Tell him, very nicely, that he doesn't represent your views, that the two of you must part and that you will not be voting for him or supporting him in any way henceforth. For an added nasty, tell him you will be transferring your (financial) support to anyone else who can better represent you.
If they get enough of these letters, some of it might actually get through their assistants to the big man himself.
There is a big difference between kidnapping someone, throwing them in a secret prison and denying them access to a lawyer and looking at badly anonymized metadata. Of the two I would rather someone look at my anonymized call logs than to haul me off to a secret prison and a secret military tribunal.
As far as I'm aware Obama also hasn't manufactured evidence to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way resulting in a war that's killed tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of Americans and costing trillions of dollars.
I had hopes when Obama was first elected but I think it's time to judge the man by his deeds, not by the words he says. That also goes for the acts of officials he appointed, the acts of officials he allowed to be retained in the government and the acts of officials which he sanctioned or were aware of.
Let us not act like cuckolded husbands who insist all evidence to the contrary that their unfaithful wife is a virgin.
Ps. if you disagree, by all means please present your facts. I will be more than happy to be proven wrong.
The two cases are closer than you think. The poster is complaining about credit for the code because it directly impacts his ability to generate income.
Lets examine the poster's case. His ability to find new work and generate income is lessened because taking his credit affects his cv, his reputation.
Similarly, when "information" such as software is copied without permission, it deducts from the revenue of the creator.
Poster has already said the software belongs to his client, not him. Copying his software would affect his income, how?
In each case, the creator is losing income.
Anything at all could fall under such a broad analogy. If you buy a bad app from iTunes, and complain about it on forums, etc you are affecting that creator's income. That's a false equivalence.
Has our society become so timid and fearful that we are willing to sacrifice long cherished rights to freedom, liberty and privacy to the state in return for a dubious promise of security?
In all the gruesome examples you cited, note that the acts of terrorism took place despite all the surveillance already taking place then. The effort has failed. How much more freedom and privacy will you demand the public sacrifice in order to achieve greater efficacy?
I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public. If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper , including the following gem:-
China advocates the rational use of technology to curb dissemination of illegal information online. Based on the characteristics of the Internet and considering the actual requirements of effective administering of the Internet, it advocates the exertion of technical means, in line with relevant laws and regulations and with reference to common international practices, to prevent and curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and minors.
What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
I would not even be bringing this history lesson up but for the fact that the men in power today still think that secret proceedings is an acceptable way to conduct their business despite the fact that they tried, and failed terribly 370 years ago.
Just to make it clear, I have nothing against the UK, which is a fine country. I am however disappointed at this attitude evidenced by its current ruling elite, exemplified by Mr. Hague.
Interesting comment from Mr. Hague, a minister of the country that gave us the infamous Star Chamber.
From wiki:
The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641....The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
I'm sure the victims of the Star Chamber at that time were equally comforted by the thought that if they were innocent, they had nothing to fear from the men in power. Of course.
My point being that any proceedings undertaken in secret, and therefore without oversight from the public will inevitably lead to abuses of power.
I am also troubled by the fact that the present US administration appears to go to great lengths to hide their workings from the US public whom they claim to serve. Just look at the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership as an example. When even free trade agreements are being negotiated in secret, something is not right.
What the US is pissed about is corporate espionage. It's an honor thing. The US expects China to try to break into military systems. What the US doesn't like is China breaking into Google or Wal-Mart, or bugging the phones of visiting CEOs from car manufacturers, and stealing corporate secrets to help them out-compete in the global market. To the US, corporate spying feels like cheating--there's something repugnant about mixing military with civilian affairs this way. No official from the US military would ever hand intelligence to a lumber company to help them with a contract. In China this is routine.
Given the fact that the US government has pretty much admitted getting data from most of the major technological companies in the US (see Obama's and the executive branch's defence of PRISM et. al. ) I don't think your comment about the US government's repugnance about mixing military with civilian affairs holds water any longer, and I have doubts whether this was ever true at all. A case could also be made that by soliciting the aid of these companies, the US has made them legitimate "military" targets.
I agree that as far as we know, China seems more willing to supply their own companies with the fruits of their spying, but ultimately the difference between covert electronic espionage conducted by US and by China is only a matter of degree.
