No no, the government wants YOU complacent - then they can pretty much do whatever THEY want and you won't whine and complain or worst of all get in their way...
That makes sense if you don't take into account that these puppies will be going around in a circle - without the initial velocity. First law of motion works for orbits - the objects are effectively moving in a straight line but the curviture of space around the planet/body/star is making their straight line circular. From what I can understand of this article (I haven't read the arxiv version, nor will it likely make sense to me anyhow) the interesting thing is that the scientists aren't starting them in a spin - they expect that they will start spinning on their own.
It's the digital equivalent of seizing an empty PO box.
What's amusing is that it takes them months of meetings, requests, follow-ups, investigation, more meetings, some additional requests and some more meetings - all costing thousands and thousands and some more thousands.
TPB on the other hand fills in a few little details in a webform for the most part.
Dear Government, You're fucked, now fuck off. Sincerely, The Internet.
I would change that ever so slightly. Dead Big Business, the government is fucked here, stop bothering them already will you? At the end of the day, the governments want happy, content people who have all the access to entertainment they want - after all it makes them more complacent.
'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept."...
Can this guy be serious? The FBI doesn't have the ability to go to court and ask for a court order allowing them to listen in on conversations? Wow. Just utterly wow.
Would have been better if the Red Team was the entire world.
They could announce the IP block they would be using to the world and anyone could throw anything they wanted at it with no fear of prosecution. The Blue Team would then actually have a real challenge on their hands.
And how on earth are the good (Blue Team) guys going to win in this sort of scenario?
The point of this whole setup is as much to say "Our defences are good. We have nothing to worry about" as it is to test for some abvious intrusion method or problem. If they run this in a test, then get hammered in a months time then they can say (with legitimacy hehe) "The ememy used a SOPHISTICATED! attack method..." which we were totally unprepared for.
Holy shit, the US has universal medical care and welfare and stuff? Fuck me running, I think I must have had a blackout again. On the upside this is the best news for the US since... like slavery was abolished! No more insane medical bills, everyone gets the choice of adequate public heathcare and paying more for a fancy room and a three course meal. This is truly a day to rejoice and be merry! Oh, and you now have welfare available to all your citizens? Holy fuckerooney! That is truly amazing and exceptionally joyous news!
The dick in me says to vote +1 if you would like this to be the case, and -1 if you think that the US health system is perfectly fine and you don't need no commie state funded healthcare or welfare system.
Seriously, this belongs in the "clueless idiots want to control something they have no right to control..." basket.
Sometimes I think that the world has a chance of evolving in the right direction when insightful or intelligent laws are passed, but for each of those moments, I seem to have at least a dozen facepalm or forehead-table moments.
If a cafe owner finds that many of his/her customers are turning away to other cafes because there are too many folks holding coffee in one hand and their other hand is under the table - shouldn't it be up to them to install some sort of blocklist/filtering software? Why the fuck does it have to be a government mandated, nay regulated, nay again, state policed offence to NOT have this set up?
I am all for libertarianism, but with a touch of ethics and morals thrown in - I want people to be able to do whatever they want, and sincerly hopethat they will do the right thing - but if they choose to have effectively a red-light-district cafe, then they should be able to - hopefully ina red light district part of town. There MUST be some point where common sense kicks in with capitalism surely. You have a cafe, in the center of three primary schools, politely ask folks watching porn to move on as they are disrupting your normal business of soccer moms. Oh, you don't want a dingey establishment in the first place, okay, ask anyone watching risque content to move on if anyone notices. And if no-one does, who the fuck is it harming?
I really want to beat some common sense into idiot meddling politicians trying to force their public policies down the throats of others with a really big hard, solid, heavy stick - with nails in the end of it. There is a difference between making laws that prohibit unsafe buildings, or fire hazzards or man-eating-star-wars-type-desert-creatures and trying to ban anything that the politician doesn't want to admit to or show that he/her is doing in public from being an offence.
