"I also doubt you have ever owned a dog, or were not smart enough to work out how to communicate with it. "
And you can take your insults and blow them out your ass, TapeCutter. You've had it out for me for a long time, for whatever reason of your own, and it shows pretty blatantly in your comments.
Why don't you try judging information on its merits, rather than continuing your petty little personal vendetta? Every time you do this you look more childish.
"Yet I doubt you can point to a reputable, peer-reviewed, study making those claims, AFAIK it's standard practice around the world that neither the dog nor the trainer know where the drugs are hidden during the training sessions, often they don't know what they are looking for, it could be drugs, explosives, even apples if your a certain Beagle working Hobart airport."
Hmmm. I think maybe this paper from UC Davis in 2011 might qualify. It was published in Animal Cognition, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find it with Google.
If A.C. and UC Davis are not sufficiently reputable or peer-reviewed for your taste, then I challenge you to show me a paper that shows that they ARE reliable, and is more reputable and peer-reviewed.
"It's who they have flying these things. You would think they could do better."
Maybe. But I think it's more just WHAT it is. Despite the fact that these things cost millions of dollars, flying them is still just a glorified videogame. It's no substitute for actually sitting in the cockpit of a plane, going "Ohhhh shit!"
"Hell yeah, I'll take Boxed Expansion Hell in exchange for DRM Hell and DLC Hell in a second."
Don't blame you. I think more to the point, however, is that this is all a big "WHOOSH!" as far as OP is concerned. People (for the most part) aren't pissed off that EA et al. are trying to make money. They're pissed off that microtransactions are essentially paid cheating. People who have more money can buy their way to success. And that's pretty much antithetical to the whole gaming spirit, in which the better player is supposed to win.
"A dog can smell things that a person would reasonably think is private."
This is well known. Less well known is that while they can smell such things, they are notoriously unreliable when it comes to communicating what they smell. Study after study have shown that "drug sniffing" dogs respond more to the handler's cues than they do the actual presence of drugs.
But perhaps more to the point: what is more alarming here is that some bills are trying to reserve the right of aerial photography (sensing, etc.) to government only. This is (or should be) of huge concern to every privacy-loving citizen.
In Washington state, such photography or sensing is only illegal when it is done for purposes of "surveillance" without a warrant. The law affects both law enforcement and citizens. So if you take an aerial photo of your business, for example, and happen to inadvertently get a few neighboring houses in the picture, no big deal. But if you take the picture in order to see what is on those neighboring properties, you are breaking the law. And I like the fact that it applies to common citizens and law enforcement or government equally.
I think that is a good compromise. It is not a blanket prohibition on taking pictures, it does not reserve "special rights" for government or law enforcement, and it still makes surveillance without a warrant illegal. I would love it if my state did that.
"So your idea is that because you imagine something existed, write it down, and found a large socio-political group around it, it's real? "
Wow. Talk about leaping to conclusions. Try again, Grasshopper. I was simply pointing out where there was a flaw in your logic. None of this was MY idea, at all.
In my experience, lots of people have libertarianism confused with anarchy.
FOR ALL YOU CONFUSED PEOPLE:
Libertarianism (with a big "L", as in the actual Libertarian Party) is a party of Constitutionalists. They want to get back to Constitutional law, and get rid of all the unconstitutional things the Federal government has been doing. (And man, is that list a long one.)
Most Libertarians are not "Randists". While there are a few similarities in their philosophies, Libertarians also differ hugely from Rand's philosophies on some issues. True followers of Rand call themselves Ojectivists. Libertarians and Objectivists are more different than today's Democrats and Republicans. So stop insulting people. Objectivists have their own political party.
Libertarians are provably nothing like anarchists. They advocate a return to Constitutionality and the rule of law. Anarchists, on the other hand, advocate no government. There is a rather huge difference there. And again: Anarchists have their very own political party.