... from US government intrusive spying. Oh, the irony.
Consider this- The Great Wall of China filters out most of the debris. Most Chinese citizens use local equivalents such as Sina, Weibo, QQ etc which PRISM doesn't touch. The Chinese government has demanded (and received) and vetted source codes of software such as Microsoft's Windows which are used internally. Chinese telecoms are immune to FISA.
Then again, if you go down that route all your data belongs to China.
On a related note, this whole PRISM thingy does give a lot more credence to China's complaints about being victims of US covert intelligence.
Fair enough, I must admit I've never heard of £1000 fines and was thinking of the much smaller sums most traffic offences impose which are in my limited experience paid and ignored. If fines of this magnitude work, then by all means make it so.
One philosophical objection I have to imposing fines only (without other penalties) however is that it may not deter those who are financially well off, you know, the typical lawyer/politican/movie star/singer/CEO-in-a-rush scenario. Some of them may pay without batting an eyelid. Others may simply expense the fines as a cost of work. Granted, these are outliers and are unlikely to affect the statistics at the end of the day.
...because they did address the points you made in the source article.
First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem.
They specifically admitted this in the article. The specific quote reads : "A lot of it gets buried by underwater landslides and sediment movement. Some of it may also be carried into deeper water, farther down the canyon."
Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.
Which the study also admitted. They even pointed out that the rubbish was sometimes benefited the marine life. The specific quote reads : "Other effects on marine life were more subtle. For example, debris in muddy-bottom areas was often used as shelter by seafloor animals, or as a hard surface on which animals anchored themselves. Although such associations seem to benefit the individual animals involved, they also reflect the fact that marine debris is creating changes in the existing natural biological communities."
I think that it is unfair for you to accuse these researchers of telling lies and being biased.
The root cause of this problem is that car drivers do not feel compelled to leave their phones alone while driving.
Unless you change this mindset, any artificial technological means of compulsion will only be despised, circumvented and rendered useless while incurring additional unnecesary costs as well as greatly inconveniencing non-drivers.
The key here is that drivers call/text while driving for convenience - they want to transmit a message NOW to save time rather than wait until the car stops rolling. To address this problem, they should make the consequences of making that call/sending that message even more inconvenient than doing so. One way would perhaps be hefty well-enforced penalties such as loss of licence to drive, suspension of right to reapply for a licence for 3 years or more, imprisonment for all cases involving accidents... you get the idea. If it seeps into popular culture that using phones while driving = loss of driving rights, the problem ought to decrease over time.
I'm not advocating fines because they don't work. It's also useless passing such laws if they're not enforced.
I also favor the immediate suspension of the right to drive upon arrest (not conviction) until the case is decided. This huge inconvenience alone will make people sit up and pay attention.
Are these extreme? Yes, but its preferable to having your family members die on the road because some sexting driver was careless and watching his lawyer walk him off with a "It was an unfortunate accident, he didn't mean it, nobody was to blame" defence.
...I remember thinking that no sane citizens of any democratic country would ever allow the the state to amass such abusive and intrusive powers.
And then, I read today's Slashdot article.
So, given that it was bad under Bush, and is now worse under Obama, it is readily apparent that regardless of whichever political party you choose to vote for, all roads lead to the same end. The system will prevail. Is anarchy the only solution then?
I normally don't respond to Anon Cowards since they are predominantly trolls, but your basic premise is so wrong I can't just let it pass.
In all of the examples you quoted- housebreaking, car theft, robbery - the police are involved because these are crimes against the state. The basic idea is that these acts are so injurious to the fabric of society that the state simply cannot allow these acts to go unpunished. The focus of the police therefore, will be to apprehend the criminals involved and to stop them from committing further crimes. If any of your lost goods are recovered and returned to you, this is just a happy by-product of the police work. I would also point out that these goods are often used as evidence, depriving you of their use - my point being that their "recovery" is not the foremost consideration.
Since you mentioned police resources, I would also note that there must be an element of proportionality. Do you think it is appropriate to call in the police if your neighbour nicks your newspaper? Most people would say no, because the harm is so minor. Taking this point further, which do you think is more important- going after thieves and robbers, where every crime brings the possibility of physical harm to its victims vs. copyright infringers, who clearly causes zero physical harm?
