialogue. It'd be more scientifically accurate if Batty had suggested telomerase and Tyrell had warned it would cause cancer. Or if Batty suggested stem cells and Tyrell mentioned teratomas. Still you can sort of live with that. What was interesting was that you get the impression that the four year lifespan isn't artificial crippling as is suggested earlier but it was the best Tyrell Corp could do. Or maybe Tyrell was bullshitting. Blade Runner being Blade Runner, either interpretation is possible.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Roy: Had in mind something a little more radical.
Tyrell: What..? What seems to be the problem?
Roy: Death.
Tyrell: Death. Well, I'm afraid that's a little out of my jurisdiction, you...
Roy: I want more life, fucker (father).
Tyrell: The facts of life: To make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Roy: Why not?
Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutations give rise to revertant colonies like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship sinks.
Roy: What about EMS recombination?
Tyrell: We've already tried it. Ethyl methane sulfonate is an alkylating agent and a potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before he left the table.
Roy: Then a repressor protein that blocks the operating cells.
Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an error in replication so that the newly formed DNA strand carries a mutation and you've got a virus again. But this - all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.
Roy: But not to last.
Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son. You're quite a prize!
Roy: I've done questionable things.
Tyrell: Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time!
Roy: Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you in heaven for. [kisses Tyrell and kills him]
Roy: [to J. F. Sebastian] Sorry, Sebastian. [Sebastian panics] Come. Come.

Zuckerberg called them "dumb fucks".

Here's the quote for the "(citation needed)" readers:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

If poor answers are floating to the top because of reputation, then Stack Overflow has effectively automated argument from authority.

This is not too surprising. Automating fallacy is probably easy. Automating security is likely to be hard. Trust me. I'm an expert on this.

They apparently subscribe to the Captain Ron school of training.

Captain Ron: "The best way to find out...is to get her out on the ocean. If anything is going to happen, it's going to happen out there."

> I notice you ignored the bit about calls to violence.
Incorrect. In my first posted I mentioned "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD."

Let's pretend we make "Yelling 'Fire' in a (full) theater (not-on-fire) illegal" with the justification "because it incites violence."

WHERE does it stop??? _Who_ decides what incites violence??? Because this quickly becomes a slippery slope.

Guess what -- I can incite violence with almost ANY word. For example, if I jump out and scare an old lady with "Boo!" and she has a heart attack and dies due to the stress do we now make "Boo!" illegal??? What if someone shouts "BOObies!" because they have Tourette syndrome but she only heard the first syllable? What if I am telling a joke "What bees make milk? BOO-BEES!" What if I use ANY word in a very LOUD context to scare someone to death???

Banning/Making the entire English language "illegal" because it _might_ be mis-used is utteraly retarded.

This is _completely_ backwards thinking. Words don't DO anything. PEOPLE do. The _specific_ word is NOT the problem. The _intent_ or the _act_ of destruction is the problem -- NOT the specific phonemes. All we've done is attempt to shift the cause of the problem to an inanimate object. Notice that this same stupidity is made with gun laws. The fact that some guns are legal while others are illegal is complete bullshit. You can kill a person with either one. Taking the life of someone IS the problem -- not _what_ weapon of choice they used!! Hell, they could have used THEIR HANDS. Furthermore, more people are killed by cars then guns (!) but we don't ban cars because a few idiots mis-use them.

It is all about the context. If I am writing an essay on an old book am I allowed to quote phrases that have "illegal" words? Making words OK in one context and not in another is dumb. George Carlin eloquently and beautifully pointing out "What you resist, persists."
with his 7 Words You Can't Say On TV on the stupidity of making words "Taboo" monologue.

The problem with social contracts is that they are implicit and not explicit. We should be looking at the spirit of the law not the letter of the law. We should be striving for simplicity in our laws, over-engineering them. As Publius Tacitus said before 120 AD.

The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

Stop with all the fucking corner cases, edge cases, and just allow people to say whatever the fuck they want. Because when there is no "stigma" attached then everyone will quickly lose interest in them and go back to their lives.

> I was asking if downvoting is censorship and runs afoul of your "Either you censor or you don't. PERIOD" idea.

Why would it? You are not stopping the person from commenting. The fact that no one agrees with them is beside the point.

> Businesses discriminate on all sorts of things
You are conflating a Contract with Discrimination. They are not the same thing.

First, ALL Law is based on Contract Law.

