The CIA, which has in the past actively worked to overthrow (and has succeeded in overthrowing) South American regimes the United States doesn't like, now claims that Venezuela used vote rigging to win a 2004 election recount just two years after a failed coup took place against Chavez that the United State sanctioned.
Links to the Rowntree report: executive summary, and the full report. (Both in PDF format). It's worth mentioning that their report doesn't particularly single out the communications database. They assessed 46 databases across all the major UK government departments. They found that at least one quarter "are almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law", and that these "should be scrapped or substantially redesigned", while over "half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge". Less than 15% were believed to be "effective, proportionate and necessary". They had some equally damning things to say about the cost of IT projects in the public sector, and the high failure rate of the projects (only 30% succeed).
Re:Age of Speed on Wall St.
on
The Age of Speed
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I suggest you read Paul Virilio. He has some rather interesting ideas regarding speed and its effect on society. He's particularly interested in the way speed limits or determines our perception of phenomena. He believes that societies have essentially viewed development in terms of ever increasing acceleration of both communication and transportation; progress is defined according the the acceleration brought about by some technological change. However, in the current age, we're reaching some sort of critical mass where an increase in speed is no longer possible, mainly because speed has a limit, brought about by the discover of the speed of light. (I would suggest that's really what "The Age of Speed" means.)
There's a lot more to add to really explain what he's talking about. For example, he also has another term, called "speed space", which is not just the usual space of three dimensions, but one which is defined by all relative movements, and the acceleration and deceleration of those movements. I'm just beginning to grasp his ideas myself, so I can't give an accurate analysis. I'm currently reading this, which is probably a good place to begin.
Since you mention Wall Street, have a look at what he had to say about the current economic crisis.
People will not give up their cash without a fight? Just like people won't give up their rights without a fight, hey?
We've already taken a giant leap towards a cashless society, with two inventions that we all love: the internet, and mobile phones.
When I sit down and actually look at the majority of my transactions, they're already occurring electronically, via the internet. Amazon, eBay, electronic banking, booking airline tickets, booking concert tickets, supermarket shopping. That's all cashless. I would wager that, in my personal life, at least 70% of my cash transactions occur electronically. I'd be surprised to find geeks that don't have a majority of their transactions occurring without cash.
Also, I don't think you give enough credit (excuse the pun) to people for being as lazy as they can be. If a chip is put in someone's mobile phone (a device most people in the developed world have) to let them pay for things quickly and easily, do you think they won't use it? There are 360 and 380 billion mobile phones in the world to date (approximately) - the groundwork is set. Currently, only 10% of these phones have the necessary hardware, but that will change rapidly. A cashless society will be sold on the basis of convenience first, security second, and I suspect that, while it may take a long time for cash to disappear (if ever), cash will eventually be seen as something used by the poor and society's outcasts i.e. cashless technologies and cash will become emblematic of society's economic and social divisions.
Furthermore, look at someone like Wal-Mart, and their technology-adoption strategy. Look at how they pushed RFID. That sort of power is going to be crucial in bringing about a cashless society because they may make the decision to halve their workforce and install self-service, cashless machines at the checkout, or trolley/basket-based systems. The cashless society will likely materialise because of such strategies: the removal of choice.
And even if we have "cash" in the future, it will be embedded with RFID, anyway, so not much freedom there, either.
If they're speaking in the name of the Home Office, then the title is spot on. Also, the transcript explicitly states that all questions were sent to the Home Office a full day before the interview "to give them plenty of time to prepare". If they can't even prepare properly, then not only is the Home Office clueless, but the PR man is useless at his job.
Regardless, what you said is exactly what's wrong with the UK government*: too many f*cking PR men with their dial set to constant spin-cycle. (Never mind too many unelected officials making decisions and influencing policy).
Who are these nameless idiots anyway? "A home office spokesman", doesn't (s)he have a name?
Not claiming the BBC don't do flamebait, just pointing out it wasn't me doing the flame-bating;)
Sure, I get exactly what you're saying, and I do agree with you. I was just pointing out that what you initially described was exactly what the study was talking about.