And to answer your question, yes I would personally prefer the police to prioritise catching murderers over thieves, even if I am the victim of the theft. I would also prefer the police to prioritise catching thieves over copyright infringers.
I am still uncomfortable with the fact that this action is yet another example where the police, who are publicly funded and granted extensive powers in pursuit of their public duty, are essentially (mis)using their powers to protect the private property rights of a select few, i.e. copyright owners.
Copyright owners who, incidentally, are rich enough to pursue their own civil action against alleged pirates. Then again, making the public pay is better for their bottom line.
the US government secretly tapping the telecoms system
raiding AP offices to uncover whistleblowers without warrant
the excesses of the Patriot Act
the its-not-torture-if-theyre-the-bad-guys excuses
creating prisons outside US territory (eg Guantanamo) so that they're not subject to US laws/human rights
agressive DOJ enforcement against freedom fighters like Aaron while bankers who destroyed the economy get away scot free by agreeing to "defer" their bonuses
using drones to kill civillians
creating laws such as TPP in secrecy so that their own citizens have no chance to object
PIPA, SOPA, DMCA...
...USA, I once believed in you. A toast to what was once the land of the free, now gone.
I question the logic. It seems to me that developers who reach that status have tired old ideas and/or have blown their creative wad, so to speak, and tend to coast by on past achievements. Luminaries such as Richard Garriott, Will Wright, Bill Roper, Chris Metzen etc... have they really created anything notable after their breakthrough games?
It might be better to throw the project to a team of fresh developers full of exciting, new ideas and give their vision a chance to live.
Old hands are safe hands, but make for a dull journey.
Something which is sadly too lacking in today's world. It seems all too often that people today are too ready to push all blame and responsibility on others, instead of looking to fix their problems starting with themselves.
Facebook commits many evils, but killing Carolina Picchio is not one of them. I would instead point the finger at the boys who made the post, their parents who brought them up, their teachers who failed to teach them bullying is despicable, the community they live in which allowed the bullying to carry on.
Blaming Facebook is blaming a tool for the faults of its user. So should we ban cars because they cause car accidents? Knives because they have been used to murder others?
You don't like Obama. We get it. Way to go about spewing your hate all over the internet.
There are real people here who just lost their jobs. A game studio that produced some great games in the past just closed. Nobody deserves this kind of problems. And here you go, trying to score political points on their misfortune.
FWIW, the folks at LucasArts have my condolences. I hope you all get jobs soon, and thanks for the memories.
As for the Anonymous Coward (how appropriate)- what goes around, comes around. Enjoy your glee while it lasts.
Besides violating over a dozen international treaties...
Untrue. There are exceptions to WTO treaty obligations, one of which includes national security.
...an unsubstantiated claim that there may be espionage/surveillance capability built into some devices.And let me be clear: No government or private agency has come forward with conclusive proof that any product made in China for commercial resale has these capabilities built into it at the direction of the Government.
There were many claims from many different parties that the Chinese government engaged in active spying/covert intelligence gathering on New York Times, Google, RSA. And those are just the ones we know. Lets also not forget the Mandiant Report that caused such a reaction online not too long ago. None of this is conclusive proof but it sure is a great cause for concern.
The economic and political rammifications of this are being glossed over -- this action doesn't just affect our relationship with China, but with any country we do business with, because they signed the same treaties, and now they're looking at our unilateral action and thinking: What makes us think the US won't renege on their deal with us?
The consequences you paint may well be overblown. There is evidence that the US is not the only country worried about China's activities. Australia, for example, has blocked Huawei from bidding for work on its $38 billion national broadband network, for the same security fears. Germany has sent representatives to the Chinese Government to ask them to stop, unofficially. Even the UK is so worried about the China spying problem that Jonathan Evans, director general of MI5 publicly warned that the West now faces an "astonishing" cyber espionage threat on an "industrial scale" from specific nation states.
Given that China itself uses national security as a reason for imposing restrictions on foreign commercial activities on its shores, I really don't think there is any basis to complain about the present measures introduced by the US.
"Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country."
Which means that in the US, there are proportionately more disadvantaged students compared to other countries.
Am I wrong in thinking this is an even bigger social problem than how well the students in US score ?
I think this is an excellent move by Amazon to counter the trend of authors either sock puppet praising their own works or trashing those of their competitors. It's naive to assume that all authors are noble and impartial.
See for example : http://abcnews.go.com/International/crime-writer-rj-ellory-caught-faking-amazon-reviews/story?id=17143005
The critics can still critique the books in their own publications, articles or even blog post. At least that way the criticized author has an opportunity to respond (if he wishes) to the criticism by pointing/linking to it and issuing a rebuttal.
Others before me have already pointed out the difficulties authors have in responding to critical Amazon book reviews.
Yes, Singapore has caning and death penalties for numerous crimes including murder, drug trafficking and the use of firearms. On the other hand, ladies can expect to walk home alone relatively safely even at 3-5am in the morning, and the use of firearms in crimes is somewhat rare. Is it worth trading some personal liberties for safety and security? I honestly don't know, but it seems with the growth of the TSA that even the US is leaning in favour of security.
As an aside, there is nothing as invasive as the TSA in SIngapore, which i am profoundly grateful for.
There is a growth of CCTVs installed privately by angry individuals who accuse their neighbours of littering the common areas/outside their homes etc. but that seems more an exercise of individual freedom (albeit misguided) than anything sinister.
The Indian government's action is no different from the US government's previous attempt to get access to private telephone conversations through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip">Clipper Chip [wikipedia]</a> project.
Mind you, I believe the actions of both government's are despicable and wrong. It it horrifying and appalling the great liberties governments try to take in the name of justifying the fight against terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell him, very nicely, that he doesn't represent your views, that the two of you must part and that you will not be voting for him or supporting him in any way henceforth. For an added nasty, tell him you will be transferring your (financial) support to anyone else who can better represent you.
If they get enough of these letters, some of it might actually get through their assistants to the big man himself.
There is a big difference between kidnapping someone, throwing them in a secret prison and denying them access to a lawyer and looking at badly anonymized metadata. Of the two I would rather someone look at my anonymized call logs than to haul me off to a secret prison and a secret military tribunal.
He's done that, too.
As far as I'm aware Obama also hasn't manufactured evidence to send hundreds of thousands of troops into harms way resulting in a war that's killed tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of Americans and costing trillions of dollars.
Well, he did start the drone program that indiscriminately killed civillians.
I had hopes when Obama was first elected but I think it's time to judge the man by his deeds, not by the words he says. That also goes for the acts of officials he appointed, the acts of officials he allowed to be retained in the government and the acts of officials which he sanctioned or were aware of.
Let us not act like cuckolded husbands who insist all evidence to the contrary that their unfaithful wife is a virgin.
Ps. if you disagree, by all means please present your facts. I will be more than happy to be proven wrong.
The two cases are closer than you think. The poster is complaining about credit for the code because it directly impacts his ability to generate income.
Lets examine the poster's case. His ability to find new work and generate income is lessened because taking his credit affects his cv, his reputation.
Similarly, when "information" such as software is copied without permission, it deducts from the revenue of the creator.
Poster has already said the software belongs to his client, not him. Copying his software would affect his income, how?
In each case, the creator is losing income.
Anything at all could fall under such a broad analogy. If you buy a bad app from iTunes, and complain about it on forums, etc you are affecting that creator's income. That's a false equivalence.
Has our society become so timid and fearful that we are willing to sacrifice long cherished rights to freedom, liberty and privacy to the state in return for a dubious promise of security?
I say dubious, because for all the vaunted survelliance ongoing right now, it failed to stop the Woolwich stabbing attack. It failed to stop the Boston marathon bombings.
In all the gruesome examples you cited, note that the acts of terrorism took place despite all the surveillance already taking place then. The effort has failed. How much more freedom and privacy will you demand the public sacrifice in order to achieve greater efficacy?
