You covered a lot of territory, hence, my multiple replies.
This is why I actually believe that things like torture programs get more people killed.
We were supposed to be the good guys, as in Geneva Convention. We were supposed to have learned from past mistakes that some killing - and other abominations - don't stop when the bell rings. It creates an unending situation. World War II is the outcome of World War I and that was the outcome of the Franco-Prussian conflict of Kaiser Wilhelm I's days.
Resentment doesn't die. Torture creates resentment. The North Koreans actually seem to believe that American soldiers ate their babies. Many Chinese were apparently taught that Tibetans were cannibals and that the Tibetan takeover was a good thing, a liberation. Hopefully, in time, that propaganda can be overcome. But a single, innocent Uncle Achmed showing his wounds and telling his stories firsthand will never be forgiven or forgotten.
And all of that is the aside to torture being immoral - it's a path taken because of its occasional effectiveness (an unpleasant, but highly true, fact).
They join up BECAUSE they know we are hypocrites, it is why they joined.
That's a gross oversimplification of who started what. Many join up because of indoctrination and nationalism, and throughout time, the causes for that are never single-point (one-dimensional).
National socialism.
Those words sound incredibly good together. You can sell a lot of ideas based on that. And unfortunately, ever since that son of a bitch learned how to pitch that and expound on Mussolini's methods, that's what's being sold.
It's a nice utopia but there's a simple flaw: decreasing the rationality of terrorism is no easier than decreasing the rationality of full-scale war.
That's not to say that you're not right - removing the incentive is key. But it's wise to avoid appeasement as well - and as we didn't have rational policies in place to prevent this outcome, and now face hatred, many, from what I've seen and read, translate reducing motivation into appeasement.
The other problem with the concept is that it's bad enough that the US has been guilty of things - subsequent propaganda enflames things beyond apology or fix.
It's a common myth, for some folks, that we're just all people and that we can all learn to get along. The sad reality is that the world's socio-economic / cultural divides are so incredibly great that that makes many apparently probative solutions wrong. Some cultures simply have batshit crazy values - and both sides of that looking at each other think so.
Then, add in that there will always be another megalomaniac around the corner - history's taught us that. Forget social forces and yadda yadda - the irrational criminal mindset will always exist.
So - the student's example response in Lessig's article sounds great - but it's impractical in the real world.
It requires rationality. Our electorate isn't rational - they don't even vote, much less get non-propaganda education on the issues - so how will our elected officials suddenly be rational? And if we consider mid-East terrorists, driven by a religious oligarchy then they're no better than the oligarchy of our religious right.
While it's true that we severely overestimated their number of ICBMs and their production capabilities, there were a number of places where the Soviets were ahead of us:
* fighter aircraft maneuverability * Lunakhod (decades before the Mars rovers) * tanks * Sputnik
And Sputnik was indeed a military coup. If you've seen the boost vehicles blowing up while we tried to match them, I'd ask you to consider the panic that that created. Sputnik proved the Soviet capability to put a package into a low orbit - kind of a major part of ICBMs. The ensuing space race was a thinly veiled response to improve our boost vehicle and command and control capabilities.
In the 90s the military establishment began to realize and fear that the methods we had in place were dedicated to force on force conflicts but that terrorists - especially postulated nuclear ones - had no solution. Within a decade, that proved prophetic (although thankfully, not the nuke part).
From TFS:
Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly.
Looks like déjà vu all over again.
No one is ever ready for the upcoming threat - they're too busy safeguarding against the last surprise.
I acknowledge the explanation - and truly appreciate your clarification of it.
I've always seen slums as something that holds over from the past, and couldn't really understand how they got them in a new space station. It was a bias on my part.
But seeing it occur in fairly new tech (per this article / thread), kinda opened the door for me to begin to accept how that worked.
"sudo" as in "run a single command as root and furthermore examine the commands before running them and restrict them to a set, and furthermore examine the user trying to run sudo to select the restricted set" was developed after Linux was popular.
I seem to recall using it long before Linux appeared.
The originality lies in the combination of that xkcd (which I'm sure both the author of the post and his intended audience know) with the topic of this slashdot article. Genious.
I'd suggest to get rid of those bogus patents is to have a rule that says that if a patent is proven obvious later on...
The law already says that you can't patent anything already obvious to those familiar with the art, or technology, in the area to which your patent applies (I paraphrase).
One should already be able to overturn any obvious patent.
The problem is that some patent examiners are good, some are less so - I know this from firsthand experience.
Yes - interesting how we have web vulnerabilities irrespective of the web browser.
