I think your statement is essentially correct, but a bit narrow.
Your original premise could be restated:
"The fundamental issue here is that the needs of private industry are fundamentally opposed to their employees." "The simple truth is that employers hate people."
Emulating a CPU instruction set is obviously not enough to run applications that usually are built on top of an operating system. In this case, z/OS is a proprietary mainframe operating system. Hercules doesn't contain its code. But since it emulates the mainframe CPU instruction set, any software written for that CPU (z/OS as well as applications) can be emulated.
So TurboHercules asked whether there could be a commercial agreement in order to give customers that option, not free of charge but in exchange for a reasonable license fee to be paid.
Why should IBM be required to allow that? It's their stuff.
Now, unless they want to create a z/OZ layer themselves they are stuck. So what? Their business model just doesn't work in today's legal and business environment.
You have to slay a bigger beast to allow what you would like to happen than you would think. Or maybe that is your argument?
Even after they do a clean room reimplementation, I expect that IBM has patents that can be used to prevent that.
Yes, I know, but they are currently legal, and there is no real way to skirt this environment besides challenging them directly.
... that lets us know that this is because Apple has determined that this is an incorrect way to hold the phone?
Their ergonomic department has found that the ergonomics are wrong, so they are actually doing you a favour by requiring you to hold the phone in a certain way.
It's actually to your benefit, and phones that don't have this, err, feature, are bad for you./ducks
"It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state."
We seem really good at adapting tech to other uses. Witness the large purchases of stun guns to places that use them as torture devices. So unless we stop development of ALL tech, I don't see the utility of the quote.
Is there any technology which could not "someday" be used (somehow) to facilitate a police state?
Solar Power? Even police states need energy... Computers/Electronics? I think we've beat that near death on possible misuses Furbys? The State might want a bunch of nifty slogans like "Do your parents do drugs? You should report them! Just press my paw..."
Rather I think that is it bad civic hygiene to build or adapt technologies that are by design to be used in this way.
That won't stop people from doing it. Similar to captalists who will sell you the rope you use to hang them, technologists seem bent on creating the systems that will be used to control them.
The difference in treatment is jarring. I don't think I'll ever become fully accustomed to it.
There is a school of thought that you shouldn't. That you should continue to remind yourself of how you were treated when you were a "nobody".
This school seems to believe that one way to avoid becoming the opressor (when working inside the system) is to remember when you were opressed. So that if you ever do have Hierarchical Authority over others you do not use the corresponding Power in ways you would have disagreed with.
They seem to believe the issue with "becoming accustomed" to such a dichotomy is that one loses track of where the bright line is between the Authority to do something and the Power to do it.
Of course, what do *they* know? I'm sure that eventually "might makes right" will be proven correct.
Unfortunately with great power comes great responsibility.
Or are you one of those folks who think Individuals aren't responsible for their actions?
When you use that great power, you become liable for ALL of the consequences, not just those you happen to like. That extends to unintended consequences
But to suggest that the US military has been a direct cause of a fair share of the barbarism in the world is dishonest and disgusting.
To suggest that we not own up to a fair share of the barbarism in places where we exerted our power is even more dishonest and disgusting.
If you can't see how trending data over long timeperiods with minutely tracked detail could be important to entities other than governments, I can't really help you with that. Just because you can't figure out a use for it don't discard it as having "negative value"
In fact, old data having no timestame being of negative value is totally false, too. It will entirely depend on the heuristics and algorithms applied to that data. The lack of a datafield signifies something as well, and information can be extracted from that too.
Now as a thought experiment which of these cases would be better for complex analysis (where some data is stale, or missing, etc.):
I would tend to argue that personally identified data will increase in value the longer data stream in continuous.
Imagine a 1 year study vs a 20 year study.
The fact is that we are at the very tip of this phenomena.
You could then even perhaps begin predicting large trends over the order of decades, based on individual inputs from the boots on the ground, everywhere reporting streams of identifiable information.
The data may be less valuable to you in terms of your own utility but do not imagine for a moment that it degrades in value to the archivists.
And basically, your statements should do more to your own repuration as a source of trusted information than to eldavojohn.
We are never going to have a society where people do not lie about one another. We *can* however choose who to believe and tell others who we do believe or not.
Other people are choosing to belive Spamhaus and their take on the reputation of e360. If Spamhaus makes enough bad calls, their service will be worthless and no one will listen anymore.
Why do you assume that 'live' even today, means authentic? Live only implies the recording and viewing are temporally synced (with some lag of course) - not unmodified. Haven't you seen match scores update instantaneously as the game progresses? Or helpful little scrollers going by on the bottom of the screen ? They obviously have editing capability on a live signal
Why do you assume that I don't know what I am talking about, and then give such a stupidly simple example?
