Didn't all this happen 5 years ago? Why bring it up now and call it "The dark side of social media"?
It will become clear when you look at the surrounding news of NSA agreeing they spy on Americans who are "socially connected" to terrorists by a few degrees of separation.
There has to be a good reason lying around for the public mind to latch onto in order to manufacture consent. I'm going to keep posting this link until you watch it and stop asking silly questions about news.
CIA interrogators continued the harsh treatment even after it appeared that Baluchi was cooperating.
If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate? At least keeping silent (or lying in ways not easily checked) can be a form of revenge.
It's very digusting behavior given that the formation of English law whence America gets many of its concepts of rights. Torture was recognized as ineffective in the 1300's because it works too well, anyone will confess to anything. Here's an illustrated guide for you and yours demonstrating why the CIA practices can't yield justice. The threat of torture is meant as an example to others who go against the will of the CIA, it is effective as a threat, and those imprisoned are doomed to suffer as examples to the others, not as a means of protecting anyone's freedoms.
Cowards. They're not willing to call it what it is, because they're still the Establishment Media, and don't want to lose access to the government people who are their big information sources.
Not that access can't be leverage, but in my experience no mainstream "journalists" ever really tell the news. You'll realize this once something sufficiently heinous goes down in your neck of the woods and you see how it's reported.
Or, the Erdos Number. Now, let's say your kebab dealer tweets about a limed time deal on select types of kebabs to spread awareness on twitter using a local city hashtag. Everyone who searches the city's hashtag around the time it was posted has received a communication from a possible terrorist. Furthermore everyone working at Twitter now can be suspected.
If that wasn't bad enough, let's say the "orthodox Muslim" brother who is suspected of terrorist acts performs one thus: He tweets with the city hashtag and @replies his brother at once, "That price is Criminal! Your Kebabs Are The Bomb!". Now we've jumped a level on the connectivity graph. Everyone who has viewed the city hashtag with the kebab deal testimonial is now only one step removed from the suspected terrorist. Apply the generalized Erdos Number method, as with Degrees of Bacon, one can see how an entire city is search-able, if not a significant part of the planet itself as those "terrorists communicators" tweet, blog, and post on nerd news sites about unrelated things.
Also relevant: #CancelCorbert - An example of why believing something taken out of context can be very stupid, and indeed have ridiculous results. To demonstrate how malleable human language is, and why the NSA should not use language itself as an indicator for suspicion: You wrote, "blood is thicker than water", which could be short for "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." this traditional meaning would be the exact opposite of what you probably intended. There is another Arabic version with milk brothers vs blood brothers, where blood brothers are thicker than suckling brothers and both are thicker than water. So, I can interpret your statement to mean both: the NSA thought brotherhood as a bond to be strong, or the NSA is wrong to think involuntary bonds are strong.
One wonders if one's deep knowledge of alleged terrorist cellular activity do not belie one's secret connection to said cells in the minds of the paranoid and delusional NSA goon?
Prop 8 was about establishing homosexual gulags and working gay people to death in the name of Jesus!
Everybody knows that.
This! Indeed, it is exactly why I don't support it! If you've ever been married, you'll know that's exactly what it's like! I wouldn't wish marriage on my worst enemies and you want me to help get those beautiful Gays and Lesbians subjected to the evil that "only the dead can know peace from"? Sorry, look, it's nothing personal, but I'm not going to help you leap into a volcano or make a financial commitment to divorce lawyers either.
Now that I'm not married I'm FREE! It takes so little money to sustain myself I don't have to work a single hour of overtime ever again! I can give the finger to any boss on the planet, because I don't have to worry about shit! No more yolk for this jackass! I can eat grass where I want and sew wild oats when I please, and when I break it off for greener pastures there is no penalty fee! Now I finally understand why my unmarried friend was always the happiest out of all of us at get togethers. That marriage shit is just designed to make you hate people. It's dangerous too! Would you play Russian roulette with a 6 shooter that has 4 chambers filled?! THAT'S MARRIAGE! It's a raw deal at best, at worst it's a torturous prison with an emotional terrorist as a warden, where you get to watch all your dreams and fun slowly die as your life drains away, and if you survive the ordeal you may never see your kids again, and the skyrocketing suicide rate among divorced men shows what option many choose to take. Marriage is the death penalty with it's skirt hiked up over its head.
I support gay marriage, but I do not support the state meddling in our personal lives. Instead of state recognized marriage for gays I support ending state recognition of all marriage. Marriage should be between two people. Recognition of marriage is about 1 thing: Extracting money from you via the human propensity to increase genetic diversity by finding a new mate after the children are past the tender years. That over 2/3rds of marriages end in divorce. This is not a problem, it is a symptom of the nature of humanity. See also: The Ancient Greeks, The biblical tribes, nearly every native people not tainted by "civilization".
Why the fuck is the Victorian Model of relationships the state approved one? Where's the science that says that is the best model? Oh, there's none? Ah, right, so where did it come from? Oh getting married in a church? Ah, so what about separation of church and state? Hmmm?! You do realize that marriage only being recognized by an authority, say a church, was simply about forcing membership via leveraging your human drive to copulate and reproduce via outlawing unapproved fucking, right?
Without the state screwing with our relationships, then you get Gay Marriage for free: No restriction on who can have a marriage ceremony. If the existing religions refused to perform the ceremonies of gay couple union (on the grounds that less babies = less future tithers, see also catholic condoms and abortions[1]) then the demand for such ceremony would drive supply, and everyone would be happy.
