When was the last time that there were domestic protests that put the military into a situation where they had to decide between harsh language and lethal force? For that matter, when was the last time in the U.S. where police fired real bullets at protestors?
Mind you, I could see a situation where the military faces violent protests in other countries, and then find themselves being sniped upon from somewhere in the crowd. Iraq has been the site of many of these, leaving the military commanders there to face the decision mentioned above. Also, I recall situations in Bosnia where the Serbs would block roads with little old ladies who would prevent aid convoys from going through to the ill-fated "safe havens." So, I can understand that the military can have a need for this - it gives more options than either backing down, opening fire, or firing riot gas grenades (which constitute "chemical weapons" for the military, if I recall correctly <grimace>).
However, either the military is expecting a long wait before having a chance to test these weapons... or are expecting something to happen that might cause the testing opportunities.
Either one is suitable cause for me to have a creepy-crawly feeling between the shoulderblades....
You may be right. However, I think they're listing only the ones that are officially offered by the airports, rather than by vendors within the airport.
Having said that, it might be handy to compile a list similar to what you've described.
Considering the range of bluetooth is about 10 meters (11 yards for those of us who use FPS units), I'm not feeling particularly worried about this.
However, the range is 10 meters/11 yards NOW. Improvements in the technology could make receive-only devices more sensitive, extending their range further than the casual user realizes.
I may have been mistaken about the tenor of your post. I believe that you are mistaken about the tenor of mine... and/or that I may have not communicated my point well.
I was angry (and I should know better than to post while angry...) about the whole situation. Fortuny fooled people into trusting an ad, and has crowed about doing the same thing to other people. He showed no remorse for this.
I don't believe that Slashdot is part of the problem. Slashdot may have posted indirect links to the site, but again, I don't think that it's necessarily an unethical thing. It is a matter of the person running the browser making a personal decision whether to follow those links to their logical end, or settling for the news site links that go to that site. If they don't have some link to what they're reporting, then the staff of Slashdot is doing nothing more than rumor-mongering.
Individuals may have posted the direct links to the site. I didn't check those out - I have no particular desire either to add to the humiliation of the people involved.
And my remark about "sorry if you were disappointed!" was, in retrospect, un-called for, and I apologize for it.
I don't know if it was a King Richard II thing ("Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?") or if it was a cold-blooded decision ("Commander, tear this ship apart, and bring me the passengers... ahem, I mean, dig up anything and everything you can on whoever seems a likely target."), but either way there was no way that HP could have kept any customer or shareholder faith with her remaining at the helm.
What I find interesting is that the Justice department is checking this "pretexting" business out. Are they interested in prosecuting it... or duplicating it?
I agree with your post all the way to the last sentence.
Not all Christians would agree that the jerk was right to do as he did. Some actually do believe that "lying to tempt someone into sin" is an even worse sin.
And many non-Christians would say things like "serves those bozos right." Smug self-righteousness is not a province solely held by any one group of religious practitioners.
True. However, I was listening to NPR this morning, and something was mentioned about Wikipedia. One of the researchers basically said that Wikipedia could die if the editors and submitters got tired of the job and decided en masse to go to the Next Big Internet Thing.
The Chinese government has more in the way of resources than Wikipedia does. They could afford to keep whitewashing until either the staff give up in disgust, or pull the plug... in which case "since Wikipedia was unable to maintain its accuracy, how is that the fault of Beijing?"
Or it might be that I'm too cynical... people have gone as wrong that way as by being too naive.
I'm willing to stand up and cheer reservedly for Wikipedia if this continues.
My only concern is that, once Wikipedia makes its stand, the Chinese government decides that, well, yes, in the interest of freedom of the Internet, it will let Wikipedia continue to operate - and then start "correcting" Wikipedia's entries to the point of anything that disagrees with "official" truth is useless.
They are sick, they DESERVE to have their sickening prediliction made public.
<IRONY=100%>
Thank you for that inspiring bit of armchair diagnosis, as well as compassion.
<IRONY=0%>
You are missing the point of the exercise. The main issue isn't whether there are people into bondage answering ads. The issue is what the bozo who put the fake ad out there was trying to do. He sure as anything wasn't trying to make some statement about "bondage is bad." He was getting his jollies from tricking all of the respondents and broadcasting their personal information... which strikes me as a greater illness.
If it was "pretexting" by HP investigators, you'd be yelling and screaming - and rightfully so. However, as this case involves people who indulge in a kink that isn't to your taste... your response tells us volumes about who you think has rights and who doesn't.
