Because there's a reason people become sex offenders.
Yeah, we have to remember that these are the sort of people that molest children and rape young women. Or, you know, send sexting messages in middle school, sleep with their high school girlfriend, or get plastered and take a piss in an alley. "Sex Offender" has become so dilute as to be almost entirely useless.
This is precisely why I'm not outraged. Verizon sent me a note about the change and made opting out almost trivial. And I could opt-out all the phones on my account at the same time.
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that there's an 87% chance that your gender+birthdate+postalcode is unique... So, yeah, knowing your postalcode and birthdate gets you a lot without knowing your name.
If it looks like a big-ass toy instead of a doll there's no conflict, and you will be able to attach to it emotionally as you can with dogs/cats/other animals.
I bet your girlfriend wouldn't like receiving a love letter that you had bought from "Love Letters Unlimited" and just inserted her name into, would she?
This is why the greeting card industry has been such a failure.
My brother attributes a personality and identity to his iPod, I'm sure people will be able to empathize with a robot. The fact that the robot doesn't empathize back is irrelevant -- even in human-to-human interactions, my perception of your intent is far more important than your actual intent, which is recognized in the original comment:
Even if we know it's disingenuous, or that it's part of a person's job, there is still something in the back of our minds that responds to it as a genuine human connection.
Why not? Because that was the premise. If you want to introduce dice to "ensure" randomness that's fine, but it wasn't really the question at hand. And then people will start questioning whether you are playing the game/beating the computer.
But it's never a specific rejection letter - it's always a simple mass-mailing to everyone who applied and failed. Even if you went to an interview, they won't say why you're being rejected, just that you are.
So you have no reason to believe you were rejected based on anything you said or did, only that you didn't get the job. A job is a very nice thing to have -- one might argue necessary -- but I'm not going to self-censor before I see evidence that people are losing their livelihoods based on "remotely political" comments they've made, if then.
It isn't advisible to say anything at all under your real name any more, not when everything is archived and googleable. There is nothing you can say on any issue remotely political without the risk of upsetting someone, and that someone may be your now-or-future co-worker or boss.
If you have such frail conviction in your own beliefs and values... I believe what I believe regardless of what someone else thinks of it, and if my boss would fire me over it then I probably wouldn't be happy working there any ways. If it gets to the point that I can't find any job because of my opinions, then there are bigger problems in the world.
Truly random play has the same expected results against every single strategy.Think about it this way: no matter what the computer thinks you will do, if you play truly randomly, its odds of winning, losing or tying are all 1/3. If it did any better, it would be able to predict randomness, which is by definition impossible, and if it did any worse, then by inverting its strategy it would do better, and the same reasoning holds.
That makes sense, but it supposes that someone is playing randomly. If the premise is that humans can't play randomly, then you don't have "random vs strategy," you have pseudo-random vs pseudo-random, and it's possible/probable that the computer's choices are skewed. Which is kind of what you said in the second paragraph (and what I said above, if maybe not as elegantly as you).
Purely by chance these numbers should be the same.
That's probably the key -- although you might be close-to-random, the computer is using some kind of prediction algorithm which *isn't* random, so it's choices are going to be skewed based on previous experience.
Strictly speaking, I'm not sure it's possible for a human to "choose randomly," but maybe I'm over-thinking the phrase... And it's probably insignificant in practical terms, since "random" and "based on sufficiently-unknown processes" are probably close enough for most purposes.
No, but the flag is a "derivative work" of the number: if the number can be protected by copyright then the creator of the flag needed a licence from the owner of the number's copyright.
That's disputable. The original "work" is just a handful of hex digits. The flag is a picture. You might argue that the flag was "inspired by" the key, but even at that they key doesn't exist anywhere in the flag itself -- at a bit level, it looks drastically different than the key. Only the author's intent indicates any relationship at all with the key.
So you're telling me that if you write a song, and I copy it to a wav file, a mp3,mp4 file, a wmv file, a [whatever format they use for writing notes], a flash file with the music in it, a graphical representation of the music (either as a waveform or its notes), a video of how the song can be played on a particular instrument...
You only own one of these expressions?
No, I would argue that all the formats you listed are the same expression of the song; you haven't changed it. If you took the bits representing the song and re-encoded/re-interpretted it as something visual, I feel that that is a different expression. A song is a song; a song is not a picture.
