In theory, the purpose of our military is to protect us. As such, they would be failing this job if they DIDN'T look into this kind of stuff.
In practice, our military supplies a LOT of jobs for a lot of people. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't include the technologically inclined.
In reality, we have far less to fear from the Air Force than we do from a host of other government agencies, all of which are probably already up to their asses in this.
I'm just not seeing any reason to feel concern here.
are supposed to be in charge of this country. We do not elect the judicial branch of our government, so we need juries to help keep our fingers in the system. If any aspect of the legal system is "too complicated for lay people to understand", the solution is to simplify the system, NOT to remove the people from the equation.
Please. ALL new civilizations are made up entirely of babes wearing negligees. And 'intergalactic AIDS epidemic'? What are you talking about? We have Star Trek medicine, for crying out loud.
The Social Web is still in its infancy, and Facebook is just one of many boom towns that have sprung into existence to feed the movement. It won't be long before all of the Social Web upstarts (I should say the remaining ones) go the way of the dinosaur to be replaced by the next generation of innovation. I envision a near future in which 'social' evolves beyond a product and becomes more of a service or protocol. Much like what happened with Email and messaging.
Give it a rest, guys. You all keep insisting that intelligence, skills and merit suffice to get ahead in this world. What you don't understand is that this is only true for middle- to upper-class white guys. The rest of the world has to deal with a society full of doors that are closed, NOT open.
Affirmative Action exists for a reason. If you think we don't need it, kindly explain to me why women working the same jobs as men make less money.
I'm assuming you're not just some troll trying to pick a fight and aren't asking me for specific examples of why Game of Thrones is garbage. If you are, I already answered - just watch the first episode after the first 10 minutes. It's all crap.
One the other hand, if you were asking for examples of good stories about politics and conquest set in a fictional world, there are tons of fine examples (in book form, at least). My personal favorites are Dune by Frank Herbert, The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Roger Zelazny's Amber series (both series are good, but I like the first one better).
Actually, I think I'd rather enjoy a show about politics and conquest set in a fictional world. Game of Thrones, on the other hand, is a poorly-written soap opera. It tries to be about sex and violence, but its authors are so incredibly ignorant on both these subjects that the whole fiasco plays like some masturbating teenager's deranged fantasies.
I watched the first episode of Game of Thrones. The first 10 minutes were interesting. The rest was unmitigated garbage. I can't imagine breaking even the most stupid of laws just to watch even a minute of this crap.
...is that Apple just knows its market. The average consumer is perfectly happy to purchase and use devices they cannot service themselves. This is true of their cars, their phones, their televisions, their refrigerators and their washers (just to name a few) - why would they argue over a tablet they cannot service themselves?
Personally, I have no desire to own any Apple product of any kind, precisely because of this kind of crap. However, I frequently recommend their products to my less technologically-inclined friends. Not because there's anything particularly wonderful about the products, but because they are simple to use.
Like I said - bogeymen. I'm assuming you've read the Mitre list and know what its intended purpose is. It's not supposed to be a list of the most dangerous threats to my personal security. It's intended to supply guidelines for software and IT professionals to help them build more secure systems. It's not so much saying "Cross site scripting is an epidemic problem among today's computers" as it is saying "Cross site scripting is a vulnerability you can easily guard against. As a professional, you should do so". But thanks for pointing it out. I'd be worried if I was still using Netscape Navigator.
And I'm glad you're so concerned about privacy. So am I - we just have different ideas about what constitutes a threat to it. I know what user tracking is and I know how it works. I just don't feel threatened by it.
Let's say Google (or whoever) is carefully tracking my every move online. Let's say they're tracking me as I go about a typical evening spent browsing the interwebs. I check my email (3 new stupid jokes from my brother-in-law), I order a couple of books from Amazon, I research some stuff on Wikipedia for my kid's school paper, I stop by FriendFace to see how my people are doing, watch a few dramatic squirrel videos on YouTube, and round out the evening by looking at some boobies on some porn site. The assumption is that at the end of my evening, Google (or whoever) now has a bunch of data about where I have gone and what I have done. I understand why the tinfoil hat wearers would be terribly concerned about this state of affairs.
