Why can't we both get a dollar subscription raise instead of one group of customers paying for the other? We all use the service and should support it.
Don't forget Reagan's war on the family farm. Mission Accomplished!
Reagan can't take credit for that, it started way before him. It was called: The Industrial Revolution. Read history. When mass production came into play, they had to convince farmers to move out of rural communities to come work at factories in the city.
a momentary blip in oil production shouldn't have caused 50 years of declining wages. Trickle down economics did.
I'm not disagreeing that trickle down economics doesn't work well, but the opposite doesn't work either. If you raise taxes on corporations, they just hire less people, pay lower wages and cut down benefits. What is the solution?
I like how the "9-5" job standard is actually "8-5" now.
Wow, that sounds great! There is actually a place where you can work 8-5? For me it's more like this, I remember a time when you didn't have to be on call 24/7 and big chunks of the population were not on anti-depressants and high blood pressure medication. But, don't worry folks, everything is FINE! If you whine, you're just a slacker!
3) Kirk gives some lecture about how humanity moved passed all this.
So in order to arrive at utopia what we need to do is build a time machine, ask Kirk for a prescription and come back to the present and give it to the masses then?
It's only a matter of time before she's arrested and brought back to the US.
That conversation would go like this:
US Justice System: Mr. Putin could you please extradite Alexandra Elbakyan, pretty please with sugar on top? Vladimir Putin: Can you hear this or do I need to turn it up for you?
Like just as an example in the 2 first episodes she twice beat a Klingon warrior in single combat while having no previous experience of fighting them, and being smaller. I get that the show wants to emphasize that she's a supergenius and raised by the Vulcans in science and martial arts, but still, I was expecting her character to be a modern take on Spock, not a deadly warrior-princess archetype that goes around instantly kicking everyone's ass.
It seems like Ronda Rousey would have been the best choice for the role then.
We live in a time when pragmatists and self-centered behavior is idolized, when war and violence are seen as ideal tools for solving difficult social problems, and when letting people die because they're not us is ok as long as we don't say it out loud.
So... what you're saying is it would be more accurate to have a Sci-Fi show called Extinction Event. That wouldn't be any fun though because we all know generally what the ending would be...
By the way, idealism won't fix that problem. You must focus not on utopia and ideals but rather on what will avoid the extinction event. The two are not one in the same. Believing they both are is a claim that has no evidence to support it that I'm aware of. But... whatever delusion gets you through the day I suppose.
If you want to make the world a better place, you need to get engaged in problem solving. That was always the idea in Star Trek. There were these social issues, moral and philosophical dilemmas and so forth and what happened is people worked through them together in a problem solving capacity. No one ever said "The world would be much better if it were just like the uber X utopia." It was an exploration of thought to see how far you could push towards ideals. That's where idealists fail. They think they already know what a utopia is and what it would be composed of and everyone who doesn't see it is stupid and/or immoral. It's not a destination. It's an iterative process and we can't realize our true potential if people want to distance themselves from actual problems rather than getting engaged to help solve them.
I thought that the majority of Slashdot users decided that they weren't going to watch this show when they made it exclusive to CBS's new streaming service?
Yes, in fact this gives me another reason not to watch it. I don't think I ever will now. For the record, I loved STNG and DS9. It's a shame.
I was with a chipset firmware team that was duplicated in the states and in Israel. Unfortunately the culture clash and competition clash led to some very abusive practices. I stood up against management about this, and was railroaded out the door with my chin up high, and like Milton's red stapler I took my lab chair with me!
I've seen this too many times. Companies seem to be reading out of the same textbooks. What they seem to be doing is using psychology and sociology to essentially create a milder form of negative social conformity similar to what many malevolent rulers have employed in history. It's hard to describe. Basically, you establish some cultural principles but you spin them to sound good when in reality they are very bad. Like for example "we don't like slackers" means "if you work less than 80 hours a week, you're a slacker". You don't want to be shamed as being a slacker do you? Or we like "positive, enthusiastic people" really means "just say yes to management about any decisions it makes and give them much praise for their infinite wisdom and that they were benevolent enough to allow you to bask in this." You don't want to not be positive and enthusiastic do you? Nobody likes people like that. If you challenge any of these principles you get semantically tagged as being "a problem" or "negative" or any number of errors of fundamental attribution that any rational and sane person could plainly see.
Once this happens the sociopathic, passive aggressive games start and it never ends well.