We already have contract law so that people can decide how their wealth is distributed. In fact, the current marriage system makes provisions for women to keep their properties after divorce, but men are not granted "sole and separate property" by default on the property and wealth they bring to a marriage. We should just ditch marriage laws altogether because it's sexist. If that makes gays hate me, then fuck them hard because that's stupid! Mozilla CEO may not support prop.8 for a different reason, but I assure you that it doesn't take a bigot to love homosexuals enough to save them from the state meddling in their marriages!
sing CC0, you can waive all copyrights and related or neighboring rights that you have over your work, such as your moral rights (to the extent waivable), your publicity or privacy rights, rights you have protecting against unfair competition, and database rights and rights protecting the extraction, dissemination and reuse of data.
If you want to quote mine and manipulate my CC0 works and misrepresent me as saying something I didn't mean, then go right ahead. The Internet may bite bullshit hard at first, but it is a cybernetic system of self correction, and it is my friend. I am not afraid.
Perhaps instead of signing over the copyright directly the author can post it as (cc0) or (cc by), etc, or if not, retain a license to publish the original text on their blog. Shouldn't state funded research be public domain by federal law? Not that it all is but I paid for lots of research via taxes, including many that don't come to fruition, yet I can't access a lot of research papers without paying again? That's asinine, In fact, I don't accept that -- such backwards concepts are not allowed to exist in my reality.
This shouldn't even be a problem in the Age of Information. Research should be posted free for all to see, the work to complete it has already been paid for. Peer review and/or verification of the work should be included in the grant / subsidy contingent upon success or crowd-funded. It is a conflict of interest to fund the vetting of science in any journal that benefits by its publication. Instead, I ask: Where the hell is my Scientific Hitchhiker's Guide? -- It is ridiculous that this world doesn't have an open wiki of research simply because journals leverage the economically untenable sale of artificially scarce information.
If such a Digital Alexandrian Library did exist, then we'd be able to look up the first version posted without said corrections ala wayback machine or a research repo SCM, so waiving your "moral rights" wouldn't matter. Corrections and validation would require citations from other research, it would be easier to reference a paper, and if it were like the Hitchhiker's Guide: Earth Edition, then one could filter by verified research approved by editors, or go with the unfiltered firehose of information. You could then point people to the part where their defaming statements about you were created, by whom, and contest the information in a neutral way.
If you're worried about folks saying bad things about you then GTFO THE INTERNET FAST,MORON! (oops, too late) There is no objective test for offending remarks! I could say, "$PERSON loves kitties!" and you could sue me for defamation claiming I made offensive remarks about you participating in bestiality. It's these laws that are the problem.
There are no such things as rights. There is only freedom, or restriction. In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action. We make laws to help prevent your actions from limiting the freedoms of others. The problem is that laws can be made that limit freedom for no good reason. We should always seek to reduce the number of laws restricting us to achieve maximum freedom and peace. Speech isn't violence, and thus should never be restricted, not even when Nature has to show how much of an idiot you were when printing a correction. You can not prove that something someone presented is offensive or derogatory because that is a matter of the observer's opinion. Things can only be true or false objectively, not subjectively. Get over it. If your lawmakers had any sense, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place, you litigious prick.
Well gee, I don't know, my big motorized dish is pretty useless since all the birds are ciphered and there's just no way on Earth to even crack the codes.
So, I just modded mine to TX instead of just RX and beamed out some Welcome to Earth messages to the alien planets we've discovered.
Yep. That's all it's for. Total coincidence if Gliese 581 just happened to be around the same declination and right ascension as ECHOSTAR 7 was when I last listened for a reply.
The Internet has got a lot more content on demand, or even off demand, I hear. Maybe I'll get tired of maintaining it and cover it in bits of mirror to assume Form Of: Solar Death Ray -- if the squirrels or flying drones keep acting up... I just hate ants.
You ignore that although we do not let just a single person define what is beneficial, we have built our current civilization via the means to discover benefit and disregard harm. It is not the people who decide what's valued, but Humanity as a whole: Nature itself provides the environment which contains the facts of all actions. We need only look through the unbiased lens of reality that our method of science affords. We can come to know what is beneficial or not without guessing, but there are those who oppose the investigation itself.
Show me evidence that HFT provides overall benefit to society; Otherwise, your subjective conclusions as to value are meaningless. The needs of the many outweigh the greeds of the few.
You have a right to hold your own opinion, but not to be correct simply for holding it. Nature does not to care of opinion. The stock market is a means to assist with investment in businesses. The stock prices should be affected by the business's worth. If we allow the subjective valuation of businesses then we have created a market decoupled from what a business is worth to society and instead trading in only opinion.
In the opinion market the prevailing opinion is valued regardless of reality. When rumors of Microsoft's purchase of Yahoo surfaced, Yahoo did not begin working extra hard over night to supply worth to our economy, and yet Yahoo's stock price soared. When the rumors and negotiations fell through, Yahoo's price sank, yet they did not change their business or benefit to society; Their worth to reality apart from the stock market was unchanged. The opinions of Yahoo drastically affected its business and shareholders cried out their opinions loudly. Microsoft and Yahoo entered talks again, and a partnership was formed. This is disgusting. Propaganda used for extortion and a system built first accidentally, but now expressly to facilitate it.
