For those of you who are familiar with the book and were able to make sense of it, you may recall that one of the plot lines was that a large high-tech company was planning on basically taking over a small African country's economy... and that there were even some execs who were looking at how to let the inhabitants benefit from this as well as the stockholders.
Perhaps Google is looking to, if not completely take over the Kenyan economy lock, stock, and barrel, but at least become a dominant player there... and from there perhaps into the rest of the African continent.
And maybe they might have enough people there who are idealistic enough to want to make sure that the Kenyans benefit from this... and from there perhaps the rest of the African continent.
According to newspaper archives dating back to 1906, automobile manufacturers protested a proposed bill requiring the installation of safety glass and seat belts. "After all, the technology for these cars has been around for over 50 years, and we've not seen a single traffic accident," said a representative of the Duryea brothers. "We object to this demonization of automotive technology."
The concept could be described as "supporting an inexactitude," but that nomenclature is no longer supported, as it did not include the possibility of surmise or supposition. The preferred reference would be "expressing something that is counter-factual," which would then be useful in that it would allow for an incorrect thing to not necessarily be a matter of blame.
Sorry, didn't mean to be a sourpuss. I have a couple of friends who are or have been cops, and from what they've described of their jobs, I don't want it.
You hit a nerve without knowing it, and I broke my usual rule of "don't post when annoyed." I should've counted to ten first. I apologize for coming down so hard.
You are not phrasing it correctly. The question is, "Where are those flatfoots when I thing someone else needs one?"
On the serious side, if you are disgusted with law enforcement, and think you can do better, then do something about it. See if there's a police auxiliary unit that you can join, or see if there's some form of activism that you can take up to make the police better.
If they have violated the sanctity of your home, the step to violating your right to life is not too far off.
If you are using this as a defense of killing in defense of property, I will respectfully tell you that your argument may not hold up well under scrutiny.
You are arguing that capability is equal to intent. If I get into a fistfight with someone and they find my Leatherman in my fanny pack, even though it is folded up and at the bottom under all my other junk, your argument could be taken to suggest that I am guilty of attempted murder, because I had the capability of killing someone (provided of course they didn't laugh themselves to death at the dullness of the blade), whereas the intent would not be there.
It reminds me of the <possibly/probably fictitious> story of the newspaper reporter who interviewed a military officer in charge of teaching marksmanship. She said he was teaching the young men how to be killers, since he was providing the equipment. He suggested that she might be mistaken for a prostitute, as she also had the same equipment. For some reason, the interview suddenly ended.
"Xenu" is the name of the alien overlord that caused all of the problems that Scientologists claim to fix with their "tech".
However, it is interesting to note the methods used by Microsoft seem to match what L. Ron Hubbard said was the way to deal with critics of Scientology. First off, you accuse them of various crimes or violations. Then, when accused, one announces publicly that they welcome an investigation of their critics.
So, to hammer the comparison home with a tac-nuke, Microsoft accuses various Linux distros of unspecified patent violations, then upon being countered with "Which violations? Put up or shut up," Microsoft then announces that they would welcome an investigation of these distributions for violations of their patents.
Repeat until said distros either settle or are bankrupt.
Now, I'm sure someone is going to suggest that I'm accusing Microsoft of being a tool of Scientology. I don't believe that - I simply think that they saw a slimy-but-effective tactic, and decided to duplicate it.
(And for my personal beliefs about Scientology: I don't think it's any better or worse than many religions. The way it is being organized and run, though, appalls me.)
There is a large market for products that make bad parents think that they are doing a good job at parenting.
Why do I keep thinking of the young lady in "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish"?
She was the "lady of the evening" who asked if Ford Prefect were rich, because she had a special service for people who were rich. She was a college graduate who majored in economics, and so her special service consisted of convincing rich people that it was OK to be rich, and that they didn't have to feel guilty.
So, you buy a service for your computer that keeps track of every single place where your child has been, and duly notes every E-mail that the child sends, and carefully records all instant messages and chatroom transmissions... so you can either ban your child from the computer until you can figure out what all this stuff is, or do nothing until your system shuts down for lack of empty disk space. Either way, you throw money at the problem and feel better.
Whether you've actually solved anything -- or traded one set of problems for another -- is another matter.
Oh, wow! That's great! Too bad <insert name of particularly reviled industry> is going to buy it out before it gets big, just like it did with <insert name of 100-mpg-carburetor / perpetual motion machine / free energy source>!