It really is a milder form of Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer effect. These executive managers are creating the most psychologically dysfunctional environments by doing this and they are not completely harmless. You might not be getting put on a firing line or tortured physically, but these types of tactics are by definition, psychological abuse. The same psychological abuse you would find in a dysfunctional family of sociopaths. You can read quite clear descriptions of this stuff in any psychology textbook.
Ultimately, the only thing compelling about a dysfunctional and psychologically abusive work environment is the pay and people will only want the pay if there is "no better option" common during The Great Recession. That is used as leverage. Once the supply of workers goes down and need for labor goes up, those companies are forced to change or they can go down in a blaze of glory.
I will say that I didn't like the idea of having R&D projects competing not only for resources, but manpower.
Where is a place you can work at that isn't like this anymore? If such a place exists, I'm guessing that you ride unicorns there across a rainbow bridge.
I mean, after all, what else is the job of a search engine, a social network, or an ISP but to ensure that information is well regulated, vetted, controlled, licensed, checked, filtered, screened, sliced, diced, and pureed?
It worked for AOL! Oh wait a minute, it didn't actually work...
As I understand it: Under US law, if you contact a court to contest jurisdiction, you've conceded that the court has jurisdiction if it decides that it does. So there isn't a good way for someone out of a court's jurisdiction to contest jurisdiction up front. This lets plaintiffs go court shopping (for courts that are cheap for them and expensive for their defendants and likely to rule in their favor if the case goes to trial) and get unconscionable default judgements if a defendant protects his/her rights by declining to appear or correspond with the court. Then it's up to the defendant to fight off attempts to enforce the execution of the judgement.
That is my understanding as well. However, there is a wrinkle here and that is in order for the remedy to be executed, ACS is going to have to compel DNS registries and ISP's to comply with the order and that's where it's going to get weird. The parties being compelled can claim to not be parties to the case which they are not and therefore there are no grounds to compel them to do what ACS is asking. ACS then has no other recourse but to file a motion to be granted a hearing to present the Motion to Compel to yet another judge to make the case for the judge to issue an order directly to the opposing parties. If the hearing is granted, the opposing parties WILL show up with some very high caliber legal representation to contest the Motion to Compel. I think either one of two things will happen 1) ACS will get sent home packing with a useless order the is unenforceable or 2) It will go all the way to Supreme Court. ACS will be fighting with for example Comcast and AT&T at this point not SciHub. It is all rather silly.
Sci-Hub was made aware of the legal proceedings but did not appear in court.
That's your answer right there.
Sci-Hub was stupid.
You are correct but you didn't specify why. If a default judgment is entered against you, you can't appeal it unless the order is vacated which doesn't usually happen. If Sci-Hub had shown up they may have had grounds for an appeal. On the other hand, the SciHub founder Alexandra Elbakyan, is not a US resident. It seems to me that while yes there is copyright infringement, it seems that these proceedings were done in an unorthodox way to force an inappropriate remedy that can't really be enforced. I suspect what will happen is that ACS will attempt to present this order to the other parties like ISP's, domain name registries and so forth and those parties are going to not comply possibly citing that they are not parties to the case. If ACS tries to drag them into court, this thing is probably going to go all the way up to the Supreme Court and honestly, I think it should.
Usually what happens in just about every court proceeding is that the plaintiff's attorney files a motion usually leading to a hearing unless the parties settle the matter beforehand. During the court proceedings the plaintiff presents to the judge an order that they believe will resolve the issue. If the defendant doesn't show up (which is the case here) to contest the order that has been presented by the plaintiff, unless the judge really understands the order (which I suspect they may not understand the internet in this case), they may be inclined to use the plaintiff's proposed order and enter it as a default judgment. Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
The problem isn't Facebook or Google themselves -- it's how people use them. People with an agenda of any kind love this new world of instant communication because their views can have just as much weight as anyone else's, including what most people would consider mainstream.
There have always been people that attempt to deceive each other in a variety of ways. You are responsible for educating yourself about facts and developing the critical thinking skills to make it not work on you. When it stops working, these people stop because they can't find anyone gullible enough to believe their trash.
I'm of the opinion that this brings out the worst in people, and the anonymity of the Internet makes it even worse because people don't feel typical societal pressures to behave nicely.
Oh look at this. No one could possibly have a different definition of "behave nicely". You must have the correct definition and are therefore on the moral high ground. Look it's easy, just develop a good bullshit filter and send bullshit artists on their way. If they can't hoodwink anyone, they'll stop because they won't have an audience. That's how you make a problem go away. In other words: don't be stupid and gullible and you won't be taken advantage of. It works for me.