If i'm smart, I probably already copyrighted the sheet music, so "its notes" is questionable, but I don't see why I should have copyright over a the waveform or even some graph depicting tonal qualities or whatever. The video's sketchy, too, unless you can demonstrate how to play the song without playing the song.
No, I'm saying the irony is in calling it 'the free speech flag' in the first place, not in having to remove it.
Ah, OK. That's more understandable.
I'd still disagree, though. Calling it the free speach flag is apropos, because it kind of embodies the thrust of the movement (that they can't keep us from saying "09 F9"). I'm not sure that I'd call Wikipedia's act of censoring the Free Speach Flag "ironic" per se, but it comes close.
That is actually the maint problem about "intellectual property" laws : they do not understand anything about information theory. How thesame information can be encoded differently in many ways, including non-copyrightable ones.
I'd dispute the non-copyrightable bit. That flag probably IS copyright-able, but it would be 'owned' by the guy that made the flag, not the corp that 'owns' the key. (To claim copyright on an encryption key, though, that still makes my skin crawl...)
You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.
Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:
1. Colours
2. Strings
3. Numbers
4. Music
So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.
Isn't copyright supposed to cover a particular expression? You can't tell me that this flag and that number can be considered the same expression.
Only a religious nutjob would conduct a suicide mission and blow himself... because he thinks he's going to be rewarded for it in the afterlife. An atheist would not.
Yes, an atheist would not sacrifice himswelf because of some reward in the afterlife, but do you mean that the only motivation for self-sacrifice is religion and the afterlife? It's not religion, it's not atheism, it's not communism. It's fanaticism. And fanatics can and do form up around all sorts of ideas, religious and secular alike. If you weed out one idea, fanaticism will simply crop up elsewhere. And it will continue that way so long as any "us versus them" idea can be formulated. If not atheism and Islam, maybe we'll anti-banking terrorists, eco-terrorists, fanatical nationalists, fanatical globalists, etc.
Religion is the biggest threat to the survival of our species, folks.
The militantly atheist communists were, and are, one of the most dangerous threats to humanity.
It's not religion, it's not atheism, it's not communism. It's fanaticism. And fanatics can and do form up around all sorts of ideas, religious and secular alike. If you weed out one idea, fanaticism will simply crop up elsewhere. And it will continue that way so long as any "us versus them" idea can be formulated. If not atheism and Islam, maybe we'll have anti-banking terrorists, eco-terrorists, fanatical nationalists, fanatical globalists, etc.
Just a quick correction: La Mano Negra by most accounts didn't exist.
I'm aware. My point was that... In a standard false flag, you pretend to be Eurasia in order to discredit Eurasia. "La Mano Negra" wasn't false-flagging as La Mano Negra, they were false-flagging as "an anarchist group." The difference is subtle, I suppose, but it's a meaningful distinction in our case because you're talking about false flagging as Anonymous, another group that "doesn't exist."
The point i'm making is that La Mano Negra was a fake group used to discredit other actual groups. There's not really an analog to Anonymous.
Yes and very easily so...
An interesting argument, and I think I see you're point. It's an application of false flag that I'm not as familiar with, and it's probably as viable here as it might be elsewhere... But I still don't see how false-flagging as Anonymous accomplishes anything special. Why not false flag as some random blackhat group? It'd be as effective. Claiming the identity of someone who's anonymous is... an odd idea.
My point is, you can't discredit Anonymous, because it's not an entity in that sense. You can't discredit "random people on the Internet." In fact, I'd argue that if they DID start to identify themselves formally through PGP or similar, that would be the only way that "credit" and "discredit" could really even be possible, because as that point they aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. They have an identity.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there's a reason people become sex offenders.
Yeah, we have to remember that these are the sort of people that molest children and rape young women. Or, you know, send sexting messages in middle school, sleep with their high school girlfriend, or get plastered and take a piss in an alley. "Sex Offender" has become so dilute as to be almost entirely useless.
This is precisely why I'm not outraged. Verizon sent me a note about the change and made opting out almost trivial. And I could opt-out all the phones on my account at the same time.