What I don't see is how - exactly - Google's (or whoever's) possession of this data is going to negatively impact my life.
I'm sorry. I thought it was clear that I was asking a rhetorical question.
If I was actually looking for a response, though, I would have been looking for something more along the lines of risks that could actually impact my life, rather than just the usual internet bogeymen.
First off, I'd say your lack of language skills is indeed impacting your ability to coherently formulate an argument. Otherwise you would have noticed that the original post is not, in fact, about grammar at all. Rather, it's about words.
That said, I would also say that HOW you present an argument is just as important (if not more so) than the content of the argument itself. The point of making an argument at all is to convince someone else of the validity of your viewpoint. This task is impossible if you are unable to make yourself understood, and it's very difficult if people have dig through your statements in order to tease out your meaning. Also, the better your language skills, the less the chance your arguments will be misunderstood.
The reality is, though, it doesn't really matter how terrific your ideas are if you are unable to efficiently articulate them. Which makes the better point?
1) "I took my - you know - thing.... the thing thats sits on the round things.... you know - the THING.... yeah - with the keys and stuff - the THING. Anyway, I took the thing to the place... you know - where I do stuff... there's coffee and papers and stuff - the PLACE... and the guy who tells me what to do... you know - the PLACE."
Your points are only vaguely related to the subject at hand, but I can see why these particular issues distress you so. I don't think anyone would think any less of you if you just stopped visiting Slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been waiting years for a chance to use 'skeuomorphic' in a conversation.
In theory, the purpose of our military is to protect us. As such, they would be failing this job if they DIDN'T look into this kind of stuff.
In practice, our military supplies a LOT of jobs for a lot of people. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't include the technologically inclined.
In reality, we have far less to fear from the Air Force than we do from a host of other government agencies, all of which are probably already up to their asses in this.
I'm just not seeing any reason to feel concern here.
are supposed to be in charge of this country. We do not elect the judicial branch of our government, so we need juries to help keep our fingers in the system. If any aspect of the legal system is "too complicated for lay people to understand", the solution is to simplify the system, NOT to remove the people from the equation.
"Intellectual Property". It's a legal term. Did you get stuck on the first word?
Every time I read something new about this case Judge Koh is more pissed off. I think everybody's going to get spanked on this one.
They all scoffed when I went to grad school to get my Master of Disguise degree.....
Please. ALL new civilizations are made up entirely of babes wearing negligees. And 'intergalactic AIDS epidemic'? What are you talking about? We have Star Trek medicine, for crying out loud.
The hell you say!
Jargon, jargon, jargon, jargon. Jargon.
The Social Web is still in its infancy, and Facebook is just one of many boom towns that have sprung into existence to feed the movement. It won't be long before all of the Social Web upstarts (I should say the remaining ones) go the way of the dinosaur to be replaced by the next generation of innovation. I envision a near future in which 'social' evolves beyond a product and becomes more of a service or protocol. Much like what happened with Email and messaging.
The Middle-Class White Guy Game preserve.
Give it a rest, guys. You all keep insisting that intelligence, skills and merit suffice to get ahead in this world. What you don't understand is that this is only true for middle- to upper-class white guys. The rest of the world has to deal with a society full of doors that are closed, NOT open.
Affirmative Action exists for a reason. If you think we don't need it, kindly explain to me why women working the same jobs as men make less money.
I know - you can't.
Some people have different tastes than others. Most of us consider this to be a good thing.
As do I. Did I say otherwise?
I'm assuming you're not just some troll trying to pick a fight and aren't asking me for specific examples of why Game of Thrones is garbage. If you are, I already answered - just watch the first episode after the first 10 minutes. It's all crap.
One the other hand, if you were asking for examples of good stories about politics and conquest set in a fictional world, there are tons of fine examples (in book form, at least). My personal favorites are Dune by Frank Herbert, The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Roger Zelazny's Amber series (both series are good, but I like the first one better).
Condescension? I'm sorry - did you write or direct it?