Does the world owe you fully whetted and verified information for free? Why do you feel so entitled?
You have no idea. I used to work at an ISP Tech Support call center and the level of stupidity from callers was unbelievable. They literally thought we were the internet and we were responsible for all content on the internet and would yell and scream at us if they found the content offensive or whatever. I suspect we don't have as much of that today but I think the mental model that some people have for the internet is still like this. Like most other things, people just have no clue how shit actually works and don't care that they don't know.
The guy with a tiny brain shows that we don't know a lot about the mind/body connection. That this guy was able to function as a normal human being is really astonishing.
Wow... where is your evidence of this thing you refer to as "mind"? Please show peer reviewed cognitive science research the substantiates your claim. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of a "ghost in the machine". See: Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris for example.
Censorship is good, as long as only the "bad" stories are censored? Good luck keeping that pandora's box in check...
Use your head. If news seems fantastic and outrageous, it probably is. If news seems reasonable, remember that everyone has a limited perspective and the story has inevitably been told from some writer's or editor's point of view.
Yes! Also can someone point me to a time in history when news was always completely accurate and unbiased? I've got news for you people who think 1) News ought to be flawless and 2) They should be this way so you don't have to use your brain.
GET OVER IT! People have been bullshitting people since the dawn of human civilization. All you need is a better bullshit detector aka Critical Thinking Skills. Level up and you won't have a problem will being gullible.
It seriously amazes me the level of perfection that people, especially younger people, expect from highly flawed human beings and quite frankly a universe that does not even remotely revolve around us and appears to be completely apathetic to us.
You get two choices in life: 1) Be disappointed and offended by everything or 2) Make the best of it and try to have a good time.
Slashdot Mirror
... or was forced out...
Slashdot's dead! But Anonymous Coward trolls never die. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
Why can't we both get a dollar subscription raise instead of one group of customers paying for the other? We all use the service and should support it.
People are different. They have different needs for sleep. If I sleep for more than 6, I feel like utter shit. Headaches and lethargy all day.
That's evidence of sleep deprivation. If you got proper sleep for a few days, you would feel like a new person.
Don't forget Reagan's war on the family farm. Mission Accomplished!
Reagan can't take credit for that, it started way before him. It was called: The Industrial Revolution. Read history. When mass production came into play, they had to convince farmers to move out of rural communities to come work at factories in the city.
a momentary blip in oil production shouldn't have caused 50 years of declining wages. Trickle down economics did.
I'm not disagreeing that trickle down economics doesn't work well, but the opposite doesn't work either. If you raise taxes on corporations, they just hire less people, pay lower wages and cut down benefits. What is the solution?
I like how the "9-5" job standard is actually "8-5" now.
Wow, that sounds great! There is actually a place where you can work 8-5? For me it's more like this, I remember a time when you didn't have to be on call 24/7 and big chunks of the population were not on anti-depressants and high blood pressure medication. But, don't worry folks, everything is FINE! If you whine, you're just a slacker!
3) Kirk gives some lecture about how humanity moved passed all this.
So in order to arrive at utopia what we need to do is build a time machine, ask Kirk for a prescription and come back to the present and give it to the masses then?
It's only a matter of time before she's arrested and brought back to the US.
That conversation would go like this:
US Justice System: Mr. Putin could you please extradite Alexandra Elbakyan, pretty please with sugar on top?
Vladimir Putin: Can you hear this or do I need to turn it up for you?
Like just as an example in the 2 first episodes she twice beat a Klingon warrior in single combat while having no previous experience of fighting them, and being smaller. I get that the show wants to emphasize that she's a supergenius and raised by the Vulcans in science and martial arts, but still, I was expecting her character to be a modern take on Spock, not a deadly warrior-princess archetype that goes around instantly kicking everyone's ass.
It seems like Ronda Rousey would have been the best choice for the role then.
We live in a time when pragmatists and self-centered behavior is idolized, when war and violence are seen as ideal tools for solving difficult social problems, and when letting people die because they're not us is ok as long as we don't say it out loud.
So... what you're saying is it would be more accurate to have a Sci-Fi show called Extinction Event. That wouldn't be any fun though because we all know generally what the ending would be...
By the way, idealism won't fix that problem. You must focus not on utopia and ideals but rather on what will avoid the extinction event. The two are not one in the same. Believing they both are is a claim that has no evidence to support it that I'm aware of. But... whatever delusion gets you through the day I suppose.