Those who hold majority opinion control the opinion market of stocks. Thus a poor opinion can devalue or destroy a business regardless of its actual worth to society as a whole. This is ridiculousness and demonstrably dangerous to the utmost degree! Science has shown that humans are severely biased, and need assistance in decision making! If propaganda is encouraged to control the stock prices then the investors can not invest in what is worthy to society as a whole unless the propaganda agrees -- And it most frequently does not. This means the contract between the society as a whole who's worth is at jeopardy and the market wherein that worth is sold has been broken.
Though the stock market originally meant grant investment opportunity to all, the economic future of society as a whole is now decided by prevalence of opinion, and is not reflective of the reality external to the stock market. As TFS illustrates: Making large trades shouldn't move the market: High frequency trading is only an acceleration of the same game. It further decouples stock price from the value one can extract from a trade itself by exploiting the fact that some systems have more access to information and needs less time to trade. It is essentially a tax on trading which sets a ridiculously high barrier for the degree of awareness one must have to compete. It is folly for man to compete with machine: Since the first stone tool was shaped, man and machine prospered as we helped each other and suffered as we were pitted against each other.
Cybernetics was invented before the explosion of computing to analyze business. Using information theory I have analyzed HFT cybernetically. High frequency trading is a means to capitalize on the fact that information takes time to propagate. HFT makes money by using its greater information and faster ability to trade against those who can not become aware of as much information as quickly. It is profiting via information disparity, and thus cybernetically it is no different than lying. An inves
Where was the referendum in Serbia, or Libya or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Panama, or...
Did US annex any of these countries?
Yes. The USA is owned and run by international corporations. Thus wars are fought at the behest of these commercial interests. When the USA destroys some place like Iraq or Afghanistan the US companies make out like bandits not only in the military industrial complex but also the mandatory US companies doing the unsatisfactory "rebuilding" effort to fix the unnecessary "shock and awe" damage. The economy itself is replaced.
The borders of the country and its name can even stay the same. International corporations don't care much about borders. It's the economy that matters, and what they fight for is more privatization and deregulation. Thus these countries are indeed annexed by the rulers of the USA.
Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?
Why not go ask Linus Torvalds what he thinks of them doing that? You see, I'm not a dumbass. I don't work for free. Artificial scarcity is stupid. I don't buy into the copyright and patent futures market. So, I ask for the money to do my work or research or create things UP FRONT, and I ask for enough to cover the work and the profit I need for it, then I "give it away for free" since the work has been paid for. If I want more money I DO MORE WORK. This is how the free and open source model works. This is how Mechanics work too. The benefits from the mechanic's labor are unbounded. Instead of putting a coin-slot on the steering wheel so they can benefit in perpetuity from the work they do once, they recognize folks will bypass the artificial restrictions and instead negotiate a price up front and you pay for the entity of the unbounded benefit their work provides. This is a proven model. This is how the Burger Joint works. This is how every labor market works, except "ideas" and "information".
The problem is that with a patent system in place the Artificial Scarcity can be leveraged to cheat the researcher. Instead of paying a fair price for the inventor or creator's labor the corporations cherry-pick among what becomes a success. It takes the same effort to discover a success as it does to rule a solution out. Many discoveries are found in unrelated research. X-Ray radiation was discovered by accident. Without patents to create artificial scarcity of otherwise unbounded and infinitely reproducible ideas and information we'd have a more stable market where people charge what the need for their labors instead of accept less pay up front and gamble their effort in the imaginary property futures market.
What, you think demand is going to disappear if patents do? No, the demand for innovation will still exist, and it will be met. Look at the fashion and automotive industries. They are not allowed copyrights or design patents, and yet they are very lucrative and innovative and sell primarily on design. It wasn't until the 80's that software could even be patented. Oh NO! Your assumptions are shattered! Now what? You could just ignore that we made it all the way past the dawn of the personal computer before greedy dipshits like you decided artificial scarcity is somehow required for anything but stifling progress?
OK, I'll give you that I don't know exactly what will happen if we ban all patents. However, I just gave you two or three examples of markets where patents were not required for innovation. So, if you're a rational minded person, then you've got to ask yourself: Where is the evidence that patents are promoting the sciences and useful arts? Where's the evidence that patents are not harmful? Where's the evidence that patents are beneficial?! THERE IS NONE. So if you're not insane then you'd think: Hey, wouldn't it be fucked-up to run the world's economy of innovation and creativity based on an untested and unproven hypothesis?! I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume you want to end "piracy", right? OK.
Assuming you're not an absolute moron, you now agree we should do the experiment and abolish all patents and find out if patents are beneficial. What if they're holding us back needlessly? What if they're very harmful? I'm pretty sure you'd at least like to try and find SOMETHING to support your stance before continuing to believe in baseless assumptions without any evidence? RIGHT?! You don't and won't have a leg to stand on otherwise. I mean we only have evidence for the null hypothesis: Patents are not necessary for innovation or profit. Now the burden of proof is to PROVE patents are MORE beneficial than not having them. I would put it to you that copyright should
Remote wiping is already possible. What they want is centralized control over the functionality for governing purposes. We're not idiots. Well... not all of us.
Oh, the theft rate is still high! The kill switch does nothing! No worries citizen, now that the capability is in place, instead of a black list we will institute a white list, whereby you must authenticate the phone periodically with approved government services in order for it to function. What's that you say? Carriers already have to authenticate devices? Ah, but that doesn't render the CPU inoperable, eh? You know, just like Intel demonstrated. Oh, we should get PCs on board with this "anti-theft" as they call it. Oh, and cars too! We just got mandatory black boxes in there.