Slashdot didn't start the "experiment". Slashdot had no prior knowledge of the "experiment". Slashdot's links were to the news article that commented on the "experiment." The articles that Slashdot linked to didn't include any of the names, E-mail addresses, or pictures (sorry if you were disappointed!).
Shifting the blame for the situation to Slashdot is nonsensical, but hey - "shooting the messenger" is a fun game with an ancient and honorable lineage, and any number can play.
By the same token, how ethical was it for you to go and click the link to find out about the "experiment"?
The short form of your statement is what I read somewhere that goes something like this:
The biggest danger to capitalism is a too-successful capitalist.
Your point about lacks of checks and balances is a good one. Pure "Adam Smith" capitalism lacks a negative feeback force - there is no incentive for a company to "play nice with others" if they reach the top and develop the wherewithal to subsequently modify the rules to keep themselves there.
And yes, it is hard to integrate into any existing group, especially if there is something that identifies you as different.
Oddly enough, I've had to deal with this as well, but not in the way one might expect.
I have a daughter who is (from a viewpoint that could be accused of bias) brilliant, but she was having trouble fitting in at school. She would isolate herself with books (even during recess), and then wondered why nobody would talk to her.
My wife and I recognized the symptoms and acted on it - we had her start watching (oh, %DEITY%) "American Idol," because it gave her something to discuss with the other kids. It broke the ice, though -- and in a much less harmful way than, say, taking up glue-sniffing.
So, yes, finding something that the group is already doing and trying it oneself is better than moping on the sidelines.
Hmmm... Okay, so you want to make it illegal. We don't. So, how if we compromise, by you making it, oh, not so much illegal as frowned upon, and we'll join in the chorus about how government is really our friend who is looking out for us?
<Irony=0%>
These "civil liberties" types, as you call them, are the ones who are not likely to compromise on principles like presumption of innocence, even if they have to hold their noses about the issues that support their case.
What do you mean, you don't know their names? Look at what you've got:
E-mail addresses... OK, so they are $RANDOM@hotmail.com or $RANDOM2@excite.com, but those should be easily traceable, shouldn't they?
Websites... as long as they don't dig in their heels about such pantywaisted issues as 'privacy' or 'free press', and as long as they're based in the U.S.A., and as long as, even if they roll over and hand you the IP addresses whence the posting came, they don't post to either an anonymizer or an IP address at a public library.
Phone numbers... unless they're coming from a pay phone, a public phone, or even "someone else's cell phone."
<IRONY=0%> (There - I remembered to put the opening tag on this time!)
You also haven't considered that the filer of a libel/slander lawsuit has to (a) prove the allegations are false, and (b) prove that the allegations were made maliciously or with a "reckless disregard." Judges and juries often set that bar pretty high (hey, it's a free country, isn't it?).
Finally, so what if you win? Some individual gets hit for damages, they pay what they have to and declare bankruptcy, and the false information is still out there. Factual statements can be proven or disproven, but suspicions are notoriously hard to lay to rest.
In short, libel or slander suits are quite workable for the people and/or companies who can afford the time and effort needed for them. For ordinary citizens who are being plagued by a group of self-styled vigilantes, that option isn't available.
In 1978, a made-for-TV adaptation of "The Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Tank," by Erma Bombeck. Carol Burnett played the narrator, who is a housewife whose family has been battling the perils of suburbia, including the perfect lawn.
I remember the very ending, where their doorbell rings, and their landlord tells them, "Congratulations! We just found out that your septic tank is not up to code, so we'll have to install a brand new one for you!" The family members shout with dismay, until the father calms them down and says, "I don't care what they say, they are not digging up our front yard."
The next scene shows a backhoe proceeding to rip a huge chunk out of a nicely-kept lawn, with the family members watching disconsolately, as the end credit start rolling while the backhoe keeps digging.
At the very, very end, the screen goes black, and you hear a voice:
"I'm sorry, sir, I could've sworn that the septic tank was in the front yard!"
Actually, the bit about David and Bathsheba was that David saw her bathing, found out her husband Uriah was one of his top generals, and then sent Uriah off on campaign. When Uriah was --gasp!-- killed in combat, David proceeded to comfort the grieving widow.
Another of those Bible stories they don't often tell the kids, I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
When was the last time that there were domestic protests that put the military into a situation where they had to decide between harsh language and lethal force? For that matter, when was the last time in the U.S. where police fired real bullets at protestors?