If you want to make the world a better place, you need to get engaged in problem solving. That was always the idea in Star Trek. There were these social issues, moral and philosophical dilemmas and so forth and what happened is people worked through them together in a problem solving capacity. No one ever said "The world would be much better if it were just like the uber X utopia." It was an exploration of thought to see how far you could push towards ideals. That's where idealists fail. They think they already know what a utopia is and what it would be composed of and everyone who doesn't see it is stupid and/or immoral. It's not a destination. It's an iterative process and we can't realize our true potential if people want to distance themselves from actual problems rather than getting engaged to help solve them.
I thought that the majority of Slashdot users decided that they weren't going to watch this show when they made it exclusive to CBS's new streaming service?
Yes, in fact this gives me another reason not to watch it. I don't think I ever will now. For the record, I loved STNG and DS9. It's a shame.
Who wants windows to managed their antimatter.
The antimatter containment chamber has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
I was with a chipset firmware team that was duplicated in the states and in Israel. Unfortunately the culture clash and competition clash led to some very abusive practices. I stood up against management about this, and was railroaded out the door with my chin up high, and like Milton's red stapler I took my lab chair with me!
I've seen this too many times. Companies seem to be reading out of the same textbooks. What they seem to be doing is using psychology and sociology to essentially create a milder form of negative social conformity similar to what many malevolent rulers have employed in history. It's hard to describe. Basically, you establish some cultural principles but you spin them to sound good when in reality they are very bad. Like for example "we don't like slackers" means "if you work less than 80 hours a week, you're a slacker". You don't want to be shamed as being a slacker do you? Or we like "positive, enthusiastic people" really means "just say yes to management about any decisions it makes and give them much praise for their infinite wisdom and that they were benevolent enough to allow you to bask in this." You don't want to not be positive and enthusiastic do you? Nobody likes people like that. If you challenge any of these principles you get semantically tagged as being "a problem" or "negative" or any number of errors of fundamental attribution that any rational and sane person could plainly see. Once this happens the sociopathic, passive aggressive games start and it never ends well.
It really is a milder form of Philip Zimbardo's Lucifer effect. These executive managers are creating the most psychologically dysfunctional environments by doing this and they are not completely harmless. You might not be getting put on a firing line or tortured physically, but these types of tactics are by definition, psychological abuse. The same psychological abuse you would find in a dysfunctional family of sociopaths. You can read quite clear descriptions of this stuff in any psychology textbook.
Ultimately, the only thing compelling about a dysfunctional and psychologically abusive work environment is the pay and people will only want the pay if there is "no better option" common during The Great Recession. That is used as leverage. Once the supply of workers goes down and need for labor goes up, those companies are forced to change or they can go down in a blaze of glory.
I will say that I didn't like the idea of having R&D projects competing not only for resources, but manpower.
Where is a place you can work at that isn't like this anymore? If such a place exists, I'm guessing that you ride unicorns there across a rainbow bridge.
If you want to read a book, you have to buy it, not steal it.
Not at the public library but you young whippersnappers wouldn't know what that is now would you?
I mean, after all, what else is the job of a search engine, a social network, or an ISP but to ensure that information is well regulated, vetted, controlled, licensed, checked, filtered, screened, sliced, diced, and pureed?
It worked for AOL! Oh wait a minute, it didn't actually work...
As I understand it: Under US law, if you contact a court to contest jurisdiction, you've conceded that the court has jurisdiction if it decides that it does. So there isn't a good way for someone out of a court's jurisdiction to contest jurisdiction up front. This lets plaintiffs go court shopping (for courts that are cheap for them and expensive for their defendants and likely to rule in their favor if the case goes to trial) and get unconscionable default judgements if a defendant protects his/her rights by declining to appear or correspond with the court. Then it's up to the defendant to fight off attempts to enforce the execution of the judgement.
That is my understanding as well. However, there is a wrinkle here and that is in order for the remedy to be executed, ACS is going to have to compel DNS registries and ISP's to comply with the order and that's where it's going to get weird. The parties being compelled can claim to not be parties to the case which they are not and therefore there are no grounds to compel them to do what ACS is asking. ACS then has no other recourse but to file a motion to be granted a hearing to present the Motion to Compel to yet another judge to make the case for the judge to issue an order directly to the opposing parties. If the hearing is granted, the opposing parties WILL show up with some very high caliber legal representation to contest the Motion to Compel. I think either one of two things will happen 1) ACS will get sent home packing with a useless order the is unenforceable or 2) It will go all the way to Supreme Court. ACS will be fighting with for example Comcast and AT&T at this point not SciHub. It is all rather silly.