You are so right, I hadn't thought of the fact that I see modified live tv already!! on noes!!!
There is a HUGE difference between overlays, small time cuts (which they do for commercials anyways) and making that cloudy golf day have a beautiful blue sky. Or filtering out the crowd noise (they coudl do the same thing for the songs, and chants, as well, you know). Qualitative and quantitative differences.
One could even have the commentators remark upon the beautiful weather, showing smiling sunny crowds, etc.
One of these scenarios presents a much more authentic observation:
* A screen showing a game with a running score ticker across the bottom
* A screen showing a game, but in a different stadium than the one it's being played in.
I wonder how long before half of what one sees and hears in supposedly "live" TV has been digitally massaged in some manner.
You could take out ugly buildings to make a scene more aesthetically pleasing, notch out one particular persons voice, or remove an 'annoying' five seconds of tape.
This subtle dichotomy between actual real life and tv "real life" could widen to the point of audiences being fed the "Leave it to Beaver" version of the real. We're generally already pissed off enough that our lives don't match the fake TV shows but this could bring a whole new level of cognitive dissonance, since these are supposedly "live" evens.
The horns are there, in the stadium. They may be annoying but they are part of the event. I guess if it turns cloudy, perhaps they can photoshop in some blue sky...
Almost all current weapon regulations define weapons as devices designed to fire projectiles. Lasers do not fire projectiles and are not subject to such regulation.
Oh, sure! I thought that debate was settled already. And here you go claiming that light is "just a wave"! A particle would be a projectile (albeit a very tiny one!). A whole bunch of particles just means a whole lot of projectiles.
Though I guess if you just fire at double slit experiments (Hey! get your mind out of the gutter!) then it's ok - just don't try to measure a photon's location, or you'll end up with a weapon!
Perhaps you could even accuse any Officer of the Court of weaponizing you innocent toy by observation, necessitating they jail themselves. "Honestly - It's only a weapon when you look at it!"
Honestly, do you think the government he worked for, swore an oath to defend and protect, and that trusted him to properly handle secret documents should give him an award for violating that trust/oath?
Honestly, do you think he swore an oath to protect the Government? No, he swore an Oath the defend the Constitution. Too many people seem to convenielty forget that.
Yes, I do think perhaps We should give him a medal. It appears to me that these images were kept secret to avoid causing discomfort to the ruling political class. This is an abrogation of Our trust as a people. It takes Honour and Courage to go against one of the most powerful systems on the planet to do what you feel is right.
In my mind he violated the 'trust' of a small set of narrow interests whose are using these method (stamp secret on any uncomfortable issues) to decieve the People. Which appears unconsionable and likely illegal (although good luck with that).
So, to summmarize: Hi is not breaking his Oath. The people who supresed these documents and videos are breaking their Oath.
You can't on one hand call "leakers" brave heroes for risking severe consequences and then act suprised when their actions have those very same consequences.
History may prove him right or not, but right now his offense is punishable, and he knew it when he did it.
I'm not suprised the government has chosen this path - but that doesn't mean I can't speak out against it and proponents of more of the same such as yourself.
We don't want to wait for "history" to prove him right or not. All that means is he will serve as a negative example so that other people think twice about shedding light on any abuses that may be happening. Not exactly my idea of 'better government'.
Too much of what has been declared off limits to the American People is simply so that we won't get riled up and either put a stop to something that is currently happening or punish the people who did it.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your statement is essentially correct, but a bit narrow.
Your original premise could be restated:
"The fundamental issue here is that the needs of private industry are fundamentally opposed to their employees." "The simple truth is that employers hate people."
Regards.
Yeah, but then they will come here and whinge about it!
I'm not sure which is worse, to be without essential services or that...
Emulating a CPU instruction set is obviously not enough to run applications that usually are built on top of an operating system. In this case, z/OS is a proprietary mainframe operating system. Hercules doesn't contain its code. But since it emulates the mainframe CPU instruction set, any software written for that CPU (z/OS as well as applications) can be emulated.
So TurboHercules asked whether there could be a commercial agreement in order to give customers that option, not free of charge but in exchange for a reasonable license fee to be paid.
Why should IBM be required to allow that? It's their stuff.
Now, unless they want to create a z/OZ layer themselves they are stuck. So what? Their business model just doesn't work in today's legal and business environment.
You have to slay a bigger beast to allow what you would like to happen than you would think. Or maybe that is your argument?
Even after they do a clean room reimplementation, I expect that IBM has patents that can be used to prevent that.
Yes, I know, but they are currently legal, and there is no real way to skirt this environment besides challenging them directly.