Why this could save us so much money! It's not like the pentagon is actively trying to figure out how to do any such nefarious thing. It's not like selectively killing Internet access wouldn't be a great tool keep others happy while they silence dissent. You know, like they always fucking do?
Even if we were complete idiots, we'd still know that recent history exists: The last year at the least.
Yeah, that's known to alter behavior. However, neurologists can see inside brains now. So, we can see the fucking problems, we don't have to guess. Now, we can name this type of problem something, and if there's some other chemical or microorganism, etc. THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE. It's not a "spectrum" of shit if the underlying causes are fundamentally different.
So, if we start out noticing a behavior, and then go looking for a lot similar behaviors and then call them all a common diagnoses, like Autism "Spectrum Disorder", you know what we call that? Fucking stupid self selection bias AKA pseudoscience. Which is why the NIMH is distancing itself from the DSM5 where shit like Autism Spectrum Disorder is defined, claiming, "Patients deserve better". Know why? Because without an actual common cause a diagnoses is bullshit. Oh look, I stepped on a crack and my mother's back broke! Really? I saw her walk under a ladder. Oh, those are all indicators of Mother's Back Spectrum Disorder!
Give me a fucking break. There's more diagnoses than ever because the treatments are all about to get blown out of the water by Neuroscience gearing up to call psychiatrists on their confirmation bias bullshit, and they won't be able to make money on these type of "spectrum" diseases afterwards.
Not necessarily. We already have a similar law in place. It's illegal to videotape you, make pictures of you or record you in any other way unless you give prior consent, unless you are a "person of public interest", i.e. a celebrity, a politician or similar.
Man, I bet the lobbyists for your security camera businesses are outraged. Oh, wait, that's right...
If it was such a big deal, the existing VR companies would already be improving on latency and price by leaps and bounds on their own over the two decades we've had consumer VR gear. It's just not that big a deal, you're still just feeding images to a brain, I don't understand the hype; See also: Kinect hype.
It's AR (augmented reality) that I find so much more beneficial and useful. I have been using AR in industrial noise abatement. We set up our sound monitors, then triangulate audio sources, and then we can overlay them on world as 3D volumetric data using AR. From my android tablet I can even use a high/low pass filter to isolate a particular noise signature and locate its visual source via timestamp and pattern recognition to see exactly where it's coming from, and how frequently it occurred in the sample timeline. This way we can safely diagnose problem noise sources while the dangerous machinery is not in use.
Sorry, I couldn't wait a decade for game consoles to finally get over VirtualBoy. I had work to do with VR / AR. Hell, I only use my monitors about half the time anymore since VR + 3D UI = 360 degree desktop - Turn my head and I've got screens as far as the eye can see, and more. You can hack together a poor man's version with Compize's Desktop Zoom by setting the head tracking to move the mouse cursor, but really you want the panning to follow head tracking while mouse controls the pointer.
The biggest problem for VR is 3D UI, I've done some experimental research, but it's not there yet. With AR and the Kinect I've played around with using the poor-man's head = mouse cursor for zoom / panning and depth cameras for emulating touch events. It's too sloppy for precision work with gen1 Kinect, but I can make touch emulation work pretty well with OpenCV and a decent webcam (a bit better than what you find embedded in a laptop nowadays). However, many people get motion sick from the glasses, and latency's not an issue, it happens even when passively watching 3D movie theaters, glasses can't change your inner ear's sense of movement and balance, yet.
For common use 3D UI I'm really liking head tracking without the VR display, and using a standard monitor instead. When combined with eye tracking. I can emulate a very immersive 3D viewport that really feels like a window. You can tilt to view "deeper" or "around" other objects, lean to see the next workspace, and double-blink-to click, largely eliminating mouse use replacing it with fast and rich eye+keyboard navigation. Look to move pointer, ctrl+blink to set "intermediary focus mode", sort of a visual analog to focus change via tabbing like hover to focus, but with another key or blink to actually focus instead of dwell-clicking. Double-blink does a best guess as to what button is nearest the cursor. For Firefox I had to write a simple plugin for the UI system.
Anyhow, business doesn't care about this shit. Most folks don't even want to learn a better keylayout that the purposefully fucked QWERTY, let alone a new way to mouse with their eyes and head. They can already telepresence with their smart phones, laptops and desktops, 3D isn't a huge improvement for most folks it's a gimmick (like adding video to a phone voice chat is -- protip: people would rather text that talk unless they're really horny).
If the Oculus Devs are "pioneers", then every day users of VR, AR and 3D interface hobbyists like me must be like ancient aliens who visited VR planet when it was primordial ooze. Shit, I was playing Dactyl Nightmare and Exorex in VR at the arcade the year before Carmack's Doom even came out.
Slashdot Mirror
Contrary to popular belief, it is the tar, not the feathers, that is most important at least among the tools of electricians or politicians.
Same as my experience with Wii owners, or other fads, like slap bracelets.
Didn't all this happen 5 years ago? Why bring it up now and call it "The dark side of social media"?
It will become clear when you look at the surrounding news of NSA agreeing they spy on Americans who are "socially connected" to terrorists by a few degrees of separation.
There has to be a good reason lying around for the public mind to latch onto in order to manufacture consent. I'm going to keep posting this link until you watch it and stop asking silly questions about news.
If the reward for cooperating is torture and more torture, why cooperate? At least keeping silent (or lying in ways not easily checked) can be a form of revenge.