That's why the summary says, "abilities based on accumulated knowledge, such as performance on tests of vocabulary or general information, increased until the age of 60" (emphasis mine).
It's not your accumulated knowledge that declines initially, it's "brain speed, reasoning and visual puzzle-solving ability". When you consider that things such as dementia and alzheimer's are believed to begin several years before they noticeably affect you, your "decline" is going to be very subtle, and over a long period of time.
... the Featured Artists Coalition, which consists of 140 of the UK's biggest music stars, voted recently on the issue of illegal downloading, and "most of the artists had voted against supporting any move towards criminally prosecuting ordinary members of the public for illegally downloaded music."
Bragg was speaking as a key member of the coalition, which was set up to give a collective voice to artists who want to fight for their rights in the digital world. It is pushing for a fairer deal for musicians at a time when they can use the internet to forge direct links with their fans. "What I said at the meeting was that the record industry in Britain is still going down the road of criminalising our audience for downloading illegal MP3s," he said.
"If we follow the music industry down that road, we will be doing nothing more than being part of a protectionist effort. It's like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
"Artists should own their own rights and they should decide when their music should be used for free, or when they should have payment."
The artists wanted to tell Lord Carter "that we want to side with the audience, the consumer".
Since we keep getting told to think about the artists, why is no-one listening to what they're saying?
In the past the man has been first; in the future the system must be first.
This idea of mathematically determining the value of each employee fits very well with his ideas. Face it: in the modern corporate world, humans are part of a system that is, overall, far more important than the individual. It is increasingly a scientifically-managed system, so it should come as no surprise that such dehumanising practices should take place. Business does not want humans; it wants workers.
It is quite a logical outcome of our increasing reliance on scientific principles to explain and analyse our world. I find it ironic that many/. members would hate this approach of analysing workers, yet its roots lie in our reliance on science to breakdown, label, categorise, and figure out how we and our world works. In the same way psychology, neuroscience, and other mind-related fields were bastardised to figure out how to manipulate the human mind to makes us consume, the computer sciences will be used in a similar fashion to make us behave a certain way: if you don't want to get fired, you need to make sure what you do conforms to their model.
Sadly, figuring out the "optimal" and "perfect" workers will, like my.sig says, make us realise just what it was that made us human, instead of just robots.
Am I missing something here? Why the hell even introduce the idea of "Compatibility View"? That's just pure sloppiness.
Since when was it the browser user's responsibility (or even the browser's) to decide what mode a page should be viewed in? Isn't it the developer's job to tell the browser how to behave, and the browser does so accordingly, in a consistent fashion?
I prefer Firefox, but even I know Opera is amazingly quick.
Regardless, since when is the speed of loading a website the measure of a good browser?
Also, it's worth pointing out that this test shows IE is faster at loading cached pages, not uncached websites. From their paper:
In the Internet Explorer lab: We visit each site prior to starting any site test. âoePreloadingâ the cache prior to a test helps ensure systems are at a known base before starting.
[Prof. Farnsworth is searching for Terrorists with his Smelloscope]
Leela: Anything yet, professor?
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: I'm afraid the Smelloscope can't locate the terrorist. His fragrance is too mild. It's being overwhelmed by local sources.
[Everyone looks at DHS Goon Zoidberg]
DHS Goon Zoidberg: Hooray! Now I'm the center of attention.
I don't ever see stories on/. talking about NASA that make a point of mentioning their obvious military ties when they undertake civilian space programs.
So far, the single dissenter against efforts to prevent militarisation of space at the UN has been the US, not China.
What this "acceleration of timelines" indicates is that the Chinese are taking the US stance very seriously.
Be warned, it looks like some scareware sites are trying to exploit the situation.
Check out the first couple of sites on the Google results: hillhaven.com.au and 2009031004.peziueued.xorg.pl. Both of those run classic scareware scams to get you to try and run and install something onto your machine.
If that's true, Symantec must be dumber than I thought if they provided a backdoor to a firewall that allows said firewall to warn the user.