Thank you for the information!
Regards.
... that lets us know that this is because Apple has determined that this is an incorrect way to hold the phone?
Their ergonomic department has found that the ergonomics are wrong, so they are actually doing you a favour by requiring you to hold the phone in a certain way.
It's actually to your benefit, and phones that don't have this, err, feature, are bad for you. /ducks
Regards.
So, let me get this straight then, since I am a bit confused.
Are they using any IBM software?
Or have they done a clean room implementation of a set of software than entirely emulates the software stack of IBM?
One of these seems ok, the other seems like it runs into the need to abide by the license set forth by the maker of the software in question.
This is about interoperability between the existing programs ("legacy code") and newer hardware.
Only if that interoperability is done using no code licensed by IBM. Is that the case here?
Otherwise, they are free to beef up their emulation project to completely eliminate IBM software.
Regards.
Because most people don't want to pay for the actual benefits they receive?
Regards.
Thank you for restating my point.
Regards.
"It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state."
We seem really good at adapting tech to other uses. Witness the large purchases of stun guns to places that use them as torture devices. So unless we stop development of ALL tech, I don't see the utility of the quote.
Is there any technology which could not "someday" be used (somehow) to facilitate a police state?
Solar Power? Even police states need energy...
Computers/Electronics? I think we've beat that near death on possible misuses
Furbys? The State might want a bunch of nifty slogans like "Do your parents do drugs? You should report them! Just press my paw..."
Rather I think that is it bad civic hygiene to build or adapt technologies that are by design to be used in this way.
That won't stop people from doing it. Similar to captalists who will sell you the rope you use to hang them, technologists seem bent on creating the systems that will be used to control them.
Regards.
I will have to disagree with you.
You may be able to "enslave" a body, or coerce actions from a body through a number of means of which you listed one.
That is quite different than enslaving his mind (which is what the quote was about).
To demonstrate this, what's going to happen in your scenario when I give myself a gun and place you thirty feet from my child? Right. Bang.
Regards.
The difference in treatment is jarring. I don't think I'll ever become fully accustomed to it.
There is a school of thought that you shouldn't. That you should continue to remind yourself of how you were treated when you were a "nobody".
This school seems to believe that one way to avoid becoming the opressor (when working inside the system) is to remember when you were opressed. So that if you ever do have Hierarchical Authority over others you do not use the corresponding Power in ways you would have disagreed with.
They seem to believe the issue with "becoming accustomed" to such a dichotomy is that one loses track of where the bright line is between the Authority to do something and the Power to do it.
Of course, what do *they* know? I'm sure that eventually "might makes right" will be proven correct.
Regards.
Unfortunately with great power comes great responsibility.
Or are you one of those folks who think Individuals aren't responsible for their actions?
When you use that great power, you become liable for ALL of the consequences, not just those you happen to like. That extends to unintended consequences
But to suggest that the US military has been a direct cause of a fair share of the barbarism in the world is dishonest and disgusting.
To suggest that we not own up to a fair share of the barbarism in places where we exerted our power is even more dishonest and disgusting.
Regards
I have not found those correlated. They appear to be orthogonal variables.
Regards.
That is because this is not a "technology" yet.
At least not the way you seem to define "technology".
This is a discussion of research results.
Regards.
If you can't see how trending data over long timeperiods with minutely tracked detail could be important to entities other than governments, I can't really help you with that. Just because you can't figure out a use for it don't discard it as having "negative value"
In fact, old data having no timestame being of negative value is totally false, too. It will entirely depend on the heuristics and algorithms applied to that data. The lack of a datafield signifies something as well, and information can be extracted from that too.
Now as a thought experiment which of these cases would be better for complex analysis (where some data is stale, or missing, etc.):
* Data with no timestamp
* No data and no timestamp
?
Regards.
Hate to break it to you but those patterns were based on some Earth religions.
Ever hear of people taking up new names given to them by their gurus?
Yeah.
Reagards.
I just want to know what government programs started with good intentions (besides perhaps, wars) have made things worse.
1. Social Security
2. Farm subsidies
3. United Nations Funding
4. National Endowment for the Arts
5. Bankrupt and poorly managed government services:
You know, it has been quite interesting for me to compare and contrast this list with one posted above by someone else:
Prohibition
War on Drugs
Japanese Internment Camps
National Security Letters
Register for Sex offenders
It really shows two entirely different modes of thought in juxaposition.
Regards.
I would tend to argue that personally identified data will increase in value the longer data stream in continuous.
Imagine a 1 year study vs a 20 year study.
The fact is that we are at the very tip of this phenomena.