It's very digusting behavior given that the formation of English law whence America gets many of its concepts of rights. Torture was recognized as ineffective in the 1300's because it works too well, anyone will confess to anything. Here's an illustrated guide for you and yours demonstrating why the CIA practices can't yield justice. The threat of torture is meant as an example to others who go against the will of the CIA, it is effective as a threat, and those imprisoned are doomed to suffer as examples to the others, not as a means of protecting anyone's freedoms.
Yes, but evil and greed know no borders. The US's School of the Americas worked diligently to educate others in torture methods they discovered themselves.
Do not be distracted by the wickedly deformed path that evil takes, for any can use the architecture of aggression for their own twisted ends.
Cowards. They're not willing to call it what it is, because they're still the Establishment Media, and don't want to lose access to the government people who are their big information sources.
"Don't want to lose access"? Really? Because Chomsky tells a much different tale of state filtered media for manufacture of consent.
Not that access can't be leverage, but in my experience no mainstream "journalists" ever really tell the news. You'll realize this once something sufficiently heinous goes down in your neck of the woods and you see how it's reported.
Small World Phenomena
Or, the Erdos Number.
Now, let's say your kebab dealer tweets about a limed time deal on select types of kebabs to spread awareness on twitter using a local city hashtag. Everyone who searches the city's hashtag around the time it was posted has received a communication from a possible terrorist. Furthermore everyone working at Twitter now can be suspected.
If that wasn't bad enough, let's say the "orthodox Muslim" brother who is suspected of terrorist acts performs one thus: He tweets with the city hashtag and @replies his brother at once, "That price is Criminal! Your Kebabs Are The Bomb!". Now we've jumped a level on the connectivity graph. Everyone who has viewed the city hashtag with the kebab deal testimonial is now only one step removed from the suspected terrorist. Apply the generalized Erdos Number method, as with Degrees of Bacon, one can see how an entire city is search-able, if not a significant part of the planet itself as those "terrorists communicators" tweet, blog, and post on nerd news sites about unrelated things.
Also relevant: #CancelCorbert - An example of why believing something taken out of context can be very stupid, and indeed have ridiculous results.
To demonstrate how malleable human language is, and why the NSA should not use language itself as an indicator for suspicion: You wrote, "blood is thicker than water", which could be short for "The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb." this traditional meaning would be the exact opposite of what you probably intended. There is another Arabic version with milk brothers vs blood brothers, where blood brothers are thicker than suckling brothers and both are thicker than water. So, I can interpret your statement to mean both: the NSA thought brotherhood as a bond to be strong, or the NSA is wrong to think involuntary bonds are strong.
One wonders if one's deep knowledge of alleged terrorist cellular activity do not belie one's secret connection to said cells in the minds of the paranoid and delusional NSA goon?
Not sure where that leaves "communist."
With the hippies, in the commune.
Prop 8 was about establishing homosexual gulags and working gay people to death in the name of Jesus!
Everybody knows that.
This! Indeed, it is exactly why I don't support it! If you've ever been married, you'll know that's exactly what it's like! I wouldn't wish marriage on my worst enemies and you want me to help get those beautiful Gays and Lesbians subjected to the evil that "only the dead can know peace from"? Sorry, look, it's nothing personal, but I'm not going to help you leap into a volcano or make a financial commitment to divorce lawyers either.
Now that I'm not married I'm FREE! It takes so little money to sustain myself I don't have to work a single hour of overtime ever again! I can give the finger to any boss on the planet, because I don't have to worry about shit! No more yolk for this jackass! I can eat grass where I want and sew wild oats when I please, and when I break it off for greener pastures there is no penalty fee! Now I finally understand why my unmarried friend was always the happiest out of all of us at get togethers. That marriage shit is just designed to make you hate people. It's dangerous too! Would you play Russian roulette with a 6 shooter that has 4 chambers filled?! THAT'S MARRIAGE! It's a raw deal at best, at worst it's a torturous prison with an emotional terrorist as a warden, where you get to watch all your dreams and fun slowly die as your life drains away, and if you survive the ordeal you may never see your kids again, and the skyrocketing suicide rate among divorced men shows what option many choose to take. Marriage is the death penalty with it's skirt hiked up over its head.
I support gay marriage, but I do not support the state meddling in our personal lives. Instead of state recognized marriage for gays I support ending state recognition of all marriage. Marriage should be between two people. Recognition of marriage is about 1 thing: Extracting money from you via the human propensity to increase genetic diversity by finding a new mate after the children are past the tender years. That over 2/3rds of marriages end in divorce. This is not a problem, it is a symptom of the nature of humanity. See also: The Ancient Greeks, The biblical tribes, nearly every native people not tainted by "civilization".
Why the fuck is the Victorian Model of relationships the state approved one? Where's the science that says that is the best model? Oh, there's none? Ah, right, so where did it come from? Oh getting married in a church? Ah, so what about separation of church and state? Hmmm?! You do realize that marriage only being recognized by an authority, say a church, was simply about forcing membership via leveraging your human drive to copulate and reproduce via outlawing unapproved fucking, right?
Without the state screwing with our relationships, then you get Gay Marriage for free: No restriction on who can have a marriage ceremony. If the existing religions refused to perform the ceremonies of gay couple union (on the grounds that less babies = less future tithers, see also catholic condoms and abortions[1]) then the demand for such ceremony would drive supply, and everyone would be happy.