Sci-Hub was made aware of the legal proceedings but did not appear in court.
That's your answer right there.
Sci-Hub was stupid.
You are correct but you didn't specify why. If a default judgment is entered against you, you can't appeal it unless the order is vacated which doesn't usually happen. If Sci-Hub had shown up they may have had grounds for an appeal. On the other hand, the SciHub founder Alexandra Elbakyan, is not a US resident. It seems to me that while yes there is copyright infringement, it seems that these proceedings were done in an unorthodox way to force an inappropriate remedy that can't really be enforced. I suspect what will happen is that ACS will attempt to present this order to the other parties like ISP's, domain name registries and so forth and those parties are going to not comply possibly citing that they are not parties to the case. If ACS tries to drag them into court, this thing is probably going to go all the way up to the Supreme Court and honestly, I think it should.
Usually what happens in just about every court proceeding is that the plaintiff's attorney files a motion usually leading to a hearing unless the parties settle the matter beforehand. During the court proceedings the plaintiff presents to the judge an order that they believe will resolve the issue. If the defendant doesn't show up (which is the case here) to contest the order that has been presented by the plaintiff, unless the judge really understands the order (which I suspect they may not understand the internet in this case), they may be inclined to use the plaintiff's proposed order and enter it as a default judgment. Otherwise, I'm not sure how a judge could have thought that this is an appropriate remedy to the issue. The judge is asking entities who are not parties to the case to perform actions that constitute the remedy.
The problem isn't Facebook or Google themselves -- it's how people use them. People with an agenda of any kind love this new world of instant communication because their views can have just as much weight as anyone else's, including what most people would consider mainstream.
There have always been people that attempt to deceive each other in a variety of ways. You are responsible for educating yourself about facts and developing the critical thinking skills to make it not work on you. When it stops working, these people stop because they can't find anyone gullible enough to believe their trash.
I'm of the opinion that this brings out the worst in people, and the anonymity of the Internet makes it even worse because people don't feel typical societal pressures to behave nicely.
Oh look at this. No one could possibly have a different definition of "behave nicely". You must have the correct definition and are therefore on the moral high ground. Look it's easy, just develop a good bullshit filter and send bullshit artists on their way. If they can't hoodwink anyone, they'll stop because they won't have an audience. That's how you make a problem go away. In other words: don't be stupid and gullible and you won't be taken advantage of. It works for me.
Does the world owe you fully whetted and verified information for free? Why do you feel so entitled?
You have no idea. I used to work at an ISP Tech Support call center and the level of stupidity from callers was unbelievable. They literally thought we were the internet and we were responsible for all content on the internet and would yell and scream at us if they found the content offensive or whatever. I suspect we don't have as much of that today but I think the mental model that some people have for the internet is still like this. Like most other things, people just have no clue how shit actually works and don't care that they don't know.
That means in gathering military intelligence about your enemy, you should be imprisoned. Or if you are gathering academic research. Facepalm.
The guy with a tiny brain shows that we don't know a lot about the mind/body connection. That this guy was able to function as a normal human being is really astonishing.
Wow... where is your evidence of this thing you refer to as "mind"? Please show peer reviewed cognitive science research the substantiates your claim. To my knowledge, there is no evidence of a "ghost in the machine". See: Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris for example.
Censorship is good, as long as only the "bad" stories are censored? Good luck keeping that pandora's box in check...
Use your head. If news seems fantastic and outrageous, it probably is. If news seems reasonable, remember that everyone has a limited perspective and the story has inevitably been told from some writer's or editor's point of view.
Yes! Also can someone point me to a time in history when news was always completely accurate and unbiased? I've got news for you people who think 1) News ought to be flawless and 2) They should be this way so you don't have to use your brain.
GET OVER IT! People have been bullshitting people since the dawn of human civilization. All you need is a better bullshit detector aka Critical Thinking Skills. Level up and you won't have a problem will being gullible.
It seriously amazes me the level of perfection that people, especially younger people, expect from highly flawed human beings and quite frankly a universe that does not even remotely revolve around us and appears to be completely apathetic to us.
You get two choices in life: 1) Be disappointed and offended by everything or 2) Make the best of it and try to have a good time.
OMG a free service that I don't pay 1 cent for, FAILED ME. I'm going on a moral crusade to make right this horrible wrongdoing!