I happen to know some people who demonstrated themselves to be die-hard Objectivists and Anarchists, and were politely asked to resign their membership in our local Libertarian Party chapter, and to go somewhere more appropriate. I'm not talking about rabble-rousers or troublemakers; just some people whose personal philosophies were clearly not Libertarian.
"Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works."
The FIRST time someone is wrongly convicted of a felony -- or even maybe just on trial -- and the prosecution presents evidence that came from warrantless surveillance, expect it to go back to the Supreme Court. It will then have standing.
Then you're living in the wrong country. THIS ONE was founded primarily on the idea that there are, in fact, natural rights.
"Our 'natural rights' in theory come from the fact that there are a lot of us and very few of them on high."
I don't know whose theories you've been listening to, but that's complete bullshit. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both based on the idea that humans have rights, from the time they are born, simply by nature of their humanity. That true rights are something Government has neither the power to bestow, or to deprive.
Granted, sometimes it takes war to secure those rights. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Any more than fighting a way over someone trying to occupy your land. So you think that is an indication that the land doesn't actually exist?
When one argues philosophy, it generally behooves one to formulate arguments in such a way that they avoid proving themselves wrong. Fail.
"Even though I'm in no way a libertarian (I feel their beliefs would end up with a return to feudalism) "
"Exactly."
Holy Crap. You sure don't know much about Libertarians. (And that's a big "L", by they way... same as you capitalize Democrat and Republican.)
The Libertarian Party of the United States are strict Constitutionalists. In this way, they are very similar to the so-called Constitution Party, who are also Constitutionalists, but the views of the latter are also staunchly Christian... they believe that this is a Christian country and we should have Christian laws (whatever that means). Whereas the Libertarians take freedom of religion seriously.
I fail to see why you seem to think that a return to actual Constitutional law somehow equates with "feudalism". Or could it be that -- and I think this is the much more likely scenario -- you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Whether the report itself is dumb I won't speculate about. But it does not say what OP claims it says.
TFA does NOT say that "global warming" has reduced labor by 10%. What is says is that summers -- summers in general -- reduce labor by 10% compared to the rest of the year. There is no mention at all about current levels being caused by global warming.
TFA then goes on to explain that *IF* Global Warming continues at the rate some people predict, those summer reductions will THEN increase and cause reduced production.
Yes, I meant that "many privacy problems would disappear."
Think about it: Deep-packet inspection would simply be illegal. No question. Maybe it could be done with a warrant or subpoena, but pretty much no other way. 3rd-party cookies and pixel-bug tracking would, in any sane universe, then constitute "tapping" and would likely disappear (for legitimate reasons, anyway). Etc.
It would go a long way toward solving many of our internet ills.
"You would not be asking what the point was if a worst-case scenario involving your child went down, and video of the event was nearly instantly uploaded to remote servers."
Great. But imagine how expensive this would be today. Even at low resolution, one full day would take up Gigabytes. But I suppose if you can afford to buy a 1TB hard drive every year, you could maybe swing it. Maybe.
"Well Duh, studying one of the richest and most powerful nation is stupid."
That's really pretty much completely irrelevant to this research. For one thing, it applies to cultures, not so much to countries.
But what strikes me the most is that the majority of this article refers to Henrich's earlier research, which is a good 10-15 years old or so. Not much in the way of news, here.
"SPs look like common carriers and quack like common carriers. It's high time we started treating them as common carriers (i.e., imposing net neutrality on them)."
The FCC has wanted to classify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers since their inception. It was Congress that stopped it from doing so, by passing a law that made ISPs an exception. Backed by lobbying, no doubt. There was never any real, rational reason for doing that and I have been lambasting Congress for it ever since. (That is, "corporate profit" might be a "reason", but not a good one. This situation is definitely not in the public interest. Countries that treat internet more like a utility have significantly better service at lower rates than the U.S.)
The reality is, more than ever before, that ISPs are Common Carriers, in every meaningful way. We need to get Congress to let the FCC classify them as such.