We already have contract law so that people can decide how their wealth is distributed. In fact, the current marriage system makes provisions for women to keep their properties after divorce, but men are not granted "sole and separate property" by default on the property and wealth they bring to a marriage. We should just ditch marriage laws altogether because it's sexist. If that makes gays hate me, then fuck them hard because that's stupid! Mozilla CEO may not support prop.8 for a different reason, but I assure you that it doesn't take a bigot to love homosexuals enough to save them from the state meddling in their marriages!
[1] - protip: The bible describes God's magic abortion process,
In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action.
Meant: In absence of all freedom there is only restriction of action.
and conversely: In absence of all restriction there is freedom of action.
CC0:
If you want to quote mine and manipulate my CC0 works and misrepresent me as saying something I didn't mean, then go right ahead. The Internet may bite bullshit hard at first, but it is a cybernetic system of self correction, and it is my friend. I am not afraid.
Perhaps instead of signing over the copyright directly the author can post it as (cc0) or (cc by), etc, or if not, retain a license to publish the original text on their blog. Shouldn't state funded research be public domain by federal law? Not that it all is but I paid for lots of research via taxes, including many that don't come to fruition, yet I can't access a lot of research papers without paying again? That's asinine, In fact, I don't accept that -- such backwards concepts are not allowed to exist in my reality.
This shouldn't even be a problem in the Age of Information. Research should be posted free for all to see, the work to complete it has already been paid for. Peer review and/or verification of the work should be included in the grant / subsidy contingent upon success or crowd-funded. It is a conflict of interest to fund the vetting of science in any journal that benefits by its publication. Instead, I ask: Where the hell is my Scientific Hitchhiker's Guide? -- It is ridiculous that this world doesn't have an open wiki of research simply because journals leverage the economically untenable sale of artificially scarce information.
If such a Digital Alexandrian Library did exist, then we'd be able to look up the first version posted without said corrections ala wayback machine or a research repo SCM, so waiving your "moral rights" wouldn't matter. Corrections and validation would require citations from other research, it would be easier to reference a paper, and if it were like the Hitchhiker's Guide: Earth Edition, then one could filter by verified research approved by editors, or go with the unfiltered firehose of information. You could then point people to the part where their defaming statements about you were created, by whom, and contest the information in a neutral way.
If you're worried about folks saying bad things about you then GTFO THE INTERNET FAST, MORON! (oops, too late) There is no objective test for offending remarks! I could say, "$PERSON loves kitties!" and you could sue me for defamation claiming I made offensive remarks about you participating in bestiality. It's these laws that are the problem.
There are no such things as rights. There is only freedom, or restriction. In absence of all freedom there is no restriction of action. We make laws to help prevent your actions from limiting the freedoms of others. The problem is that laws can be made that limit freedom for no good reason. We should always seek to reduce the number of laws restricting us to achieve maximum freedom and peace. Speech isn't violence, and thus should never be restricted, not even when Nature has to show how much of an idiot you were when printing a correction. You can not prove that something someone presented is offensive or derogatory because that is a matter of the observer's opinion. Things can only be true or false objectively, not subjectively. Get over it. If your lawmakers had any sense, it wouldn't be an issue in the first place, you litigious prick.
ROI on Comp Sci
Hahah! Good one. Almost got me. Everyone knows the best ROI is via nepotistic foriegn degree mill and a H1B visa. April fools!
Shhhh! Tiedye hypercolor shirts are MY thing. No one remembers them so everyone thinks I'm magic.
Well gee, I don't know, my big motorized dish is pretty useless since all the birds are ciphered and there's just no way on Earth to even crack the codes.
So, I just modded mine to TX instead of just RX and beamed out some Welcome to Earth messages to the alien planets we've discovered.
Yep. That's all it's for. Total coincidence if Gliese 581 just happened to be around the same declination and right ascension as ECHOSTAR 7 was when I last listened for a reply.
The Internet has got a lot more content on demand, or even off demand, I hear. Maybe I'll get tired of maintaining it and cover it in bits of mirror to assume Form Of: Solar Death Ray -- if the squirrels or flying drones keep acting up... I just hate ants.
What else can you do with 'em?
You ignore that although we do not let just a single person define what is beneficial, we have built our current civilization via the means to discover benefit and disregard harm. It is not the people who decide what's valued, but Humanity as a whole: Nature itself provides the environment which contains the facts of all actions. We need only look through the unbiased lens of reality that our method of science affords. We can come to know what is beneficial or not without guessing, but there are those who oppose the investigation itself.
Show me evidence that HFT provides overall benefit to society; Otherwise, your subjective conclusions as to value are meaningless. The needs of the many outweigh the greeds of the few.
You have a right to hold your own opinion, but not to be correct simply for holding it. Nature does not to care of opinion. The stock market is a means to assist with investment in businesses. The stock prices should be affected by the business's worth. If we allow the subjective valuation of businesses then we have created a market decoupled from what a business is worth to society and instead trading in only opinion.
In the opinion market the prevailing opinion is valued regardless of reality. When rumors of Microsoft's purchase of Yahoo surfaced, Yahoo did not begin working extra hard over night to supply worth to our economy, and yet Yahoo's stock price soared. When the rumors and negotiations fell through, Yahoo's price sank, yet they did not change their business or benefit to society; Their worth to reality apart from the stock market was unchanged. The opinions of Yahoo drastically affected its business and shareholders cried out their opinions loudly. Microsoft and Yahoo entered talks again, and a partnership was formed. This is disgusting. Propaganda used for extortion and a system built first accidentally, but now expressly to facilitate it.
