Scott Walker, you mean the governor who when someone called him claiming to be one of the Koch brothers a) obviously had never talked to the Koch brother in question since he did not recognize that this was not his voice and b) told him the same things he was telling the media?, I'm going to assume that your information on the rest of the governor's on your list is just as reliable (and probably based on what some stooge of George Soros had to say).
You see this bashing politicians because they take money from rich people works both ways. There are just as many Democratic politicians who have taken money from George Soros (either directly or indirectly) as there are Republican politicians who have taken money from the Koch brothers. Yet, you never see the people who complain that the Koch brothers are "buying" politicians complain about George Soros doing the same things.
What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of themselves at the expense of the rest of the US and anyone dumb enough to work for them.
FTFY
citation needed. You have yet to answer my first question, which governors are "bought" by the Koch brothers? Or are you one of those people that accept the stuff put out by the Soros machine at face value?
What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of the U.S..
You know people keep calling for campaign finance reform, yet every time they have passed a campaign finance "reform" law, the problems of corporate influence over elections have gotten worse.
I go to a forum that has a large number of Republicans on it. If they are representative of Republican primary voters (and they appear to be), Newt's chances of winning the Presidency is only marginally better than Ron Paul's. The posters on that site believe that character counts...and they think that Newt's marital history indicates that he is deficient in that area.
The advisory says "Attackers could use JavaScript hosted on an attack Web page..." That certainly implies that the vector for attack would be if someone went to an outside web page.
Why are computer systems that control critical infrastructure accessible from the Internet? And even if it has access to the Internet, why is someone using it to go to web pages that are not on the company Intranet?
I have a friend who works in the Used Car business. He has commented that since Cash for Clunkers, cars that used to be around $1,000 to $2,000 have shot up to over $5,000. This has resulted in cars that used to be around $5,000 to go up in price. Basically, Cash for Clunkers has been a success. It has made it so that the poorest in America cannot afford a car and are now reliant on public transportation.
Has the education system EVER been about being able to think critically about the data? Prior to "higher education", it seems to go out of the way to discourage it.
I think you missed the line where he said "Sadly, this programming has always been with us and always will."
"They can't solve it internally. So we're going to help them." Is an example of hubris. It is their problem. If they are unable to solve it, what makes you think outsiders can do any better? There are things that individuals and groups can do, but the only thing that government actors can do is make them understand that spreading their problem outside of their borders will not be tolerated. The only thing that governments do well is the controlled application of violence.
No, I believe that as boats do not enter the waters they currently practice their trade in, they will expand the areas in which they practice their trade (something they have already done). Certainly breaking their boats is a perfectly viable option, but not if you spend a significant amount of time extracting the pirates on the boats first.
The reason I do not "look forward to a better humanity", is that I do not see any evidence that humanity is any better today than it was 1,000 years ago (or 2,000, or 3,000, or whatever number you want to pick).
There are two solutions to problems that involve people who are willing to use violence. The non-violent solution is to give them everything they want. The other solution is to apply a greater amount of force than they are able to bring to bear.
The fact that every time I hold a pencil three feet off of the floor and let go of it, it falls to the floor is a pretty good indication that if I do it again, the pencil will end up on the floor once more. You may choose to repeat the experiment as often as you like.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but it seems to me that I remember the California Public Utilities Commission pushing the utilities to install these. If that is correct, why did they wait until now to investigate the privacy implications? Wouldn't the correct time to have investigated the privacy implications been before you pushed the utilities to install these all over the place? I do know that when these were first introduced there were a lot of people asking these very questions.
There is actually serious question as to whether the pyramids were built with slave labor. The other point is that it depends on what one is attempting to accomplish. If one is attempting to put a stop to piracy, then looking at historical models that have worked in doing so is a good place to start. Especially when the alternatives that are being suggested have historically been shown to not work. Personally, I am unaware of any thing that I consider a problem that slavery is historically demonstrated as a solution for (or at least any problems that do not have better historically demonstrated solutions).
Actually, the British Navy used the same strategy to stamp out the slave trade. And there is no justification for slavery. Slavery is economically inefficient. Slave labor results in a lower return on investment than free labor.
It is the part about Apple starting out allowing them to take the whole profit from selling books through the Ap and later demanding a 30% cut that suggests that Apple was being more disingenuous then just not risking revealing their plans early.
While I do not feel bad for the guy, all he is doing is issuing a warning to other companies that are considering doing business with Apple or on IOS devices. This particular business made a bad decision that a little bit of observation of past behavior would have told them would end in tears. However, the point he is making is that Apple encouraged them to develop this market and business strategy, while Apple was already planning to cut the supports out from under it if the business was successful. Apple basically encouraged another business to take the risk of developing a market that Apple intended to steal if it worked out.