Second, when a business has a sign that says "No Shirt, No Service" they are NOT violating your rights. They are legally allowed to put additional qualifiers onto the Contract between them and you (as long as none of them are illegal.) The reason they can't say "Race _x_ not served" is because the Business derives its permission (aka power) from the Government. And the government has said "We will give you a business license IF you accept these Terms of the Contract. Violate the terms and we revoke your permission. The terms include you can't refuse service based on someone's race, gender, religion, etc."

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. Andrew Tanenbaum - the author of Minix

Wasn't Bill Gate's brain, most likely IBM's brain:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Bill Gates didn't actually say that.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

It's the Yes Minister use of courageous

Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".

Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?

Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!

You're conflating racism and stupidity with being racist against a religion.

Not in the slightest. The Venn diagram between select races/ethnic groups and the "radical Islamists" islamphobes like to whine about is a complete overlap. This is following the well known Lee Atwater trope:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****." By 1968 you can't say "n*****" â" that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me â" because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****."

Instead of "n*****", American Exceptionalists say "muslim". Or "illegal immigrant", in the case of latinos. It's all the same shit.

Attacking the religion is not however racist. "The Koran advocates pedophilia" is an attack on Islam (that may or may not be accurate) but at no point infers or requires a Muslim to be a specific race.

Which is complete idiocy. No different from pretending that Christians are supporters of child murder because the Bible says Abraham hauled up his son on top a mountain and was prepared to sacrifice him to please Jehovah. Or that Christians believe in incest because Eve fucked her son to continue the species.

Complete. Idiocy.

Even Mark Z apparently didn't think people should trust him.

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

Look just because you are an Apple/Google/Microsoft shill doesn't imply that everyone else is.

Maybe you should pay more attention to history then to bitch about other people's choices who value freedom and options for the browser to work the way we want it -- even if you don't.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Ben Franklin

--
Atheist, noun, a spiritual blind man arguing with the rest of the world that color doesn't exist and everyone should all be blind like him.
Theist, noun, someone with spiritual monochromatic vision who argues that everyone else seeing in other colors is wrong.

widespread internet disruptions Japan experienced the previous day.

So much for the fabulous promise of "routing around damage"...

Anyone at Harvard, apparently.

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

You think the fault solely lies on a big company.

Who do you think created the vulnerability in the first place?

But you are right, I prefer to blame the process, not the people. That implies blaming the big company before the individual.

The risk is being punished when get caught.

You are referring to the theory of justice that punishment is a deterrence (which, by the way, doesn't seem to have worked in this case). Are you sure that throwing people in jail is a good way to keep people out of jail?

Again, it shows that you hate big companies/corporations.

I hate big companies because I want them to take responsibility for their mistakes and stop shifting their costs onto taxpayers?

To me, the wrong doing start when they repeat the action to abuse the bug, period.

To me, the mistakes began long before that. But maybe it's just me because I'm an engineer and I prefer to proactively find and fix the root cause of a problem rather than try to reactively clean up the mess it makes. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

And therein shows the hypocrisy as Kennedy espoused.

Nope, but your response shows your continued failure to admit to your poor argumentation, and even attempt to reconsider the flawed approach you are choosing. Pretty consistent pattern of yours.

Notice how you failed to even examine Kennedy's opinion, notice how you instead go off on a useless tangent instead. Again, you do have a practice of doing this.

The First Amendment was specifically written about political speech and freedom of association,

Nope, and since people have quoted the literal text of the First Amendment for you, you are quite unexcused from that mistake. Did you never bother to read the actual Constitution?

I can tell you didn't bother to read Kennedy's decision, since that's not even relevant to it, but if you're going to bring up the First Amendment anyway, no matter how mistaken a choice, you shouldn't compound the error by misrepresenting it. That's just adding to the errors you make.

and it's been twisted to demand freedom of everything but those - you can only say what the State dictates, and you must associate with people the State decides.

Oh? Who in the state is dictating to you? Is it Herr GrumpenFuhmer? Are you forced to associate with us because the state is ordering you to broadcast their message here? That's the explanation I expect, but I would say to you, that you are free to quit. He cannot make you serve him in that way. Oh? That's not the case? Well...then...

Please do tell us when the state has compelled you to speak what they dictated, and associate with whom they decided. Be specific. Offer particular details.