Those who hold majority opinion control the opinion market of stocks. Thus a poor opinion can devalue or destroy a business regardless of its actual worth to society as a whole. This is ridiculousness and demonstrably dangerous to the utmost degree! Science has shown that humans are severely biased, and need assistance in decision making! If propaganda is encouraged to control the stock prices then the investors can not invest in what is worthy to society as a whole unless the propaganda agrees -- And it most frequently does not. This means the contract between the society as a whole who's worth is at jeopardy and the market wherein that worth is sold has been broken.
Though the stock market originally meant grant investment opportunity to all, the economic future of society as a whole is now decided by prevalence of opinion, and is not reflective of the reality external to the stock market. As TFS illustrates: Making large trades shouldn't move the market: High frequency trading is only an acceleration of the same game. It further decouples stock price from the value one can extract from a trade itself by exploiting the fact that some systems have more access to information and needs less time to trade. It is essentially a tax on trading which sets a ridiculously high barrier for the degree of awareness one must have to compete. It is folly for man to compete with machine: Since the first stone tool was shaped, man and machine prospered as we helped each other and suffered as we were pitted against each other.
Cybernetics was invented before the explosion of computing to analyze business. Using information theory I have analyzed HFT cybernetically. High frequency trading is a means to capitalize on the fact that information takes time to propagate. HFT makes money by using its greater information and faster ability to trade against those who can not become aware of as much information as quickly. It is profiting via information disparity, and thus cybernetically it is no different than lying. An inves
You forgot the Spacing Guild.
Where was the referendum in Serbia, or Libya or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Panama, or...
Did US annex any of these countries?
Yes. The USA is owned and run by international corporations. Thus wars are fought at the behest of these commercial interests. When the USA destroys some place like Iraq or Afghanistan the US companies make out like bandits not only in the military industrial complex but also the mandatory US companies doing the unsatisfactory "rebuilding" effort to fix the unnecessary "shock and awe" damage. The economy itself is replaced.
The borders of the country and its name can even stay the same. International corporations don't care much about borders. It's the economy that matters, and what they fight for is more privatization and deregulation. Thus these countries are indeed annexed by the rulers of the USA.
Really? How many times are you going to spend years of your life creating something awesome ... only to have someone else like Facebook or Zynga copy it, market it, and put you out of business?
Why not go ask Linus Torvalds what he thinks of them doing that? You see, I'm not a dumbass. I don't work for free. Artificial scarcity is stupid. I don't buy into the copyright and patent futures market. So, I ask for the money to do my work or research or create things UP FRONT, and I ask for enough to cover the work and the profit I need for it, then I "give it away for free" since the work has been paid for. If I want more money I DO MORE WORK. This is how the free and open source model works. This is how Mechanics work too. The benefits from the mechanic's labor are unbounded. Instead of putting a coin-slot on the steering wheel so they can benefit in perpetuity from the work they do once, they recognize folks will bypass the artificial restrictions and instead negotiate a price up front and you pay for the entity of the unbounded benefit their work provides. This is a proven model. This is how the Burger Joint works. This is how every labor market works, except "ideas" and "information".
The problem is that with a patent system in place the Artificial Scarcity can be leveraged to cheat the researcher. Instead of paying a fair price for the inventor or creator's labor the corporations cherry-pick among what becomes a success. It takes the same effort to discover a success as it does to rule a solution out. Many discoveries are found in unrelated research. X-Ray radiation was discovered by accident. Without patents to create artificial scarcity of otherwise unbounded and infinitely reproducible ideas and information we'd have a more stable market where people charge what the need for their labors instead of accept less pay up front and gamble their effort in the imaginary property futures market.
What, you think demand is going to disappear if patents do? No, the demand for innovation will still exist, and it will be met. Look at the fashion and automotive industries. They are not allowed copyrights or design patents, and yet they are very lucrative and innovative and sell primarily on design. It wasn't until the 80's that software could even be patented. Oh NO! Your assumptions are shattered! Now what? You could just ignore that we made it all the way past the dawn of the personal computer before greedy dipshits like you decided artificial scarcity is somehow required for anything but stifling progress?
OK, I'll give you that I don't know exactly what will happen if we ban all patents. However, I just gave you two or three examples of markets where patents were not required for innovation. So, if you're a rational minded person, then you've got to ask yourself: Where is the evidence that patents are promoting the sciences and useful arts? Where's the evidence that patents are not harmful? Where's the evidence that patents are beneficial?! THERE IS NONE. So if you're not insane then you'd think: Hey, wouldn't it be fucked-up to run the world's economy of innovation and creativity based on an untested and unproven hypothesis?! I'm going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume you want to end "piracy", right? OK.
Assuming you're not an absolute moron, you now agree we should do the experiment and abolish all patents and find out if patents are beneficial. What if they're holding us back needlessly? What if they're very harmful? I'm pretty sure you'd at least like to try and find SOMETHING to support your stance before continuing to believe in baseless assumptions without any evidence? RIGHT?! You don't and won't have a leg to stand on otherwise. I mean we only have evidence for the null hypothesis: Patents are not necessary for innovation or profit. Now the burden of proof is to PROVE patents are MORE beneficial than not having them. I would put it to you that copyright should
Shaka, when the walls fell! Gorbachev and Regan, at Geneva. Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra!
Google, when the being wasn't evil. Zuckerberg, his fucks dumb. Eric Schmidt, with nothing to hide. Dathon and Picard at El Adrel.
Custer, his last stand. Murphey, his law unbroken. Snowden, his PRISM wide open.
Remote wiping is already possible. What they want is centralized control over the functionality for governing purposes. We're not idiots. Well... not all of us.