Of the Web vulnerabilities, 90 percent pertained to code in commercial Web applications, while Web browsers comprised about 8 percent and Web servers about 2 percent. Of the browser vulnerabilities, Firefox had 44 percent of the total, but perhaps the biggest surprise was Safari, which formed 35 percent of the browser vulnerabilities. Internet Explorer was third, with 15 percent, and Opera was at 6 percent.
QuoteMstr - I am not the AC, and can no longer follow threading of who is responding to whom in this thread.
Sorry if I responded you if you were not responding to me.
Since Saturday the threading has looked funny - same browser, same rev, same OS, different hardware - I've not experienced that before. So, I've even tried different browsers in an effort to find the best one for/. (And having a few bad days of reading comprehension (per my earlier post you've seen) hasn't helped!!!)
I hope my replies have sounded with the high respect intended - I found you alone in your position of pro-MP3, but highly polite and scientifically cold-blooded, compared to other compressed music proponents, so as to warrant a more courteous response.
Slashdot Mirror
You covered a lot of territory, hence, my multiple replies.
This is why I actually believe that things like torture programs get more people killed.
We were supposed to be the good guys, as in Geneva Convention. We were supposed to have learned from past mistakes that some killing - and other abominations - don't stop when the bell rings. It creates an unending situation. World War II is the outcome of World War I and that was the outcome of the Franco-Prussian conflict of Kaiser Wilhelm I's days.
Resentment doesn't die. Torture creates resentment. The North Koreans actually seem to believe that American soldiers ate their babies. Many Chinese were apparently taught that Tibetans were cannibals and that the Tibetan takeover was a good thing, a liberation. Hopefully, in time, that propaganda can be overcome. But a single, innocent Uncle Achmed showing his wounds and telling his stories firsthand will never be forgiven or forgotten.
And all of that is the aside to torture being immoral - it's a path taken because of its occasional effectiveness (an unpleasant, but highly true, fact).
They join up BECAUSE they know we are hypocrites, it is why they joined.
That's a gross oversimplification of who started what. Many join up because of indoctrination and nationalism, and throughout time, the causes for that are never single-point (one-dimensional).
National socialism.
Those words sound incredibly good together. You can sell a lot of ideas based on that. And unfortunately, ever since that son of a bitch learned how to pitch that and expound on Mussolini's methods, that's what's being sold.
Worldwide.
It's all Babylon.
It's a nice utopia but there's a simple flaw: decreasing the rationality of terrorism is no easier than decreasing the rationality of full-scale war.
That's not to say that you're not right - removing the incentive is key. But it's wise to avoid appeasement as well - and as we didn't have rational policies in place to prevent this outcome, and now face hatred, many, from what I've seen and read, translate reducing motivation into appeasement.
The other problem with the concept is that it's bad enough that the US has been guilty of things - subsequent propaganda enflames things beyond apology or fix.
It's a common myth, for some folks, that we're just all people and that we can all learn to get along. The sad reality is that the world's socio-economic / cultural divides are so incredibly great that that makes many apparently probative solutions wrong. Some cultures simply have batshit crazy values - and both sides of that looking at each other think so.
Then, add in that there will always be another megalomaniac around the corner - history's taught us that. Forget social forces and yadda yadda - the irrational criminal mindset will always exist.
So - the student's example response in Lessig's article sounds great - but it's impractical in the real world.
It requires rationality. Our electorate isn't rational - they don't even vote, much less get non-propaganda education on the issues - so how will our elected officials suddenly be rational? And if we consider mid-East terrorists, driven by a religious oligarchy then they're no better than the oligarchy of our religious right.
Sad.
Some helpful links:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/view_pr.html (scroll down for Lessig's essay)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html (spawned Lessig's essay)
This sounds like incredibly great news for burn victims, given development.
Nothing comes close to an Abrams - no question about that.
However, I'd question its predecessors in comparison to Soviet models - I'm no expert, but I think I'd have given them the edge.
Sorry for the poor writing style.
Same can be said for my comment on fighters - depends upon the generation.
Point being that the Soviets were just a bunch of me-too copycats, or almost-rans ... not so much.
Thanks, but I translated that into fake-German-in-old-WWII-movie-speak, in hopes that any homeland-lovers reading that would wake up. ;)
You're insane - Colossus is listening.
Discussions of exceptionalism aside, you must find the term "homeland" (as in "Homeland Security") as inappropriate (even funny) as I do.
I fucking hate it and it's nothing short of the modern equivalent of Der Fatherland.
I'd find it funny but for the clodhopping jerks in the our country (the US) that somehow _relate_ to it.
I blame the religious right.
'Famous Actor Case Convict X' and 'Famous Actor Case Convict Y'
I guess I can accept that with sufficiently large values of Wolfgang Werlé for X and sufficiently large values of Manfred Lauber for Y.