Or perhaps you want to provide some case law indicating some issue? Is it Shelley v. Kraemer? City of Boerne v. Flores ? Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas?? United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film? Loving v. Virginia? Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States? Everson v. Board of Education? Newdow v. Carey? New York Times Co. v. Sullivan? Wooley v. Maynard? Town of Greece v. Galloway? Near v. Minnesota? New York Times v. United States? Brandenburg v. Ohio? Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb? Pickering v. Board of Education? Griswold v. Connecticut?

So far, all you've produced is an inability to recognize the difference between a Nazi and a Homosexual, which is a personal fault, and a deep character flaw that arises from the massive brain injury you have suffered from.

That's not exactly convincing enough to overturn Fedorenko v. United States. That's just you, being typically incapable of producing a proper argument. You just can't seem to realize your mistakes. No wonder you lost Obergefeld v. Hodges. Good thing that the advocates in Negusie v. Holder were smarter than you.

Now who's the fascist?

Probably the guy calling for a ban on Homosexuals, Muslims, and Jews. He's at DailyStormer still.

Do you want his address?

Bribery doth never prosper: what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it bribery.

To misquote Sir John Harrington

It's good to find somebody on here who likely agrees that the government should be weak enough that we can drown it in the bathtub.

Without us needing to drown it, of course. We're all adults, and when a bunch of adults are in a room and there's a baby present, it's not the normal thing for one or more of them to drown said baby. In fact, all the rest of the adults would put a stop to it.

That's how the phrase is meant.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

— Isaac Asimov, 1980

I think this is an old (older than the US as a nation) reaction to the pro-intellectuallism of the Northeastern states -- Yankeedom. The culture of this region has always been very pro-education, to the point that during the Puritan era social status was primarily determined by education level. The southern part of the country, of course, had constant economic and ideological conflict with the north. The north was aggressively egalitarian and prized communitarian notions of freedom and community self-government. The south was aristocratic and prized the individual liberty of the aristocrats. Social status in the south was based on wealth and heritage; education was largely irrelevant, though some sub-cultures in the south lionized classical education as a sign of and means to culture and gentility.

I think anti-intellectualism arose primarily as a straightforward rejection by the south of all things northern. As history rolled on, this view became deeply embedded in the conservative culture, and was regularly reinforced by the fact that intellectuals always want to apply their knowledge and theories to change society, while conservatives obviously don't want change.

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

— Isaac Asimov, 1980

Keep watching. Feet will be obliterated in typical C++ fashion.

Too obscure?

They are shooting themselves in the foot as someone else politely pointed out higher up re: Canadian Pharmacies and US Laws.

The C++ reference is to an old quote from Bjarne: C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Anyways, the level of stupidity just went up several hundred notches so this should get quite entertaining as long as you are able to "dodge the crossfire" (bad pun, sue me).

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks

And there we have it - the TRUTH of the MATTER - TOO many people are willing - even eager - to sacrifice their rights in order to obtain 'protection' from the savages at the gate (actually, the savages that have already broken down the gate) who are dead-set on destroying our domestic freedoms.

Yep. However, like everything else, it's a trade off. Patrick Henry was very noble saying "give me liberty or give me death," but, in fact, if you're dead you don't have any liberty.

Had a few, and don't remember the exact quote - but - - - those that are willing to give up their liberties for the sake of 'safety' / 'security', will have, and deserve, neither ! ! !

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

--Ben Franklin.

(often misquoted. Reference: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/... )

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

-- Upton Sinclair

"Here is a language so far ahead of its time, that it was not only an improvement on its predecessors, but also on nearly all its successors.".

Once you've learned ALGOL you can finally understand why the 'case' statement is called 'switch'. And then you can more properly hate the 'break' statement, since you can only truly hate something that you understand.

"You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts"
-- Barack Hussein Obama

No - that would be a famous quote from:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...

Obama repeated it (and why not?! It's true!).

But that's quite different than just crying "We've been lied too! It never happened!". If you have serious doubts, that's fine. State the doubts, state which specific claims you find doubtful, state, how to investigate the claims and which result would you convince that the claims are actually true. Everything else is just denial, as Henri Poincaré rightfully said: "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection."

It is a Japanese proverb

The nail that sticks out gets hammered down.

One backup in my bunk
One backup in my trunk
One backup at the town's other end
One backup on another continent

Lotta good that will do you when it's time to build a hyperspatial express route through your star system.