Yes, that would work as well. With rare exceptions, captured pirates should not be released. Knocking out the logistics structure would help as well. Additionally, pick a port that pirates use to hold captured ships. Announce that in 48 hours,every ship in that port will be sunk unless all of the captured ships are returned to their rightful owners. Follow through. Move on to next such port. If at the first two ports all ships have moved before the 48 hours are up and no ships have been returned to rightful owners (a likely outcome), when you announce that the next port will be attacked inform them that all port facilities will be destroyed as well. Rinse and repeat, until people living in port cities realize that the cost of harboring pirates is greater than the reward.
Lok at a map, the Somali pirates are located near a major shipping lane that a large portion of the world's ship traffic goes through, whereas Nigeria is in an area that all but a fraction of the world's ship traffic can avoid.
If you increase the "cost" of piracy by increasing the odds that the pirates will be killed and reduce the rewards of piracy by not negotiating ransoms, the number of pirate wannabes will diminish rapidly. The strategy of killing pirates, also works because there will be fewer experienced pirates who have learned what strategies don't work
The thing about your answer is that there have been people in the position like the Somalis for all of history, yet piracy was effectively wiped out for over 100 years. How did that happen? The British Navy made pirate hunting a top priority, and when they found pirates, they killed them. Many of these were summary executions, but some were brought back to port for trial. However, the purpose of the trial was not to establish guilt or innocence, it was to set an example to other sailors who might be considering turning to piracy.
So, history suggests that the solution that the poster you responded to recommended works. History, also, suggests that trying to "solve issues of social/political need and instability" does not work. Historically, when outside groups try to solve a problem by addressing the "social/political root causes" of the problem, the problem gets worse. On the other hand, when those same outside groups drive up the costs and drive down the rewards of the problem behavior, the problem behavior diminishes. Often times, when the problem behavior is no longer a viable response to the "social/political root causes" the people who before went into the problem behavior act to correct the "root cause" of the behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you think we should invade Somalia? Did you support or oppose invading Afghanistan? Did you support or oppose invading Iraq?
Scott Walker, you mean the governor who when someone called him claiming to be one of the Koch brothers a) obviously had never talked to the Koch brother in question since he did not recognize that this was not his voice and b) told him the same things he was telling the media?, I'm going to assume that your information on the rest of the governor's on your list is just as reliable (and probably based on what some stooge of George Soros had to say).
You see this bashing politicians because they take money from rich people works both ways. There are just as many Democratic politicians who have taken money from George Soros (either directly or indirectly) as there are Republican politicians who have taken money from the Koch brothers. Yet, you never see the people who complain that the Koch brothers are "buying" politicians complain about George Soros doing the same things.
What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of themselves at the expense of the rest of the US and anyone dumb enough to work for them.
FTFY
citation needed. You have yet to answer my first question, which governors are "bought" by the Koch brothers? Or are you one of those people that accept the stuff put out by the Soros machine at face value?
What are you talking about? Even if I was willing to concede that point, better a governor beholden to the Koch brothers than one beholden to George Soros. At least the Koch brothers appear to be pushing positions they believe to be in the best interest of the U.S..
Did you miss that Patrick Leahy is a Democrat and intorduced both the COICA and the ProtectIP Act?
You know people keep calling for campaign finance reform, yet every time they have passed a campaign finance "reform" law, the problems of corporate influence over elections have gotten worse.
I go to a forum that has a large number of Republicans on it. If they are representative of Republican primary voters (and they appear to be), Newt's chances of winning the Presidency is only marginally better than Ron Paul's. The posters on that site believe that character counts...and they think that Newt's marital history indicates that he is deficient in that area.
The advisory says "Attackers could use JavaScript hosted on an attack Web page ..." That certainly implies that the vector for attack would be if someone went to an outside web page.
Why are computer systems that control critical infrastructure accessible from the Internet? And even if it has access to the Internet, why is someone using it to go to web pages that are not on the company Intranet?
I have a friend who works in the Used Car business. He has commented that since Cash for Clunkers, cars that used to be around $1,000 to $2,000 have shot up to over $5,000. This has resulted in cars that used to be around $5,000 to go up in price. Basically, Cash for Clunkers has been a success. It has made it so that the poorest in America cannot afford a car and are now reliant on public transportation.
Has the education system EVER been about being able to think critically about the data? Prior to "higher education", it seems to go out of the way to discourage it.
I think you missed the line where he said "Sadly, this programming has always been with us and always will."