There are ways around it. Fire them an email once asking a really simple question that can be answered in three words. If you get the to reply, BAM they helped you with your app - even if you already had that bit done. There are many ways around such fraud mate - just be choosey with your words. "You collaborated with them..." for example, rather than "He wrote the entire app..." Court-case avoided - and the same outcome.
For every summarisation site that is sold for even a relatively decent amount, there are probably thousands that never made it past the initial bandwidth hit that the server fell over with.
Also, the article itself is really full of things that aren't likely to happen. Read it for a giggle or a smirk, but beyond that, it's not a formally laid out plan to make buckets of cash - and forbes smashes loads of advertising on the site (once you even get to the article that is) that is annoying.
If you ask me, Forbes is the only real one making the real kerduckets here with a wishy-washy story that displays more ads than I have fingers and toes...
... says the seriousness of the crime is not about the magnitude of damage done, but the breach of security.
Which is a nice way of saying "Well, they didn't really do anything that bad, but they made a lot of people look foolish, so they must be punished harshly...". I think these days we must remember that pulling down someone's trousers in public will make an enemy of that person - and their friends.
Why don't lights in the US have these covers anyway? We don't have much snow at all around here in Australia, but we still put the hoods on to stop glare from the sun making it difficult to see what the light signal is (as shown in the big image here.
I totally agree with you on all but one point. The end users see *some* value in giving away all their privacy. They might not understand what the consequences are, but they are agreeing to give it away.
I don't use facbook or other social media as such, I find it a pointless waste of time, I don't care who just did a really great big poo, or who went out to where, or what sad fuck is sad right now - but a lot of my friends do - and they seem to be happy to have access to all that stuff in exchange for those providers having all their personal information.
One day, all those fucks will come to me and ask me to make it all better, to clean up the mess they have made, and I will say... No. (Bonus points for getting the reference) - that's really my approach to them. Let them have their fun now, they will pay for it later.
Your comment is actually supporting my position. You and I might not think that targetted advertising is worth trading for all your privacy, but apparently these folks do - so it sort of means that the GP is looking at it wrong. There is a perceived benefit which is being traded for privacy.
I personally hate coupons, advertising and prefer to keep my privacy, but apparently I am in the minority.
I don't think there is anything in it for you... and there is nothing in it for you... are not the same thing.
You are looking at it completely wrong. There is something in it for them, something that they very clearly value. They can post stuff on walls, get followers and all the other shit that comes with these social media accounts. Personally, I find it utterly ingenious that companies like these have made something completely intagible into a very prized commodity.
And going on your statement, the users have weighed up the pro's and con's and decided that being turned into a product is worth the price of some privacy. Sure, most of them don't know how much they have actually given up, but that's their problem.
As an upside on a global scale though, I don't think that this time round the rest of the world will have as much of the rubbish bonds/stocks, so at least (hopefully) the next time the bubble bursts, it won't wipe out economies throughout Europe. Bad news for the US I think though.
Oh great, so it's M.A.D. then is it? We fool them into imploding, but they take out the entire economy as they go down. Brilliant, now we can't live with them and can't live without them. It's like the Cylon treaty.
I agree with this as well, but then that opens up another can of worms. You have these massive banks and generally "safe" investments for mom and pop share portfolios. They suddenly go belly up due to some badly placed trade. You have the option, let them fall flat on their face (and many nerds here would say that's the best thing to do) but the flipside is that if they do fall over completely, you aren't just punishing those bad traders, but you are punishing all the mom and pop investors. At that point, what is the lesser of two evils? Do you let the company fold as a "Well, you were the idiot..." and in turn pass that message on to all the investors - or do you try to tighten up regulations, save the company and tell them not to do it again?