Oh, the theft rate is still high! The kill switch does nothing! No worries citizen, now that the capability is in place, instead of a black list we will institute a white list, whereby you must authenticate the phone periodically with approved government services in order for it to function. What's that you say? Carriers already have to authenticate devices? Ah, but that doesn't render the CPU inoperable, eh? You know, just like Intel demonstrated. Oh, we should get PCs on board with this "anti-theft" as they call it. Oh, and cars too! We just got mandatory black boxes in there.
Why this could save us so much money! It's not like the pentagon is actively trying to figure out how to do any such nefarious thing. It's not like selectively killing Internet access wouldn't be a great tool keep others happy while they silence dissent. You know, like they always fucking do?
Even if we were complete idiots, we'd still know that recent history exists: The last year at the least.
Yeah, that's known to alter behavior. However, neurologists can see inside brains now. So, we can see the fucking problems, we don't have to guess. Now, we can name this type of problem something, and if there's some other chemical or microorganism, etc. THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE. It's not a "spectrum" of shit if the underlying causes are fundamentally different.
So, if we start out noticing a behavior, and then go looking for a lot similar behaviors and then call them all a common diagnoses, like Autism "Spectrum Disorder", you know what we call that? Fucking stupid self selection bias AKA pseudoscience. Which is why the NIMH is distancing itself from the DSM5 where shit like Autism Spectrum Disorder is defined, claiming, "Patients deserve better". Know why? Because without an actual common cause a diagnoses is bullshit. Oh look, I stepped on a crack and my mother's back broke! Really? I saw her walk under a ladder. Oh, those are all indicators of Mother's Back Spectrum Disorder!
Give me a fucking break. There's more diagnoses than ever because the treatments are all about to get blown out of the water by Neuroscience gearing up to call psychiatrists on their confirmation bias bullshit, and they won't be able to make money on these type of "spectrum" diseases afterwards.
Not necessarily. We already have a similar law in place. It's illegal to videotape you, make pictures of you or record you in any other way unless you give prior consent, unless you are a "person of public interest", i.e. a celebrity, a politician or similar.
Man, I bet the lobbyists for your security camera businesses are outraged. Oh, wait, that's right...
Pioneers? I've already got VR. Had it since Quake and Descent came out in the 90's. Who wants to strap a toaster to their face when they can have VR glasses that look like glasses and work on the go from their smartphones?
If it was such a big deal, the existing VR companies would already be improving on latency and price by leaps and bounds on their own over the two decades we've had consumer VR gear. It's just not that big a deal, you're still just feeding images to a brain, I don't understand the hype; See also: Kinect hype.
It's AR (augmented reality) that I find so much more beneficial and useful. I have been using AR in industrial noise abatement. We set up our sound monitors, then triangulate audio sources, and then we can overlay them on world as 3D volumetric data using AR. From my android tablet I can even use a high/low pass filter to isolate a particular noise signature and locate its visual source via timestamp and pattern recognition to see exactly where it's coming from, and how frequently it occurred in the sample timeline. This way we can safely diagnose problem noise sources while the dangerous machinery is not in use.
Sorry, I couldn't wait a decade for game consoles to finally get over VirtualBoy. I had work to do with VR / AR. Hell, I only use my monitors about half the time anymore since VR + 3D UI = 360 degree desktop - Turn my head and I've got screens as far as the eye can see, and more. You can hack together a poor man's version with Compize's Desktop Zoom by setting the head tracking to move the mouse cursor, but really you want the panning to follow head tracking while mouse controls the pointer.
The biggest problem for VR is 3D UI, I've done some experimental research, but it's not there yet. With AR and the Kinect I've played around with using the poor-man's head = mouse cursor for zoom / panning and depth cameras for emulating touch events. It's too sloppy for precision work with gen1 Kinect, but I can make touch emulation work pretty well with OpenCV and a decent webcam (a bit better than what you find embedded in a laptop nowadays). However, many people get motion sick from the glasses, and latency's not an issue, it happens even when passively watching 3D movie theaters, glasses can't change your inner ear's sense of movement and balance, yet.
For common use 3D UI I'm really liking head tracking without the VR display, and using a standard monitor instead. When combined with eye tracking. I can emulate a very immersive 3D viewport that really feels like a window. You can tilt to view "deeper" or "around" other objects, lean to see the next workspace, and double-blink-to click, largely eliminating mouse use replacing it with fast and rich eye+keyboard navigation. Look to move pointer, ctrl+blink to set "intermediary focus mode", sort of a visual analog to focus change via tabbing like hover to focus, but with another key or blink to actually focus instead of dwell-clicking. Double-blink does a best guess as to what button is nearest the cursor. For Firefox I had to write a simple plugin for the UI system.
Anyhow, business doesn't care about this shit. Most folks don't even want to learn a better keylayout that the purposefully fucked QWERTY, let alone a new way to mouse with their eyes and head. They can already telepresence with their smart phones, laptops and desktops, 3D isn't a huge improvement for most folks it's a gimmick (like adding video to a phone voice chat is -- protip: people would rather text that talk unless they're really horny).
If the Oculus Devs are "pioneers", then every day users of VR, AR and 3D interface hobbyists like me must be like ancient aliens who visited VR planet when it was primordial ooze. Shit, I was playing Dactyl Nightmare and Exorex in VR at the arcade the year before Carmack's Doom even came out.
/me claps using a single hand.
In terms of dollars? Sure.
In terms of talent? Nope.