Mind you, I could see a situation where the military faces violent protests in other countries, and then find themselves being sniped upon from somewhere in the crowd. Iraq has been the site of many of these, leaving the military commanders there to face the decision mentioned above. Also, I recall situations in Bosnia where the Serbs would block roads with little old ladies who would prevent aid convoys from going through to the ill-fated "safe havens." So, I can understand that the military can have a need for this - it gives more options than either backing down, opening fire, or firing riot gas grenades (which constitute "chemical weapons" for the military, if I recall correctly <grimace>).
However, either the military is expecting a long wait before having a chance to test these weapons... or are expecting something to happen that might cause the testing opportunities.
Either one is suitable cause for me to have a creepy-crawly feeling between the shoulderblades....
Hmmm... if there are crowds of protesters who disagree with this idea, then it's a ready-made opportunity!
<IRONY=0%>
Dammit, did I leave off the "IRONY=100%" tag again?
These people, in order to attempt to defeat piracy, have taken on the tactics of an older group of rovers by offering Danegeld.
Readers of Kipling may be familiar with the line from his poems: "Once you begin paying Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane."
You may be right. However, I think they're listing only the ones that are officially offered by the airports, rather than by vendors within the airport.
Having said that, it might be handy to compile a list similar to what you've described.
Considering the range of bluetooth is about 10 meters (11 yards for those of us who use FPS units), I'm not feeling particularly worried about this.
However, the range is 10 meters/11 yards NOW. Improvements in the technology could make receive-only devices more sensitive, extending their range further than the casual user realizes.
I may have been mistaken about the tenor of your post. I believe that you are mistaken about the tenor of mine... and/or that I may have not communicated my point well.
I was angry (and I should know better than to post while angry...) about the whole situation. Fortuny fooled people into trusting an ad, and has crowed about doing the same thing to other people. He showed no remorse for this.
I don't believe that Slashdot is part of the problem. Slashdot may have posted indirect links to the site, but again, I don't think that it's necessarily an unethical thing. It is a matter of the person running the browser making a personal decision whether to follow those links to their logical end, or settling for the news site links that go to that site. If they don't have some link to what they're reporting, then the staff of Slashdot is doing nothing more than rumor-mongering.
Individuals may have posted the direct links to the site. I didn't check those out - I have no particular desire either to add to the humiliation of the people involved.
And my remark about "sorry if you were disappointed!" was, in retrospect, un-called for, and I apologize for it.
Well, then at least I seem to have gotten the other quote right!
At least she did the right thing there.
I don't know if it was a King Richard II thing ("Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?") or if it was a cold-blooded decision ("Commander, tear this ship apart, and bring me the passengers... ahem, I mean, dig up anything and everything you can on whoever seems a likely target."), but either way there was no way that HP could have kept any customer or shareholder faith with her remaining at the helm.
What I find interesting is that the Justice department is checking this "pretexting" business out. Are they interested in prosecuting it... or duplicating it?
I agree with your post all the way to the last sentence.
Not all Christians would agree that the jerk was right to do as he did. Some actually do believe that "lying to tempt someone into sin" is an even worse sin.
And many non-Christians would say things like "serves those bozos right." Smug self-righteousness is not a province solely held by any one group of religious practitioners.
Apart from that - <sound of 911 NOT being dialed>
True. However, I was listening to NPR this morning, and something was mentioned about Wikipedia. One of the researchers basically said that Wikipedia could die if the editors and submitters got tired of the job and decided en masse to go to the Next Big Internet Thing.
The Chinese government has more in the way of resources than Wikipedia does. They could afford to keep whitewashing until either the staff give up in disgust, or pull the plug... in which case "since Wikipedia was unable to maintain its accuracy, how is that the fault of Beijing?"
Or it might be that I'm too cynical... people have gone as wrong that way as by being too naive.
I'm willing to stand up and cheer reservedly for Wikipedia if this continues.
My only concern is that, once Wikipedia makes its stand, the Chinese government decides that, well, yes, in the interest of freedom of the Internet, it will let Wikipedia continue to operate - and then start "correcting" Wikipedia's entries to the point of anything that disagrees with "official" truth is useless.
<IRONY=100%>
Thank you for that inspiring bit of armchair diagnosis, as well as compassion.