I think we are on a very slippery slope, where the temptation is all too great for the ruling parties to take the path of least resistance and extend the coverage gradually to all undesirables and enemies of the state - from terrorists to child pornographers to murderers to robbers to copyright infringers and finally to common members of the public. If you think this is impossible, look to China where it is happening even as we speak. The Chinese government even justified its censorship and surveillance of the internet on the basis of public security in a White Paper , including the following gem :-
China advocates the rational use of technology to curb dissemination of illegal information online. Based on the characteristics of the Internet and considering the actual requirements of effective administering of the Internet, it advocates the exertion of technical means, in line with relevant laws and regulations and with reference to common international practices, to prevent and curb the harmful effects of illegal information on state security, public interests and minors.
What lies at the end of the slippery slope? Alan Moore might have the answer. I suggest you look at his book, it is an intriguing read.
I agree with you, actually.
I would not even be bringing this history lesson up but for the fact that the men in power today still think that secret proceedings is an acceptable way to conduct their business despite the fact that they tried, and failed terribly 370 years ago.
Just to make it clear, I have nothing against the UK, which is a fine country. I am however disappointed at this attitude evidenced by its current ruling elite, exemplified by Mr. Hague.
Interesting comment from Mr. Hague, a minister of the country that gave us the infamous Star Chamber.
From wiki:
The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. ...The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon, a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
I'm sure the victims of the Star Chamber at that time were equally comforted by the thought that if they were innocent, they had nothing to fear from the men in power. Of course.
My point being that any proceedings undertaken in secret, and therefore without oversight from the public will inevitably lead to abuses of power.
I am also troubled by the fact that the present US administration appears to go to great lengths to hide their workings from the US public whom they claim to serve. Just look at the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership as an example. When even free trade agreements are being negotiated in secret, something is not right.
What the US is pissed about is corporate espionage. It's an honor thing. The US expects China to try to break into military systems. What the US doesn't like is China breaking into Google or Wal-Mart, or bugging the phones of visiting CEOs from car manufacturers, and stealing corporate secrets to help them out-compete in the global market. To the US, corporate spying feels like cheating--there's something repugnant about mixing military with civilian affairs this way. No official from the US military would ever hand intelligence to a lumber company to help them with a contract. In China this is routine.
Given the fact that the US government has pretty much admitted getting data from most of the major technological companies in the US (see Obama's and the executive branch's defence of PRISM et. al. ) I don't think your comment about the US government's repugnance about mixing military with civilian affairs holds water any longer, and I have doubts whether this was ever true at all. A case could also be made that by soliciting the aid of these companies, the US has made them legitimate "military" targets.
I agree that as far as we know, China seems more willing to supply their own companies with the fruits of their spying, but ultimately the difference between covert electronic espionage conducted by US and by China is only a matter of degree.
... from US government intrusive spying. Oh, the irony.
Consider this- The Great Wall of China filters out most of the debris. Most Chinese citizens use local equivalents such as Sina, Weibo, QQ etc which PRISM doesn't touch. The Chinese government has demanded (and received) and vetted source codes of software such as Microsoft's Windows which are used internally. Chinese telecoms are immune to FISA.
Then again, if you go down that route all your data belongs to China.
On a related note, this whole PRISM thingy does give a lot more credence to China's complaints about being victims of US covert intelligence.
Fair enough, I must admit I've never heard of £1000 fines and was thinking of the much smaller sums most traffic offences impose which are in my limited experience paid and ignored. If fines of this magnitude work, then by all means make it so.
One philosophical objection I have to imposing fines only (without other penalties) however is that it may not deter those who are financially well off, you know, the typical lawyer/politican/movie star/singer/CEO-in-a-rush scenario. Some of them may pay without batting an eyelid. Others may simply expense the fines as a cost of work. Granted, these are outliers and are unlikely to affect the statistics at the end of the day.
...because they did address the points you made in the source article.
First, the trash doesn't seem to "accumulate" on the sea floor, but appears to get buried over time, removing it from the ecosystem.
They specifically admitted this in the article. The specific quote reads : "A lot of it gets buried by underwater landslides and sediment movement. Some of it may also be carried into deeper water, farther down the canyon."
Furthermore, they haven't actually shown significant negative effects.