Re:Bamford - USS Liberty
on
The Shadow Factory
·
· Score: 4, Informative
It was my understanding that the attack on the USS Liberty was done in order to further thicken the fog of war (1967 War), not to make anything secret. It was meant to stop the super-powers from knowing what was going on (the Liberty was conducting intelligence operations). The main aim was to prevent (or at least forestall) any pressure for a cease-fire before Israel were able to seize the land they needed, namely the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (See US Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1978).
It is incorrect to label this as a conspiracy theory. The only thing really missing is substantiation of the reason behind the attack. It was clearly not an accident. Furthermore, Israeli attacks on its allies have been documented before e.g. the Lavon Affair.
Facebook is not the place for the games existence, IMO. It is a gated community, for starters, so you're limiting the reach of your game, because it is not a "web-based game" - it is a Facebook-based game. Furthermore, it is obviously limiting your friends' ability to be rewarded for your efforts because they don't control the revenue stream surrounding the game.
IMO, the game should exist independently outside of Facebook, and the Facebook-app should be a way to get people interested in that game. In fact, I would say that the reason the players of the game are up in arms is primarily because they are not viewing it as a game in its own right, but because they're viewing it as a Facebook application, which in turn is making them think that your friends are already getting a revenue stream, so why should they have to pay for anything?
Kongregate is an excellent example of a web-based gaming community that seems to thrive. I haven't done a lot of digging into their numbers, but they appear to do quite well. For example, Desktop Tower Defence is estimated to be making around 100K per year (if his current rate of pageviews continues). Of course, that's quite rare, but it demonstrates that true web-based games can be successful. You could also try and get sponsorship from people like Armor Games or Crazy Monkey games (although that's mainly for Flash-based games).
If their gamem is proving to be a hit, and is proving to be successful, then it certainly seems that they should consider taking the plunge and launching a proper web-based version where they can control the methods of earning the money.
Note: I'm not affiliated with any of the companies mentioned, nor do I design games myself.
Yeah, not going to be too easy, but at least they're taking it seriously and offering help. According to news on the ICO's website, "From 16 March the ICO will operate a dedicated enquiry system for people who believe personal information about them may be held on the database. Members of the public are advised not to contact the ICO until 16 March."
Slashdot Mirror
The CIA, which has in the past actively worked to overthrow (and has succeeded in overthrowing) South American regimes the United States doesn't like, now claims that Venezuela used vote rigging to win a 2004 election recount just two years after a failed coup took place against Chavez that the United State sanctioned.
Forgive me if I don't take this seriously.
Links to the Rowntree report: executive summary, and the full report. (Both in PDF format). It's worth mentioning that their report doesn't particularly single out the communications database. They assessed 46 databases across all the major UK government departments. They found that at least one quarter "are almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law", and that these "should be scrapped or substantially redesigned", while over "half have significant problems with privacy or effectiveness and could fall foul of a legal challenge". Less than 15% were believed to be "effective, proportionate and necessary". They had some equally damning things to say about the cost of IT projects in the public sector, and the high failure rate of the projects (only 30% succeed).
I suggest you read Paul Virilio. He has some rather interesting ideas regarding speed and its effect on society. He's particularly interested in the way speed limits or determines our perception of phenomena. He believes that societies have essentially viewed development in terms of ever increasing acceleration of both communication and transportation; progress is defined according the the acceleration brought about by some technological change. However, in the current age, we're reaching some sort of critical mass where an increase in speed is no longer possible, mainly because speed has a limit, brought about by the discover of the speed of light. (I would suggest that's really what "The Age of Speed" means.)
There's a lot more to add to really explain what he's talking about. For example, he also has another term, called "speed space", which is not just the usual space of three dimensions, but one which is defined by all relative movements, and the acceleration and deceleration of those movements. I'm just beginning to grasp his ideas myself, so I can't give an accurate analysis. I'm currently reading this, which is probably a good place to begin.
Since you mention Wall Street, have a look at what he had to say about the current economic crisis.
... the Lord did grin.
Of course no-one was in danger. No-one took out the Holy Pin.
People will not give up their cash without a fight? Just like people won't give up their rights without a fight, hey?
We've already taken a giant leap towards a cashless society, with two inventions that we all love: the internet, and mobile phones.