Maybe the best way america could defend itself from the threat of baddies with computers would be to cut themselves off from the rest of the world.
Good idea - we should even hide from them.
In mine shafts.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/03/10/one_printer_one_virus_one/
Hoax or incredible cover-up?
While it's true that we severely overestimated their number of ICBMs and their production capabilities, there were a number of places where the Soviets were ahead of us:
* fighter aircraft maneuverability
* Lunakhod (decades before the Mars rovers)
* tanks
* Sputnik
And Sputnik was indeed a military coup. If you've seen the boost vehicles blowing up while we tried to match them, I'd ask you to consider the panic that that created. Sputnik proved the Soviet capability to put a package into a low orbit - kind of a major part of ICBMs. The ensuing space race was a thinly veiled response to improve our boost vehicle and command and control capabilities.
Sputnik spawned the NDEA of 1958 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Education_Act
I agree with the spirit of your post - just the details need polishing.
In ten or twenty years USA won't be a country worthy of attacking
You must be too young to remember - that was a popular 70s meme, with the US being the new Roman Empire on its way to an accelerated collapse.
Don't count the US out until you can count 10. Maybe the reason for its endurance is that the US is really never just one nation of one people.
;-)
:-P
Because you can't budget for internet hooligans.
In the 90s the military establishment began to realize and fear that the methods we had in place were dedicated to force on force conflicts but that terrorists - especially postulated nuclear ones - had no solution. Within a decade, that proved prophetic (although thankfully, not the nuke part).
From TFS:
Williamson echoed a widely held concern among military officials that other nations are building up their cyber-forces more quickly.
Looks like déjà vu all over again.
No one is ever ready for the upcoming threat - they're too busy safeguarding against the last surprise.
Don't forget this one:
http://www.slashcontrol.com/
Unlike hulu - all of the Babylon 5 episodes are there.
I acknowledge the explanation - and truly appreciate your clarification of it.
I've always seen slums as something that holds over from the past, and couldn't really understand how they got them in a new space station. It was a bias on my part.
But seeing it occur in fairly new tech (per this article / thread), kinda opened the door for me to begin to accept how that worked.
I always wondered how Downbelow really could really happen in an enlightened, spacefaring society.
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5_(space_station)
Substitute "IP slums" for "Downbelow" and "information-based" for "spacefaring."
See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocities#Neighborhoods
My use of it was always limited - I had to go look that up myself!
In case I'm wrong -
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SvycTU5QRQcJ:www.docstoc.com/docs/13337716/priv+history+%22unix+priv%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
According to this, you're late:
http://www.sudo.ws/sudo/history.html
"sudo" as in "run a single command as root and furthermore examine the commands before running them and restrict them to a set, and furthermore examine the user trying to run sudo to select the restricted set" was developed after Linux was popular.
I seem to recall using it long before Linux appeared.
http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/history.html
http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/readme.html
Unless there's some nuance in your quote that I'm missing.
BTW - gratisoft.us appears to mirror sudo.ws
The originality lies in the combination of that xkcd (which I'm sure both the author of the post and his intended audience know) with the topic of this slashdot article. Genious.
Agreed.
http://xkcd.com/149/
I'd suggest to get rid of those bogus patents is to have a rule that says that if a patent is proven obvious later on...
The law already says that you can't patent anything already obvious to those familiar with the art, or technology, in the area to which your patent applies (I paraphrase).
One should already be able to overturn any obvious patent.
The problem is that some patent examiners are good, some are less so - I know this from firsthand experience.
One opinion on the matter here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html
Yes - interesting how we have web vulnerabilities irrespective of the web browser.
Of the Web vulnerabilities, 90 percent pertained to code in commercial Web applications, while Web browsers comprised about 8 percent and Web servers about 2 percent. Of the browser vulnerabilities, Firefox had 44 percent of the total, but perhaps the biggest surprise was Safari, which formed 35 percent of the browser vulnerabilities. Internet Explorer was third, with 15 percent, and Opera was at 6 percent.
I'm repeating the link here -
http://www.cenzic.com/downloads/Cenzic_AppSecTrends_Q1-Q2-2009.pdf
QuoteMstr - I am not the AC, and can no longer follow threading of who is responding to whom in this thread.
Sorry if I responded you if you were not responding to me.
Since Saturday the threading has looked funny - same browser, same rev, same OS, different hardware - I've not experienced that before. So, I've even tried different browsers in an effort to find the best one for /. (And having a few bad days of reading comprehension (per my earlier post you've seen) hasn't helped!!!)
I hope my replies have sounded with the high respect intended - I found you alone in your position of pro-MP3, but highly polite and scientifically cold-blooded, compared to other compressed music proponents, so as to warrant a more courteous response.
Hope we're square!