The moment that happens, many of these problems -- and privacy problems too -- simply disappear.
Actually, that's not quite true. A number of small companies have taken on Microsoft and won. It hasn't always done them a lot of good, though.
Take the Stacker debacle of... what was it? '95-'96? Microsoft stole Stacker's compression code, which Stacker pretty easily proved in court. Microsoft had to pay a pretty huge judgment to Stacker, and change their own compression code. Which they did, and it was very inefficient compared to the original Stacker code.
But because Microsoft already had huge market share, and not all consumers were tech-savvy, after that Stacker sales continued to decline and I doubt you can even find the company anymore.
Which would reinforce your point, if that were a typical scenario, but it's not. In fact Apple *has* taken on Microsoft, and won, if you consider profit to be the primary indicator. And they've been gaining market share while Microsoft has been losing. In fact Microsoft is not pretty much dependent on their business user base. They make very little of their profit from consumer sales anymore. And their business user base in turn is as big as it is only because of inertia within companies.
"As a first step toward this nightmare, they bullied computer makers into shipping a bootloader signature system that could potentially prevent people from running GNU/Linux."
Slashdot Mirror
"They could easily redirect your requests to Google DNS to their DNS."
The fact that technically they may be able to do it, does not make it legal.
I am pretty sure it would be illegal for them to mess with my choice of DNS.
"There are no flaws in my logic. "
Well, since you're convinced of that, there's no point in arguing, is there?
Have a nice day.
s/I'/I'm
Hahahaha! Good one.
I don't doubt that pilots experience a connection and feeling of "I', there" with the drones. But I'm not convinced that it's really the same.
"I also doubt you have ever owned a dog, or were not smart enough to work out how to communicate with it. "
And you can take your insults and blow them out your ass, TapeCutter. You've had it out for me for a long time, for whatever reason of your own, and it shows pretty blatantly in your comments.
Why don't you try judging information on its merits, rather than continuing your petty little personal vendetta? Every time you do this you look more childish.
"Yet I doubt you can point to a reputable, peer-reviewed, study making those claims, AFAIK it's standard practice around the world that neither the dog nor the trainer know where the drugs are hidden during the training sessions, often they don't know what they are looking for, it could be drugs, explosives, even apples if your a certain Beagle working Hobart airport."
Hmmm. I think maybe this paper from UC Davis in 2011 might qualify. It was published in Animal Cognition, and it took me all of about 15 seconds to find it with Google.
If A.C. and UC Davis are not sufficiently reputable or peer-reviewed for your taste, then I challenge you to show me a paper that shows that they ARE reliable, and is more reputable and peer-reviewed.
"It's who they have flying these things. You would think they could do better."
Maybe. But I think it's more just WHAT it is. Despite the fact that these things cost millions of dollars, flying them is still just a glorified videogame. It's no substitute for actually sitting in the cockpit of a plane, going "Ohhhh shit!"
"Hell yeah, I'll take Boxed Expansion Hell in exchange for DRM Hell and DLC Hell in a second."
Don't blame you. I think more to the point, however, is that this is all a big "WHOOSH!" as far as OP is concerned. People (for the most part) aren't pissed off that EA et al. are trying to make money. They're pissed off that microtransactions are essentially paid cheating. People who have more money can buy their way to success. And that's pretty much antithetical to the whole gaming spirit, in which the better player is supposed to win.
"A dog can smell things that a person would reasonably think is private."
This is well known. Less well known is that while they can smell such things, they are notoriously unreliable when it comes to communicating what they smell. Study after study have shown that "drug sniffing" dogs respond more to the handler's cues than they do the actual presence of drugs.
But perhaps more to the point: what is more alarming here is that some bills are trying to reserve the right of aerial photography (sensing, etc.) to government only. This is (or should be) of huge concern to every privacy-loving citizen.