I'm pretty sure I remember hearing that there's an 87% chance that your gender+birthdate+postalcode is unique... So, yeah, knowing your postalcode and birthdate gets you a lot without knowing your name.
Yeah, I thought those were pretty interesting.
If it looks like a big-ass toy instead of a doll there's no conflict, and you will be able to attach to it emotionally as you can with dogs/cats/other animals.
I bet your girlfriend wouldn't like receiving a love letter that you had bought from "Love Letters Unlimited" and just inserted her name into, would she?
This is why the greeting card industry has been such a failure.
Humans anthropomorphize *everything*.
This.
My brother attributes a personality and identity to his iPod, I'm sure people will be able to empathize with a robot. The fact that the robot doesn't empathize back is irrelevant -- even in human-to-human interactions, my perception of your intent is far more important than your actual intent, which is recognized in the original comment:
Even if we know it's disingenuous, or that it's part of a person's job, there is still something in the back of our minds that responds to it as a genuine human connection.
Why not? Because that was the premise. If you want to introduce dice to "ensure" randomness that's fine, but it wasn't really the question at hand. And then people will start questioning whether you are playing the game/beating the computer.
But it's never a specific rejection letter - it's always a simple mass-mailing to everyone who applied and failed. Even if you went to an interview, they won't say why you're being rejected, just that you are.
So you have no reason to believe you were rejected based on anything you said or did, only that you didn't get the job. A job is a very nice thing to have -- one might argue necessary -- but I'm not going to self-censor before I see evidence that people are losing their livelihoods based on "remotely political" comments they've made, if then.
It isn't advisible to say anything at all under your real name any more, not when everything is archived and googleable. There is nothing you can say on any issue remotely political without the risk of upsetting someone, and that someone may be your now-or-future co-worker or boss.
If you have such frail conviction in your own beliefs and values... I believe what I believe regardless of what someone else thinks of it, and if my boss would fire me over it then I probably wouldn't be happy working there any ways. If it gets to the point that I can't find any job because of my opinions, then there are bigger problems in the world.
Truly random play has the same expected results against every single strategy.Think about it this way: no matter what the computer thinks you will do, if you play truly randomly, its odds of winning, losing or tying are all 1/3. If it did any better, it would be able to predict randomness, which is by definition impossible, and if it did any worse, then by inverting its strategy it would do better, and the same reasoning holds.
That makes sense, but it supposes that someone is playing randomly. If the premise is that humans can't play randomly, then you don't have "random vs strategy," you have pseudo-random vs pseudo-random, and it's possible/probable that the computer's choices are skewed. Which is kind of what you said in the second paragraph (and what I said above, if maybe not as elegantly as you).
Purely by chance these numbers should be the same.
That's probably the key -- although you might be close-to-random, the computer is using some kind of prediction algorithm which *isn't* random, so it's choices are going to be skewed based on previous experience.
There's still only a 1-in-3 chance that you'd beat the computer. Hardly game-breaking.
Strictly speaking, I'm not sure it's possible for a human to "choose randomly," but maybe I'm over-thinking the phrase... And it's probably insignificant in practical terms, since "random" and "based on sufficiently-unknown processes" are probably close enough for most purposes.
No, but the flag is a "derivative work" of the number: if the number can be protected by copyright then the creator of the flag needed a licence from the owner of the number's copyright.
That's disputable. The original "work" is just a handful of hex digits. The flag is a picture. You might argue that the flag was "inspired by" the key, but even at that they key doesn't exist anywhere in the flag itself -- at a bit level, it looks drastically different than the key. Only the author's intent indicates any relationship at all with the key.
So you're telling me that if you write a song, and I copy it to a wav file, a mp3,mp4 file, a wmv file, a [whatever format they use for writing notes], a flash file with the music in it, a graphical representation of the music (either as a waveform or its notes), a video of how the song can be played on a particular instrument...
You only own one of these expressions?
No, I would argue that all the formats you listed are the same expression of the song; you haven't changed it. If you took the bits representing the song and re-encoded/re-interpretted it as something visual, I feel that that is a different expression. A song is a song; a song is not a picture.
If i'm smart, I probably already copyrighted the sheet music, so "its notes" is questionable, but I don't see why I should have copyright over a the waveform or even some graph depicting tonal qualities or whatever. The video's sketchy, too, unless you can demonstrate how to play the song without playing the song.