Reply Template #2
Are you kidding? This was already published in <insert link and name of mainstream publication / snopes.com >. How is this "News for Nerds"?
Reply Template #3
It'll never work. This idea violates <insert name of sacred precept being violated, such as the first law of thermodynamics or the Boy Scout Law>. How could you have fallen for this, you idiot?
My handle notwithstanding, I applaud you for your rational thought.
There are people with whom I am very close who had to live through the nightmare described. Some have dealt with it well, and others are still struggling.
It reminds me of when AOL decided to put some keyword controls in their chat rooms, and so to get around them, various breast cancer survivor/support groups had to call their rooms "boob cancer" because "breast" was one of the keywords that AOL was using to mark potentially adult content.
First off, they provide the appearance of a merciful government. "You committed a crime, but you've paid your debt to society. Of course, we'll make sure that the receipt follows you everywhere you go, but that isn't our fault...."
Secondly, they provide a wonderful batch of test subjects for how far a government can push back civil liberties for the sake of control. Do we want to put GPS tracking collars on people? Let's start by getting people used to the idea with... how about sex offenders? Nobody's really going to care if their civil rights are trampled... and if it works out, we can expand it to other felons, then misdemeanants, and then everyone (except government officials who are ipso facto above suspicion)!"
Orchestrated hysteria, governmental and corporate databases, and the internet for their use and abuse - a combination sure to defeat the concept of "forgive and forget."
<tsk, tsk, tsk> Watch the blood pressure there... you seem to be overheating.
I would respectfully submit that, as a parent, the original poster is doing no less than a parental duty in trying to prevent the kids from being exposed to some of the shrecklichkeit that is out there until the parent (as opposed to some bozo who wants to be the first one who tells the kids that there is no Santa) determines that the children are ready.
However, I don't see any suggestions that the game providers be sued, or that a law be passed forcing the providers to screen such nastiness. The only suggestion is that of voting with one's wallet. Is that so wrong?
You raise a good point, and I am hoping nobody mistakes my writing here for my handle.
As you mentioned in your post, a squad of people who have spent months training daily for the possibility of a total stranger shooting at them still had to spend time with "get under cover first, buy time, and then figure out what to do next." There are occasional situations, such as complete and total ambush, that this won't help a lot, but in those cases, no amount of training that is available to the average (or even above-average) soldier would help. All that can be done is to train for the 90% likelihoods. This is the kind of thinking that, on the larger average, saves lives.
Children and teachers are not going to be getting this kind of daily training beforehand - at least not in any public school that I know of. (I might consider that kind of thing to be a cure worse than the disease, but that's another consideration for a different area, so to that I say nothing further here and now.) Training people to (A) get under cover, (B) bar the doors, and (C) wait for the cavalry to arrive strikes me as the best response available. Some might raise the possibility of someone putting on a police uniform, telling the teacher to open up, and then emptying a clip into a room, but those are rare, and people can only train for the 90% likelihoods. I reiterate that this is the kind of thinking that, on the larger average, saves lives.
The only appropriate punishment for heresy like yours is thus: I sentence your computers to only be able to run Windows ME! And be thankful that, out of mercy, it isn't Microsoft Bob!
You misunderstand. We briefly -- briefly -- considered the $200 graphics cards (similar to nuking the site from orbit), but determined that every monthly newsletter from Micro Center showing the price decreasing would feel like the death of the thousand cuts. We were upgrading to faster motherboards and CPUs anyway, with more memory, so we thought that that should be enough.
We'll try out the "Uninstall XFire" suggestion tonight, and see what that does. I'll let you all know, as I have no doubt that you are like the cat that ate the block of cheese, and waited outside a mousehole with baited breath.
Slashdot Mirror
For those of you who are familiar with the book and were able to make sense of it, you may recall that one of the plot lines was that a large high-tech company was planning on basically taking over a small African country's economy... and that there were even some execs who were looking at how to let the inhabitants benefit from this as well as the stockholders.
Perhaps Google is looking to, if not completely take over the Kenyan economy lock, stock, and barrel, but at least become a dominant player there... and from there perhaps into the rest of the African continent.
And maybe they might have enough people there who are idealistic enough to want to make sure that the Kenyans benefit from this... and from there perhaps the rest of the African continent.