When I sit down and actually look at the majority of my transactions, they're already occurring electronically, via the internet. Amazon, eBay, electronic banking, booking airline tickets, booking concert tickets, supermarket shopping. That's all cashless. I would wager that, in my personal life, at least 70% of my cash transactions occur electronically. I'd be surprised to find geeks that don't have a majority of their transactions occurring without cash.
Also, I don't think you give enough credit (excuse the pun) to people for being as lazy as they can be. If a chip is put in someone's mobile phone (a device most people in the developed world have) to let them pay for things quickly and easily, do you think they won't use it? There are 360 and 380 billion mobile phones in the world to date (approximately) - the groundwork is set. Currently, only 10% of these phones have the necessary hardware, but that will change rapidly. A cashless society will be sold on the basis of convenience first, security second, and I suspect that, while it may take a long time for cash to disappear (if ever), cash will eventually be seen as something used by the poor and society's outcasts i.e. cashless technologies and cash will become emblematic of society's economic and social divisions.
Furthermore, look at someone like Wal-Mart, and their technology-adoption strategy. Look at how they pushed RFID. That sort of power is going to be crucial in bringing about a cashless society because they may make the decision to halve their workforce and install self-service, cashless machines at the checkout, or trolley/basket-based systems. The cashless society will likely materialise because of such strategies: the removal of choice.
And even if we have "cash" in the future, it will be embedded with RFID, anyway, so not much freedom there, either.
If they're speaking in the name of the Home Office, then the title is spot on. Also, the transcript explicitly states that all questions were sent to the Home Office a full day before the interview "to give them plenty of time to prepare". If they can't even prepare properly, then not only is the Home Office clueless, but the PR man is useless at his job.
Regardless, what you said is exactly what's wrong with the UK government*: too many f*cking PR men with their dial set to constant spin-cycle. (Never mind too many unelected officials making decisions and influencing policy).
Who are these nameless idiots anyway? "A home office spokesman", doesn't (s)he have a name?
* Likely to continue under the Tories as well.
Check the first YouTube video at about 9:00 for the case mod and John Hobbibal's compukits. I've only just discovered his homepage, and he has a Compukit UK101 page, with a photo of his Compukit 101.
Not claiming the BBC don't do flamebait, just pointing out it wasn't me doing the flame-bating ;)
Sure, I get exactly what you're saying, and I do agree with you. I was just pointing out that what you initially described was exactly what the study was talking about.
That's why the summary says, "abilities based on accumulated knowledge, such as performance on tests of vocabulary or general information, increased until the age of 60" (emphasis mine).
It's not your accumulated knowledge that declines initially, it's "brain speed, reasoning and visual puzzle-solving ability". When you consider that things such as dementia and alzheimer's are believed to begin several years before they noticeably affect you, your "decline" is going to be very subtle, and over a long period of time.
Oh, and the headline was the BBC's.
... the Featured Artists Coalition, which consists of 140 of the UK's biggest music stars, voted recently on the issue of illegal downloading, and "most of the artists had voted against supporting any move towards criminally prosecuting ordinary members of the public for illegally downloaded music."
Since we keep getting told to think about the artists, why is no-one listening to what they're saying?
Positivist in the sense it is managed based on observable and measurable phenomena?
Sounds like just another way of saying the same thing as what I said.
When I read things like this, I'm always reminded of Frederick Taylor. If you've never heard of him, he's probably the guy you should thank for such quackery.
This idea of mathematically determining the value of each employee fits very well with his ideas. Face it: in the modern corporate world, humans are part of a system that is, overall, far more important than the individual. It is increasingly a scientifically-managed system, so it should come as no surprise that such dehumanising practices should take place. Business does not want humans; it wants workers.
It is quite a logical outcome of our increasing reliance on scientific principles to explain and analyse our world. I find it ironic that many /. members would hate this approach of analysing workers, yet its roots lie in our reliance on science to breakdown, label, categorise, and figure out how we and our world works. In the same way psychology, neuroscience, and other mind-related fields were bastardised to figure out how to manipulate the human mind to makes us consume, the computer sciences will be used in a similar fashion to make us behave a certain way: if you don't want to get fired, you need to make sure what you do conforms to their model.