"They can't solve it internally. So we're going to help them." Is an example of hubris. It is their problem. If they are unable to solve it, what makes you think outsiders can do any better? There are things that individuals and groups can do, but the only thing that government actors can do is make them understand that spreading their problem outside of their borders will not be tolerated. The only thing that governments do well is the controlled application of violence.
No, I believe that as boats do not enter the waters they currently practice their trade in, they will expand the areas in which they practice their trade (something they have already done). Certainly breaking their boats is a perfectly viable option, but not if you spend a significant amount of time extracting the pirates on the boats first.
The reason I do not "look forward to a better humanity", is that I do not see any evidence that humanity is any better today than it was 1,000 years ago (or 2,000, or 3,000, or whatever number you want to pick).
There are two solutions to problems that involve people who are willing to use violence. The non-violent solution is to give them everything they want. The other solution is to apply a greater amount of force than they are able to bring to bear.
The fact that every time I hold a pencil three feet off of the floor and let go of it, it falls to the floor is a pretty good indication that if I do it again, the pencil will end up on the floor once more. You may choose to repeat the experiment as often as you like.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but it seems to me that I remember the California Public Utilities Commission pushing the utilities to install these. If that is correct, why did they wait until now to investigate the privacy implications? Wouldn't the correct time to have investigated the privacy implications been before you pushed the utilities to install these all over the place? I do know that when these were first introduced there were a lot of people asking these very questions.
There is actually serious question as to whether the pyramids were built with slave labor. The other point is that it depends on what one is attempting to accomplish. If one is attempting to put a stop to piracy, then looking at historical models that have worked in doing so is a good place to start. Especially when the alternatives that are being suggested have historically been shown to not work. Personally, I am unaware of any thing that I consider a problem that slavery is historically demonstrated as a solution for (or at least any problems that do not have better historically demonstrated solutions).
Yeah, that has always worked out well in the past.
Actually, the British Navy used the same strategy to stamp out the slave trade. And there is no justification for slavery. Slavery is economically inefficient. Slave labor results in a lower return on investment than free labor.
It is the part about Apple starting out allowing them to take the whole profit from selling books through the Ap and later demanding a 30% cut that suggests that Apple was being more disingenuous then just not risking revealing their plans early.
While I do not feel bad for the guy, all he is doing is issuing a warning to other companies that are considering doing business with Apple or on IOS devices. This particular business made a bad decision that a little bit of observation of past behavior would have told them would end in tears. However, the point he is making is that Apple encouraged them to develop this market and business strategy, while Apple was already planning to cut the supports out from under it if the business was successful. Apple basically encouraged another business to take the risk of developing a market that Apple intended to steal if it worked out.
Yes, that would work as well. With rare exceptions, captured pirates should not be released. Knocking out the logistics structure would help as well. Additionally, pick a port that pirates use to hold captured ships. Announce that in 48 hours,every ship in that port will be sunk unless all of the captured ships are returned to their rightful owners. Follow through. Move on to next such port. If at the first two ports all ships have moved before the 48 hours are up and no ships have been returned to rightful owners (a likely outcome), when you announce that the next port will be attacked inform them that all port facilities will be destroyed as well. Rinse and repeat, until people living in port cities realize that the cost of harboring pirates is greater than the reward.
Lok at a map, the Somali pirates are located near a major shipping lane that a large portion of the world's ship traffic goes through, whereas Nigeria is in an area that all but a fraction of the world's ship traffic can avoid.
If you increase the "cost" of piracy by increasing the odds that the pirates will be killed and reduce the rewards of piracy by not negotiating ransoms, the number of pirate wannabes will diminish rapidly. The strategy of killing pirates, also works because there will be fewer experienced pirates who have learned what strategies don't work
The thing about your answer is that there have been people in the position like the Somalis for all of history, yet piracy was effectively wiped out for over 100 years. How did that happen? The British Navy made pirate hunting a top priority, and when they found pirates, they killed them. Many of these were summary executions, but some were brought back to port for trial. However, the purpose of the trial was not to establish guilt or innocence, it was to set an example to other sailors who might be considering turning to piracy.
So, history suggests that the solution that the poster you responded to recommended works. History, also, suggests that trying to "solve issues of social/political need and instability" does not work. Historically, when outside groups try to solve a problem by addressing the "social/political root causes" of the problem, the problem gets worse. On the other hand, when those same outside groups drive up the costs and drive down the rewards of the problem behavior, the problem behavior diminishes. Often times, when the problem behavior is no longer a viable response to the "social/political root causes" the people who before went into the problem behavior act to correct the "root cause" of the behavior.