"Same thing they do every night, Pinky - try to take over the world!"
Elizabeth Lochley: "I've just decided that if you can't join them, beat them."
From "Strange Relations," Season 5
According to newspaper archives dating back to 1906, automobile manufacturers protested a proposed bill requiring the installation of safety glass and seat belts. "After all, the technology for these cars has been around for over 50 years, and we've not seen a single traffic accident," said a representative of the Duryea brothers. "We object to this demonization of automotive technology."
The concept could be described as "supporting an inexactitude," but that nomenclature is no longer supported, as it did not include the possibility of surmise or supposition. The preferred reference would be "expressing something that is counter-factual," which would then be useful in that it would allow for an incorrect thing to not necessarily be a matter of blame.
Sorry, didn't mean to be a sourpuss. I have a couple of friends who are or have been cops, and from what they've described of their jobs, I don't want it.
You hit a nerve without knowing it, and I broke my usual rule of "don't post when annoyed." I should've counted to ten first. I apologize for coming down so hard.
<extends hand to shake>
You are not phrasing it correctly. The question is, "Where are those flatfoots when I thing someone else needs one?"
On the serious side, if you are disgusted with law enforcement, and think you can do better, then do something about it. See if there's a police auxiliary unit that you can join, or see if there's some form of activism that you can take up to make the police better.
If you are using this as a defense of killing in defense of property, I will respectfully tell you that your argument may not hold up well under scrutiny.
You are arguing that capability is equal to intent. If I get into a fistfight with someone and they find my Leatherman in my fanny pack, even though it is folded up and at the bottom under all my other junk, your argument could be taken to suggest that I am guilty of attempted murder, because I had the capability of killing someone (provided of course they didn't laugh themselves to death at the dullness of the blade), whereas the intent would not be there.
It reminds me of the <possibly/probably fictitious> story of the newspaper reporter who interviewed a military officer in charge of teaching marksmanship. She said he was teaching the young men how to be killers, since he was providing the equipment. He suggested that she might be mistaken for a prostitute, as she also had the same equipment. For some reason, the interview suddenly ended.
"Xenu" is the name of the alien overlord that caused all of the problems that Scientologists claim to fix with their "tech".
However, it is interesting to note the methods used by Microsoft seem to match what L. Ron Hubbard said was the way to deal with critics of Scientology. First off, you accuse them of various crimes or violations. Then, when accused, one announces publicly that they welcome an investigation of their critics.
So, to hammer the comparison home with a tac-nuke, Microsoft accuses various Linux distros of unspecified patent violations, then upon being countered with "Which violations? Put up or shut up," Microsoft then announces that they would welcome an investigation of these distributions for violations of their patents.
Repeat until said distros either settle or are bankrupt.
Now, I'm sure someone is going to suggest that I'm accusing Microsoft of being a tool of Scientology. I don't believe that - I simply think that they saw a slimy-but-effective tactic, and decided to duplicate it.
(And for my personal beliefs about Scientology: I don't think it's any better or worse than many religions. The way it is being organized and run, though, appalls me.)
Why do I keep thinking of the young lady in "So Long And Thanks For All The Fish"?
She was the "lady of the evening" who asked if Ford Prefect were rich, because she had a special service for people who were rich. She was a college graduate who majored in economics, and so her special service consisted of convincing rich people that it was OK to be rich, and that they didn't have to feel guilty.
So, you buy a service for your computer that keeps track of every single place where your child has been, and duly notes every E-mail that the child sends, and carefully records all instant messages and chatroom transmissions... so you can either ban your child from the computer until you can figure out what all this stuff is, or do nothing until your system shuts down for lack of empty disk space. Either way, you throw money at the problem and feel better.
Whether you've actually solved anything -- or traded one set of problems for another -- is another matter.
Not to worry - the ombudsmen will explain that they watch out for each other.
I thought it was something like this:
Coders, coders, coders,
Coders, coders, coders, coders,
Coders, coders, coders, coders,
Lawsuit, lawsuit!
Here are some reply templates, while we're at it.
Reply Template #1
Oh, wow! That's great! Too bad <insert name of particularly reviled industry> is going to buy it out before it gets big, just like it did with <insert name of 100-mpg-carburetor / perpetual motion machine / free energy source>!
Reply Template #2
Are you kidding? This was already published in <insert link and name of mainstream publication / snopes.com >. How is this "News for Nerds"?