In Washington state, such photography or sensing is only illegal when it is done for purposes of "surveillance" without a warrant. The law affects both law enforcement and citizens. So if you take an aerial photo of your business, for example, and happen to inadvertently get a few neighboring houses in the picture, no big deal. But if you take the picture in order to see what is on those neighboring properties, you are breaking the law. And I like the fact that it applies to common citizens and law enforcement or government equally.
I think that is a good compromise. It is not a blanket prohibition on taking pictures, it does not reserve "special rights" for government or law enforcement, and it still makes surveillance without a warrant illegal. I would love it if my state did that.
"Well for better or for worse, this is a globally accepted policy (e.g. UN, NATO, SEATO, ) that resulted from 9/11."
Tracking them down is one thing. Drone strikes are quite another.
Those, in particular, are against international treaty, international law, and also U.S. law.
"Funny since construction work is not an insignificant part of the economy and tends to be busiest during the summer months..."
You'd have to talk to the authors of TFA. They said it, not me.
"So your idea is that because you imagine something existed, write it down, and found a large socio-political group around it, it's real? "
Wow. Talk about leaping to conclusions. Try again, Grasshopper. I was simply pointing out where there was a flaw in your logic. None of this was MY idea, at all.
In my experience, lots of people have libertarianism confused with anarchy.
FOR ALL YOU CONFUSED PEOPLE:
Libertarianism (with a big "L", as in the actual Libertarian Party) is a party of Constitutionalists. They want to get back to Constitutional law, and get rid of all the unconstitutional things the Federal government has been doing. (And man, is that list a long one.)
Most Libertarians are not "Randists". While there are a few similarities in their philosophies, Libertarians also differ hugely from Rand's philosophies on some issues. True followers of Rand call themselves Ojectivists. Libertarians and Objectivists are more different than today's Democrats and Republicans. So stop insulting people. Objectivists have their own political party.
Libertarians are provably nothing like anarchists. They advocate a return to Constitutionality and the rule of law. Anarchists, on the other hand, advocate no government. There is a rather huge difference there. And again: Anarchists have their very own political party.
I happen to know some people who demonstrated themselves to be die-hard Objectivists and Anarchists, and were politely asked to resign their membership in our local Libertarian Party chapter, and to go somewhere more appropriate. I'm not talking about rabble-rousers or troublemakers; just some people whose personal philosophies were clearly not Libertarian.
"Attack from a different direction. They'll probably shoot that down too, but play the game. Attack, attack, attack until something works."
The FIRST time someone is wrongly convicted of a felony -- or even maybe just on trial -- and the prosecution presents evidence that came from warrantless surveillance, expect it to go back to the Supreme Court. It will then have standing.
s/fighting a way/fighting a war
"There are NO NATURAL RIGHTS."
Then you're living in the wrong country. THIS ONE was founded primarily on the idea that there are, in fact, natural rights.
"Our 'natural rights' in theory come from the fact that there are a lot of us and very few of them on high."
I don't know whose theories you've been listening to, but that's complete bullshit. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both based on the idea that humans have rights, from the time they are born, simply by nature of their humanity. That true rights are something Government has neither the power to bestow, or to deprive.
Granted, sometimes it takes war to secure those rights. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. Any more than fighting a way over someone trying to occupy your land. So you think that is an indication that the land doesn't actually exist?
When one argues philosophy, it generally behooves one to formulate arguments in such a way that they avoid proving themselves wrong. Fail.
"Even though I'm in no way a libertarian (I feel their beliefs would end up with a return to feudalism) "
"Exactly."
Holy Crap. You sure don't know much about Libertarians. (And that's a big "L", by they way... same as you capitalize Democrat and Republican.)
The Libertarian Party of the United States are strict Constitutionalists. In this way, they are very similar to the so-called Constitution Party, who are also Constitutionalists, but the views of the latter are also staunchly Christian... they believe that this is a Christian country and we should have Christian laws (whatever that means). Whereas the Libertarians take freedom of religion seriously.