Actually, I think I'd rather enjoy a show about politics and conquest set in a fictional world. Game of Thrones, on the other hand, is a poorly-written soap opera. It tries to be about sex and violence, but its authors are so incredibly ignorant on both these subjects that the whole fiasco plays like some masturbating teenager's deranged fantasies.
I watched the first episode of Game of Thrones. The first 10 minutes were interesting. The rest was unmitigated garbage. I can't imagine breaking even the most stupid of laws just to watch even a minute of this crap.
Here's a news flash for you: complete idiots can (and do) program. The ability to code is a piss poor measurement of intelligence.
Idiot.
What the hell does 'Positive Bias' have to do with the latest AMD processor, Linux distro, or Apple product? Do you even know which site this is?
So we need a government agency to enforce peacefulness upon us? Seriously?
Can't I just go for a hike when I want some peace?
...is that Apple just knows its market. The average consumer is perfectly happy to purchase and use devices they cannot service themselves. This is true of their cars, their phones, their televisions, their refrigerators and their washers (just to name a few) - why would they argue over a tablet they cannot service themselves?
Personally, I have no desire to own any Apple product of any kind, precisely because of this kind of crap. However, I frequently recommend their products to my less technologically-inclined friends. Not because there's anything particularly wonderful about the products, but because they are simple to use.
Like I said - bogeymen. I'm assuming you've read the Mitre list and know what its intended purpose is. It's not supposed to be a list of the most dangerous threats to my personal security. It's intended to supply guidelines for software and IT professionals to help them build more secure systems. It's not so much saying "Cross site scripting is an epidemic problem among today's computers" as it is saying "Cross site scripting is a vulnerability you can easily guard against. As a professional, you should do so". But thanks for pointing it out. I'd be worried if I was still using Netscape Navigator.
And I'm glad you're so concerned about privacy. So am I - we just have different ideas about what constitutes a threat to it. I know what user tracking is and I know how it works. I just don't feel threatened by it.
Let's say Google (or whoever) is carefully tracking my every move online. Let's say they're tracking me as I go about a typical evening spent browsing the interwebs. I check my email (3 new stupid jokes from my brother-in-law), I order a couple of books from Amazon, I research some stuff on Wikipedia for my kid's school paper, I stop by FriendFace to see how my people are doing, watch a few dramatic squirrel videos on YouTube, and round out the evening by looking at some boobies on some porn site. The assumption is that at the end of my evening, Google (or whoever) now has a bunch of data about where I have gone and what I have done. I understand why the tinfoil hat wearers would be terribly concerned about this state of affairs.
What I don't see is how - exactly - Google's (or whoever's) possession of this data is going to negatively impact my life.
I'm sorry. I thought it was clear that I was asking a rhetorical question.
If I was actually looking for a response, though, I would have been looking for something more along the lines of risks that could actually impact my life, rather than just the usual internet bogeymen.
First off, I'd say your lack of language skills is indeed impacting your ability to coherently formulate an argument. Otherwise you would have noticed that the original post is not, in fact, about grammar at all. Rather, it's about words.
That said, I would also say that HOW you present an argument is just as important (if not more so) than the content of the argument itself. The point of making an argument at all is to convince someone else of the validity of your viewpoint. This task is impossible if you are unable to make yourself understood, and it's very difficult if people have dig through your statements in order to tease out your meaning. Also, the better your language skills, the less the chance your arguments will be misunderstood.
The reality is, though, it doesn't really matter how terrific your ideas are if you are unable to efficiently articulate them. Which makes the better point?
1) "I took my - you know - thing .... the thing thats sits on the round things.... you know - the THING.... yeah - with the keys and stuff - the THING. Anyway, I took the thing to the place... you know - where I do stuff... there's coffee and papers and stuff - the PLACE... and the guy who tells me what to do... you know - the PLACE."
- or -
2) "I drove my car to work."
Your points are only vaguely related to the subject at hand, but I can see why these particular issues distress you so. I don't think anyone would think any less of you if you just stopped visiting Slashdot.