Reply Template #3
It'll never work. This idea violates <insert name of sacred precept being violated, such as the first law of thermodynamics or the Boy Scout Law>. How could you have fallen for this, you idiot?
Reply Template #4
Frist P0st... oh, did someone beat me to that?
I don't understand what you just wrote. Could you re-post that as an automotive analogy?
Cool! Let me join in, too!
"Remember -- Zombies for Belgium!"
(With apologies to the redoubtable Mr. Griffin for ripping off Zippy so blatantly...)
My handle notwithstanding, I applaud you for your rational thought.
There are people with whom I am very close who had to live through the nightmare described. Some have dealt with it well, and others are still struggling.
It reminds me of when AOL decided to put some keyword controls in their chat rooms, and so to get around them, various breast cancer survivor/support groups had to call their rooms "boob cancer" because "breast" was one of the keywords that AOL was using to mark potentially adult content.
That depends on if your idea of news is number based or issue based.
Nonsense. They're well thought out.
First off, they provide the appearance of a merciful government. "You committed a crime, but you've paid your debt to society. Of course, we'll make sure that the receipt follows you everywhere you go, but that isn't our fault...."
Secondly, they provide a wonderful batch of test subjects for how far a government can push back civil liberties for the sake of control. Do we want to put GPS tracking collars on people? Let's start by getting people used to the idea with... how about sex offenders? Nobody's really going to care if their civil rights are trampled... and if it works out, we can expand it to other felons, then misdemeanants, and then everyone (except government officials who are ipso facto above suspicion)!"
Orchestrated hysteria, governmental and corporate databases, and the internet for their use and abuse - a combination sure to defeat the concept of "forgive and forget."
<tsk, tsk, tsk> Watch the blood pressure there... you seem to be overheating.
I would respectfully submit that, as a parent, the original poster is doing no less than a parental duty in trying to prevent the kids from being exposed to some of the shrecklichkeit that is out there until the parent (as opposed to some bozo who wants to be the first one who tells the kids that there is no Santa) determines that the children are ready.
However, I don't see any suggestions that the game providers be sued, or that a law be passed forcing the providers to screen such nastiness. The only suggestion is that of voting with one's wallet. Is that so wrong?
By the way, I'd like to thank you. I was never quite sure if "anal-retentive" was hyphenated or not.
You raise a good point, and I am hoping nobody mistakes my writing here for my handle.
As you mentioned in your post, a squad of people who have spent months training daily for the possibility of a total stranger shooting at them still had to spend time with "get under cover first, buy time, and then figure out what to do next." There are occasional situations, such as complete and total ambush, that this won't help a lot, but in those cases, no amount of training that is available to the average (or even above-average) soldier would help. All that can be done is to train for the 90% likelihoods. This is the kind of thinking that, on the larger average, saves lives.
Children and teachers are not going to be getting this kind of daily training beforehand - at least not in any public school that I know of. (I might consider that kind of thing to be a cure worse than the disease, but that's another consideration for a different area, so to that I say nothing further here and now.) Training people to (A) get under cover, (B) bar the doors, and (C) wait for the cavalry to arrive strikes me as the best response available. Some might raise the possibility of someone putting on a police uniform, telling the teacher to open up, and then emptying a clip into a room, but those are rare, and people can only train for the 90% likelihoods. I reiterate that this is the kind of thinking that, on the larger average, saves lives.
Blasphemer!
The only appropriate punishment for heresy like yours is thus: I sentence your computers to only be able to run Windows ME! And be thankful that, out of mercy, it isn't Microsoft Bob!
You put left foot in, and you shake it all about...."
Man, there's got to be an faster and easier way to clear a minefield!
(Stolen from an old Ruminations post.)
You misunderstand. We briefly -- briefly -- considered the $200 graphics cards (similar to nuking the site from orbit), but determined that every monthly newsletter from Micro Center showing the price decreasing would feel like the death of the thousand cuts. We were upgrading to faster motherboards and CPUs anyway, with more memory, so we thought that that should be enough.
We'll try out the "Uninstall XFire" suggestion tonight, and see what that does. I'll let you all know, as I have no doubt that you are like the cat that ate the block of cheese, and waited outside a mousehole with baited breath.
... but absolute power rocks absolutely."
Does anyone recognize where that came from? I can't find a definitive source for it, but it definitely applies.