You could then even perhaps begin predicting large trends over the order of decades, based on individual inputs from the boots on the ground, everywhere reporting streams of identifiable information.
The data may be less valuable to you in terms of your own utility but do not imagine for a moment that it degrades in value to the archivists.
Regards.
And basically, your statements should do more to your own repuration as a source of trusted information than to eldavojohn.
We are never going to have a society where people do not lie about one another. We *can* however choose who to believe and tell others who we do believe or not.
Other people are choosing to belive Spamhaus and their take on the reputation of e360. If Spamhaus makes enough bad calls, their service will be worthless and no one will listen anymore.
Similarly with your example.
Regards.
You mistake yoru reading of my assumption for my assumption.
So I respectfully disagree.
Regards.
We all pose for society.
Yes, but to breate someone for adopting a pose that denies their very existence is delicious.
Yum.
Why do you assume that 'live' even today, means authentic? Live only implies the recording and viewing are temporally synced (with some lag of course) - not unmodified. Haven't you seen match scores update instantaneously as the game progresses? Or helpful little scrollers going by on the bottom of the screen ? They obviously have editing capability on a live signal
Why do you assume that I don't know what I am talking about, and then give such a stupidly simple example?
You are so right, I hadn't thought of the fact that I see modified live tv already!! on noes!!!
There is a HUGE difference between overlays, small time cuts (which they do for commercials anyways) and making that cloudy golf day have a beautiful blue sky. Or filtering out the crowd noise (they coudl do the same thing for the songs, and chants, as well, you know). Qualitative and quantitative differences.
One could even have the commentators remark upon the beautiful weather, showing smiling sunny crowds, etc.
One of these scenarios presents a much more authentic observation:
* A screen showing a game with a running score ticker across the bottom
* A screen showing a game, but in a different stadium than the one it's being played in.
Regards.
I wonder how long before half of what one sees and hears in supposedly "live" TV has been digitally massaged in some manner.
You could take out ugly buildings to make a scene more aesthetically pleasing, notch out one particular persons voice, or remove an 'annoying' five seconds of tape.
This subtle dichotomy between actual real life and tv "real life" could widen to the point of audiences being fed the "Leave it to Beaver" version of the real. We're generally already pissed off enough that our lives don't match the fake TV shows but this could bring a whole new level of cognitive dissonance, since these are supposedly "live" evens.
The horns are there, in the stadium. They may be annoying but they are part of the event. I guess if it turns cloudy, perhaps they can photoshop in some blue sky...
Regards.
We all pose for society.
To pretend that you do not is simply hiding that truth from yourself.
Regards.
Almost all current weapon regulations define weapons as devices designed to fire projectiles. Lasers do not fire projectiles and are not subject to such regulation.
Oh, sure! I thought that debate was settled already. And here you go claiming that light is "just a wave"! A particle would be a projectile (albeit a very tiny one!). A whole bunch of particles just means a whole lot of projectiles.
Though I guess if you just fire at double slit experiments (Hey! get your mind out of the gutter!) then it's ok - just don't try to measure a photon's location, or you'll end up with a weapon!
Perhaps you could even accuse any Officer of the Court of weaponizing you innocent toy by observation, necessitating they jail themselves. "Honestly - It's only a weapon when you look at it!"
Honestly, do you think the government he worked for, swore an oath to defend and protect, and that trusted him to properly handle secret documents should give him an award for violating that trust/oath?
Honestly, do you think he swore an oath to protect the Government? No, he swore an Oath the defend the Constitution. Too many people seem to convenielty forget that.
Yes, I do think perhaps We should give him a medal. It appears to me that these images were kept secret to avoid causing discomfort to the ruling political class. This is an abrogation of Our trust as a people. It takes Honour and Courage to go against one of the most powerful systems on the planet to do what you feel is right.
In my mind he violated the 'trust' of a small set of narrow interests whose are using these method (stamp secret on any uncomfortable issues) to decieve the People. Which appears unconsionable and likely illegal (although good luck with that).
So, to summmarize: Hi is not breaking his Oath. The people who supresed these documents and videos are breaking their Oath.
You can't on one hand call "leakers" brave heroes for risking severe consequences and then act suprised when their actions have those very same consequences.
History may prove him right or not, but right now his offense is punishable, and he knew it when he did it.
I'm not suprised the government has chosen this path - but that doesn't mean I can't speak out against it and proponents of more of the same such as yourself.
We don't want to wait for "history" to prove him right or not. All that means is he will serve as a negative example so that other people think twice about shedding light on any abuses that may be happening. Not exactly my idea of 'better government'.
Too much of what has been declared off limits to the American People is simply so that we won't get riled up and either put a stop to something that is currently happening or punish the people who did it.
Regards.