Sadly, figuring out the "optimal" and "perfect" workers will, like my .sig says, make us realise just what it was that made us human, instead of just robots.
Am I missing something here? Why the hell even introduce the idea of "Compatibility View"? That's just pure sloppiness.
Since when was it the browser user's responsibility (or even the browser's) to decide what mode a page should be viewed in? Isn't it the developer's job to tell the browser how to behave, and the browser does so accordingly, in a consistent fashion?
NSA in this context is "National Security Archive", not "National Security Agency".
They did load local caches of the sites (see my previous comment).
I prefer Firefox, but even I know Opera is amazingly quick.
Regardless, since when is the speed of loading a website the measure of a good browser?
Also, it's worth pointing out that this test shows IE is faster at loading cached pages, not uncached websites. From their paper:
[Prof. Farnsworth is searching for Terrorists with his Smelloscope]
Leela: Anything yet, professor?
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: I'm afraid the Smelloscope can't locate the terrorist. His fragrance is too mild. It's being overwhelmed by local sources.
[Everyone looks at DHS Goon Zoidberg]
DHS Goon Zoidberg: Hooray! Now I'm the center of attention.
I don't ever see stories on /. talking about NASA that make a point of mentioning their obvious military ties when they undertake civilian space programs.
So far, the single dissenter against efforts to prevent militarisation of space at the UN has been the US, not China.
What this "acceleration of timelines" indicates is that the Chinese are taking the US stance very seriously.
One smart programmer != one smart company.
Be warned, it looks like some scareware sites are trying to exploit the situation.
Check out the first couple of sites on the Google results: hillhaven.com.au and 2009031004.peziueued.xorg.pl. Both of those run classic scareware scams to get you to try and run and install something onto your machine.
If that's true, Symantec must be dumber than I thought if they provided a backdoor to a firewall that allows said firewall to warn the user.
It was my understanding that the attack on the USS Liberty was done in order to further thicken the fog of war (1967 War), not to make anything secret. It was meant to stop the super-powers from knowing what was going on (the Liberty was conducting intelligence operations). The main aim was to prevent (or at least forestall) any pressure for a cease-fire before Israel were able to seize the land they needed, namely the Sinai, Gaza, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. (See US Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1978).
It is incorrect to label this as a conspiracy theory. The only thing really missing is substantiation of the reason behind the attack. It was clearly not an accident. Furthermore, Israeli attacks on its allies have been documented before e.g. the Lavon Affair.
... why can't they get it to change shape based on how you're using it?
Facebook is not the place for the games existence, IMO. It is a gated community, for starters, so you're limiting the reach of your game, because it is not a "web-based game" - it is a Facebook-based game. Furthermore, it is obviously limiting your friends' ability to be rewarded for your efforts because they don't control the revenue stream surrounding the game.
IMO, the game should exist independently outside of Facebook, and the Facebook-app should be a way to get people interested in that game. In fact, I would say that the reason the players of the game are up in arms is primarily because they are not viewing it as a game in its own right, but because they're viewing it as a Facebook application, which in turn is making them think that your friends are already getting a revenue stream, so why should they have to pay for anything?
Kongregate is an excellent example of a web-based gaming community that seems to thrive. I haven't done a lot of digging into their numbers, but they appear to do quite well. For example, Desktop Tower Defence is estimated to be making around 100K per year (if his current rate of pageviews continues). Of course, that's quite rare, but it demonstrates that true web-based games can be successful. You could also try and get sponsorship from people like Armor Games or Crazy Monkey games (although that's mainly for Flash-based games).
If their gamem is proving to be a hit, and is proving to be successful, then it certainly seems that they should consider taking the plunge and launching a proper web-based version where they can control the methods of earning the money.
Note: I'm not affiliated with any of the companies mentioned, nor do I design games myself.
Yeah, not going to be too easy, but at least they're taking it seriously and offering help. According to news on the ICO's website, "From 16 March the ICO will operate a dedicated enquiry system for people who believe personal information about them may be held on the database. Members of the public are advised not to contact the ICO until 16 March."