Which the study also admitted. They even pointed out that the rubbish was sometimes benefited the marine life. The specific quote reads : "Other effects on marine life were more subtle. For example, debris in muddy-bottom areas was often used as shelter by seafloor animals, or as a hard surface on which animals anchored themselves. Although such associations seem to benefit the individual animals involved, they also reflect the fact that marine debris is creating changes in the existing natural biological communities."
I think that it is unfair for you to accuse these researchers of telling lies and being biased.
The root cause of this problem is that car drivers do not feel compelled to leave their phones alone while driving.
Unless you change this mindset, any artificial technological means of compulsion will only be despised, circumvented and rendered useless while incurring additional unnecesary costs as well as greatly inconveniencing non-drivers.
The key here is that drivers call/text while driving for convenience - they want to transmit a message NOW to save time rather than wait until the car stops rolling. To address this problem, they should make the consequences of making that call/sending that message even more inconvenient than doing so. One way would perhaps be hefty well-enforced penalties such as loss of licence to drive, suspension of right to reapply for a licence for 3 years or more, imprisonment for all cases involving accidents... you get the idea. If it seeps into popular culture that using phones while driving = loss of driving rights, the problem ought to decrease over time.
I'm not advocating fines because they don't work. It's also useless passing such laws if they're not enforced.
I also favor the immediate suspension of the right to drive upon arrest (not conviction) until the case is decided. This huge inconvenience alone will make people sit up and pay attention.
Are these extreme? Yes, but its preferable to having your family members die on the road because some sexting driver was careless and watching his lawyer walk him off with a "It was an unfortunate accident, he didn't mean it, nobody was to blame" defence.
...I remember thinking that no sane citizens of any democratic country would ever allow the the state to amass such abusive and intrusive powers.
And then, I read today's Slashdot article.
So, given that it was bad under Bush, and is now worse under Obama, it is readily apparent that regardless of whichever political party you choose to vote for, all roads lead to the same end. The system will prevail. Is anarchy the only solution then?
I normally don't respond to Anon Cowards since they are predominantly trolls, but your basic premise is so wrong I can't just let it pass.
In all of the examples you quoted- housebreaking, car theft, robbery - the police are involved because these are crimes against the state. The basic idea is that these acts are so injurious to the fabric of society that the state simply cannot allow these acts to go unpunished. The focus of the police therefore, will be to apprehend the criminals involved and to stop them from committing further crimes. If any of your lost goods are recovered and returned to you, this is just a happy by-product of the police work. I would also point out that these goods are often used as evidence, depriving you of their use - my point being that their "recovery" is not the foremost consideration.
Since you mentioned police resources, I would also note that there must be an element of proportionality. Do you think it is appropriate to call in the police if your neighbour nicks your newspaper? Most people would say no, because the harm is so minor. Taking this point further, which do you think is more important- going after thieves and robbers, where every crime brings the possibility of physical harm to its victims vs. copyright infringers, who clearly causes zero physical harm?
And to answer your question, yes I would personally prefer the police to prioritise catching murderers over thieves, even if I am the victim of the theft. I would also prefer the police to prioritise catching thieves over copyright infringers.
I am still uncomfortable with the fact that this action is yet another example where the police, who are publicly funded and granted extensive powers in pursuit of their public duty, are essentially (mis)using their powers to protect the private property rights of a select few, i.e. copyright owners.
Copyright owners who, incidentally, are rich enough to pursue their own civil action against alleged pirates. Then again, making the public pay is better for their bottom line.
Reading about all these news about :-
I question the logic. It seems to me that developers who reach that status have tired old ideas and/or have blown their creative wad, so to speak, and tend to coast by on past achievements. Luminaries such as Richard Garriott, Will Wright, Bill Roper, Chris Metzen etc... have they really created anything notable after their breakthrough games?
It might be better to throw the project to a team of fresh developers full of exciting, new ideas and give their vision a chance to live.
Old hands are safe hands, but make for a dull journey.
Something which is sadly too lacking in today's world. It seems all too often that people today are too ready to push all blame and responsibility on others, instead of looking to fix their problems starting with themselves.
Facebook commits many evils, but killing Carolina Picchio is not one of them. I would instead point the finger at the boys who made the post, their parents who brought them up, their teachers who failed to teach them bullying is despicable, the community they live in which allowed the bullying to carry on.