I fail to see why you seem to think that a return to actual Constitutional law somehow equates with "feudalism". Or could it be that -- and I think this is the much more likely scenario -- you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about?
Whether the report itself is dumb I won't speculate about. But it does not say what OP claims it says.
TFA does NOT say that "global warming" has reduced labor by 10%. What is says is that summers -- summers in general -- reduce labor by 10% compared to the rest of the year. There is no mention at all about current levels being caused by global warming.
TFA then goes on to explain that *IF* Global Warming continues at the rate some people predict, those summer reductions will THEN increase and cause reduced production.
Even the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, admits there has been "a 17-year pause" in Global Warming. Some people need to catch up and get with the program. The draft report of the IPCC's upcoming Assessment Report has toned things down a lot too. Like admissions that there is little to no evidence after all that cyclonic energy (hurricanes, etc.) will increase, and more.
"Privacy problems would disappear--"
Yes, I meant that "many privacy problems would disappear."
Think about it: Deep-packet inspection would simply be illegal. No question. Maybe it could be done with a warrant or subpoena, but pretty much no other way. 3rd-party cookies and pixel-bug tracking would, in any sane universe, then constitute "tapping" and would likely disappear (for legitimate reasons, anyway). Etc.
It would go a long way toward solving many of our internet ills.
"You would not be asking what the point was if a worst-case scenario involving your child went down, and video of the event was nearly instantly uploaded to remote servers."
Great. But imagine how expensive this would be today. Even at low resolution, one full day would take up Gigabytes. But I suppose if you can afford to buy a 1TB hard drive every year, you could maybe swing it. Maybe.
"Well Duh, studying one of the richest and most powerful nation is stupid."
That's really pretty much completely irrelevant to this research. For one thing, it applies to cultures, not so much to countries.
But what strikes me the most is that the majority of this article refers to Henrich's earlier research, which is a good 10-15 years old or so. Not much in the way of news, here.
"SPs look like common carriers and quack like common carriers. It's high time we started treating them as common carriers (i.e., imposing net neutrality on them)."
The FCC has wanted to classify ISPs as Title II Common Carriers since their inception. It was Congress that stopped it from doing so, by passing a law that made ISPs an exception. Backed by lobbying, no doubt. There was never any real, rational reason for doing that and I have been lambasting Congress for it ever since. (That is, "corporate profit" might be a "reason", but not a good one. This situation is definitely not in the public interest. Countries that treat internet more like a utility have significantly better service at lower rates than the U.S.)
The reality is, more than ever before, that ISPs are Common Carriers, in every meaningful way. We need to get Congress to let the FCC classify them as such.
The moment that happens, many of these problems -- and privacy problems too -- simply disappear.
s/In fact Microsoft is not/In fact Microsoft is now
"No one plays with MS and comes out ahead."
Actually, that's not quite true. A number of small companies have taken on Microsoft and won. It hasn't always done them a lot of good, though.
Take the Stacker debacle of... what was it? '95-'96? Microsoft stole Stacker's compression code, which Stacker pretty easily proved in court. Microsoft had to pay a pretty huge judgment to Stacker, and change their own compression code. Which they did, and it was very inefficient compared to the original Stacker code.
But because Microsoft already had huge market share, and not all consumers were tech-savvy, after that Stacker sales continued to decline and I doubt you can even find the company anymore.
Which would reinforce your point, if that were a typical scenario, but it's not. In fact Apple *has* taken on Microsoft, and won, if you consider profit to be the primary indicator. And they've been gaining market share while Microsoft has been losing. In fact Microsoft is not pretty much dependent on their business user base. They make very little of their profit from consumer sales anymore. And their business user base in turn is as big as it is only because of inertia within companies.
"As a first step toward this nightmare, they bullied computer makers into shipping a bootloader signature system that could potentially prevent people from running GNU/Linux."
"Anything other than Windows", you mean.