Why is it so vital to classify stuff as "garbage" and "non-garbage"?
You know. So you don't run out of room. On the Internet.
No, I'm saying the irony is in calling it 'the free speech flag' in the first place, not in having to remove it.
Ah, OK. That's more understandable.
I'd still disagree, though. Calling it the free speach flag is apropos, because it kind of embodies the thrust of the movement (that they can't keep us from saying "09 F9"). I'm not sure that I'd call Wikipedia's act of censoring the Free Speach Flag "ironic" per se, but it comes close.
That is actually the maint problem about "intellectual property" laws : they do not understand anything about information theory. How thesame information can be encoded differently in many ways, including non-copyrightable ones.
I'd dispute the non-copyrightable bit. That flag probably IS copyright-able, but it would be 'owned' by the guy that made the flag, not the corp that 'owns' the key. (To claim copyright on an encryption key, though, that still makes my skin crawl...)
You're taking things too broadly. Its a case of encoding.
Its very possible for me to grab something which has a copyright, convert it to binary and then convert it into:
1. Colours 2. Strings 3. Numbers 4. Music
So while "Owning Arrangements of Colour" sounds stupid in principle, what you could do if this was not the case would completely destroy copyright on many things. Now you could say that's a good thing, but meh.
Isn't copyright supposed to cover a particular expression? You can't tell me that this flag and that number can be considered the same expression.
turning their key into your flag is, well, waving a flag the MPAA's face for a lawsuit.
Uhm... so? Are you arguing that because the MPAA might get upset we shouldn't say it?
Only a religious nutjob would conduct a suicide mission and blow himself ... because he thinks he's going to be rewarded for it in the afterlife. An atheist would not.
Yes, an atheist would not sacrifice himswelf because of some reward in the afterlife, but do you mean that the only motivation for self-sacrifice is religion and the afterlife? It's not religion, it's not atheism, it's not communism. It's fanaticism. And fanatics can and do form up around all sorts of ideas, religious and secular alike. If you weed out one idea, fanaticism will simply crop up elsewhere. And it will continue that way so long as any "us versus them" idea can be formulated. If not atheism and Islam, maybe we'll anti-banking terrorists, eco-terrorists, fanatical nationalists, fanatical globalists, etc.
Sexist? Who says women don't get the same in Paradise?
Why would women want 72 virgins? Even if they're boys, you're talking about an eternity of clumsy groping...
Religion is the biggest threat to the survival of our species, folks.
The militantly atheist communists were, and are, one of the most dangerous threats to humanity.
It's not religion, it's not atheism, it's not communism. It's fanaticism. And fanatics can and do form up around all sorts of ideas, religious and secular alike. If you weed out one idea, fanaticism will simply crop up elsewhere. And it will continue that way so long as any "us versus them" idea can be formulated. If not atheism and Islam, maybe we'll have anti-banking terrorists, eco-terrorists, fanatical nationalists, fanatical globalists, etc.
Just a quick correction: La Mano Negra by most accounts didn't exist.
I'm aware. My point was that... In a standard false flag, you pretend to be Eurasia in order to discredit Eurasia. "La Mano Negra" wasn't false-flagging as La Mano Negra, they were false-flagging as "an anarchist group." The difference is subtle, I suppose, but it's a meaningful distinction in our case because you're talking about false flagging as Anonymous, another group that "doesn't exist."
The point i'm making is that La Mano Negra was a fake group used to discredit other actual groups. There's not really an analog to Anonymous.
Yes and very easily so...
An interesting argument, and I think I see you're point. It's an application of false flag that I'm not as familiar with, and it's probably as viable here as it might be elsewhere... But I still don't see how false-flagging as Anonymous accomplishes anything special. Why not false flag as some random blackhat group? It'd be as effective. Claiming the identity of someone who's anonymous is... an odd idea.
My point is, you can't discredit Anonymous, because it's not an entity in that sense. You can't discredit "random people on the Internet." In fact, I'd argue that if they DID start to identify themselves formally through PGP or similar, that would be the only way that "credit" and "discredit" could really even be possible, because as that point they aren't anonymous, they're pseudonymous. They have an identity.