Blaming Facebook is blaming a tool for the faults of its user. So should we ban cars because they cause car accidents? Knives because they have been used to murder others?
Take responsibility for your own faults.
For the less tech oriented, what is a Narus DPI and what does it do?
You don't like Obama. We get it. Way to go about spewing your hate all over the internet.
There are real people here who just lost their jobs. A game studio that produced some great games in the past just closed. Nobody deserves this kind of problems. And here you go, trying to score political points on their misfortune.
FWIW, the folks at LucasArts have my condolences. I hope you all get jobs soon, and thanks for the memories.
As for the Anonymous Coward (how appropriate)- what goes around, comes around. Enjoy your glee while it lasts.
Besides violating over a dozen international treaties...
Untrue. There are exceptions to WTO treaty obligations, one of which includes national security.
There were many claims from many different parties that the Chinese government engaged in active spying/covert intelligence gathering on New York Times, Google, RSA. And those are just the ones we know. Lets also not forget the Mandiant Report that caused such a reaction online not too long ago. None of this is conclusive proof but it sure is a great cause for concern.
The economic and political rammifications of this are being glossed over -- this action doesn't just affect our relationship with China, but with any country we do business with, because they signed the same treaties, and now they're looking at our unilateral action and thinking: What makes us think the US won't renege on their deal with us?
The consequences you paint may well be overblown. There is evidence that the US is not the only country worried about China's activities. Australia, for example, has blocked Huawei from bidding for work on its $38 billion national broadband network, for the same security fears. Germany has sent representatives to the Chinese Government to ask them to stop, unofficially. Even the UK is so worried about the China spying problem that Jonathan Evans, director general of MI5 publicly warned that the West now faces an "astonishing" cyber espionage threat on an "industrial scale" from specific nation states.
Given that China itself uses national security as a reason for imposing restrictions on foreign commercial activities on its shores, I really don't think there is any basis to complain about the present measures introduced by the US.
From the article:
"Based on their analysis, the co-authors found that average U.S. scores in reading and math on the PISA are low partly because a disproportionately greater share of U.S. students comes from disadvantaged social class groups, whose performance is relatively low in every country."
Which means that in the US, there are proportionately more disadvantaged students compared to other countries.
Am I wrong in thinking this is an even bigger social problem than how well the students in US score ?
Citations? Links? References? Proof?
Oh, we should just take your word for it. Because we know you are always correct.
I'm particularly impressed that you can read the minds of the dead, since you just know that "the prank phone call had nothing to do with her death".
I think this is an excellent move by Amazon to counter the trend of authors either sock puppet praising their own works or trashing those of their competitors. It's naive to assume that all authors are noble and impartial.
See for example : http://abcnews.go.com/International/crime-writer-rj-ellory-caught-faking-amazon-reviews/story?id=17143005
The critics can still critique the books in their own publications, articles or even blog post. At least that way the criticized author has an opportunity to respond (if he wishes) to the criticism by pointing/linking to it and issuing a rebuttal.
Others before me have already pointed out the difficulties authors have in responding to critical Amazon book reviews.
Yes, Singapore has caning and death penalties for numerous crimes including murder, drug trafficking and the use of firearms. On the other hand, ladies can expect to walk home alone relatively safely even at 3-5am in the morning, and the use of firearms in crimes is somewhat rare. Is it worth trading some personal liberties for safety and security? I honestly don't know, but it seems with the growth of the TSA that even the US is leaning in favour of security.
As an aside, there is nothing as invasive as the TSA in SIngapore, which i am profoundly grateful for.
There is a growth of CCTVs installed privately by angry individuals who accuse their neighbours of littering the common areas/outside their homes etc. but that seems more an exercise of individual freedom (albeit misguided) than anything sinister.
This ^
The Indian government's action is no different from the US government's previous attempt to get access to private telephone conversations through the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip">Clipper Chip [wikipedia]</a> project.
Mind you, I believe the actions of both government's are despicable and wrong. It it horrifying and appalling the great liberties governments try to take in the name of justifying the fight against terrorism.