<IRONY=0%>
You are missing the point of the exercise. The main issue isn't whether there are people into bondage answering ads. The issue is what the bozo who put the fake ad out there was trying to do. He sure as anything wasn't trying to make some statement about "bondage is bad." He was getting his jollies from tricking all of the respondents and broadcasting their personal information... which strikes me as a greater illness.
If it was "pretexting" by HP investigators, you'd be yelling and screaming - and rightfully so. However, as this case involves people who indulge in a kink that isn't to your taste... your response tells us volumes about who you think has rights and who doesn't.
Slashdot didn't start the "experiment". Slashdot had no prior knowledge of the "experiment". Slashdot's links were to the news article that commented on the "experiment." The articles that Slashdot linked to didn't include any of the names, E-mail addresses, or pictures (sorry if you were disappointed!).
Shifting the blame for the situation to Slashdot is nonsensical, but hey - "shooting the messenger" is a fun game with an ancient and honorable lineage, and any number can play.
By the same token, how ethical was it for you to go and click the link to find out about the "experiment"?
Your point about lacks of checks and balances is a good one. Pure "Adam Smith" capitalism lacks a negative feeback force - there is no incentive for a company to "play nice with others" if they reach the top and develop the wherewithal to subsequently modify the rules to keep themselves there.
Oddly enough, I've had to deal with this as well, but not in the way one might expect.
I have a daughter who is (from a viewpoint that could be accused of bias) brilliant, but she was having trouble fitting in at school. She would isolate herself with books (even during recess), and then wondered why nobody would talk to her.
My wife and I recognized the symptoms and acted on it - we had her start watching (oh, %DEITY%) "American Idol," because it gave her something to discuss with the other kids. It broke the ice, though -- and in a much less harmful way than, say, taking up glue-sniffing.
So, yes, finding something that the group is already doing and trying it oneself is better than moping on the sidelines.
Hmmm... Okay, so you want to make it illegal. We don't. So, how if we compromise, by you making it, oh, not so much illegal as frowned upon, and we'll join in the chorus about how government is really our friend who is looking out for us?
<Irony=0%>
These "civil liberties" types, as you call them, are the ones who are not likely to compromise on principles like presumption of innocence, even if they have to hold their noses about the issues that support their case.
You forgot a category:
Pictures critical of the government
That will end up getting slipped into the list somewhere...
"Hey, Rocky! Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!
"But that trick never works!"
"This time for sure! Presto!"
Why, yes, we have. Who do you wish to sue?
<IRONY=100%>
What do you mean, you don't know their names? Look at what you've got:
<IRONY=0%> (There - I remembered to put the opening tag on this time!)
You also haven't considered that the filer of a libel/slander lawsuit has to (a) prove the allegations are false, and (b) prove that the allegations were made maliciously or with a "reckless disregard." Judges and juries often set that bar pretty high (hey, it's a free country, isn't it?).
Finally, so what if you win? Some individual gets hit for damages, they pay what they have to and declare bankruptcy, and the false information is still out there. Factual statements can be proven or disproven, but suspicions are notoriously hard to lay to rest.
In short, libel or slander suits are quite workable for the people and/or companies who can afford the time and effort needed for them. For ordinary citizens who are being plagued by a group of self-styled vigilantes, that option isn't available.
In 1978, a made-for-TV adaptation of "The Grass Is Always Greener Over The Septic Tank," by Erma Bombeck. Carol Burnett played the narrator, who is a housewife whose family has been battling the perils of suburbia, including the perfect lawn.
I remember the very ending, where their doorbell rings, and their landlord tells them, "Congratulations! We just found out that your septic tank is not up to code, so we'll have to install a brand new one for you!" The family members shout with dismay, until the father calms them down and says, "I don't care what they say, they are not digging up our front yard."
The next scene shows a backhoe proceeding to rip a huge chunk out of a nicely-kept lawn, with the family members watching disconsolately, as the end credit start rolling while the backhoe keeps digging.
At the very, very end, the screen goes black, and you hear a voice:
"I'm sorry, sir, I could've sworn that the septic tank was in the front yard!"
"A fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won't change the subject." - Winston Churchill
Point.
Perhaps even religious texts should have a disclaimer somewhere - "Use only as directed."
Actually, the bit about David and Bathsheba was that David saw her bathing, found out her husband Uriah was one of his top generals, and then sent Uriah off on campaign. When Uriah was --gasp!-- killed in combat, David proceeded to comfort the grieving widow.
Another of those Bible stories they don't often tell the kids, I guess.
Don't forget the trick of unleashing wild bears on kids who make fun of your bald head!