If it was as simple as a bunch of hot-head-traders being kicked out on the street, no brainer in my books, but it really isn't as simple as that. That's the whole point of "too big to fail". It means that if *this* company failed, then the knock on effect not only to direct investors, but also to the greater marketplace and economy in general might well be too great and it is better to throw money (ableit that no-one seems to have, lets print some) and make everything okay for the next few months and hopefully things will pick up.
I personally think that the bailouts were a terrible lesson to the traders and the entire country (if not world) is paying for it now, but at the same time, I don't even want to imagine what would have occured had the bailouts not been given.
Because that would mean that they have to provide the same level of service as the OP got to any hooplehead that cannot find a search result, doesn't like what they find in a search result or is plain pebkac.
Slashdot Mirror
No no, the government wants YOU complacent - then they can pretty much do whatever THEY want and you won't whine and complain or worst of all get in their way...
That makes sense if you don't take into account that these puppies will be going around in a circle - without the initial velocity. First law of motion works for orbits - the objects are effectively moving in a straight line but the curviture of space around the planet/body/star is making their straight line circular. From what I can understand of this article (I haven't read the arxiv version, nor will it likely make sense to me anyhow) the interesting thing is that the scientists aren't starting them in a spin - they expect that they will start spinning on their own.
It's the digital equivalent of seizing an empty PO box.
What's amusing is that it takes them months of meetings, requests, follow-ups, investigation, more meetings, some additional requests and some more meetings - all costing thousands and thousands and some more thousands.
TPB on the other hand fills in a few little details in a webform for the most part.
Dear Government, You're fucked, now fuck off. Sincerely, The Internet.
I would change that ever so slightly. Dead Big Business, the government is fucked here, stop bothering them already will you? At the end of the day, the governments want happy, content people who have all the access to entertainment they want - after all it makes them more complacent.
Yeah, who do they think they are... A goverment or some company? Why the nerve! Filthy pirates!
-Give me a gun and I can rob a bank, give me a bank and I can rob the world.
Give you a position of power and you can rob anything and anyone you want for the most part...
Oh come on guys, mod this up, that's the funniest thing posted on /. today!
How cow, if that doesn't show the lawmakers which votes they won't be getting... I don't know what will.
US Take note, this has shown that even though Big Business is behind something, voters can say "No".
'We don't have the ability to go to court and say, "We need a court order to effectuate the intercept."...
Can this guy be serious? The FBI doesn't have the ability to go to court and ask for a court order allowing them to listen in on conversations? Wow. Just utterly wow.
Would have been better if the Red Team was the entire world.
They could announce the IP block they would be using to the world and anyone could throw anything they wanted at it with no fear of prosecution.
The Blue Team would then actually have a real challenge on their hands.
And how on earth are the good (Blue Team) guys going to win in this sort of scenario?
The point of this whole setup is as much to say "Our defences are good. We have nothing to worry about" as it is to test for some abvious intrusion method or problem. If they run this in a test, then get hammered in a months time then they can say (with legitimacy hehe) "The ememy used a SOPHISTICATED! attack method..." which we were totally unprepared for.
Holy shit, the US has universal medical care and welfare and stuff? Fuck me running, I think I must have had a blackout again. On the upside this is the best news for the US since... like slavery was abolished! No more insane medical bills, everyone gets the choice of adequate public heathcare and paying more for a fancy room and a three course meal. This is truly a day to rejoice and be merry! Oh, and you now have welfare available to all your citizens? Holy fuckerooney! That is truly amazing and exceptionally joyous news!
The dick in me says to vote +1 if you would like this to be the case, and -1 if you think that the US health system is perfectly fine and you don't need no commie state funded healthcare or welfare system.
Seriously, this belongs in the "clueless idiots want to control something they have no right to control..." basket.
Sometimes I think that the world has a chance of evolving in the right direction when insightful or intelligent laws are passed, but for each of those moments, I seem to have at least a dozen facepalm or forehead-table moments.
If a cafe owner finds that many of his/her customers are turning away to other cafes because there are too many folks holding coffee in one hand and their other hand is under the table - shouldn't it be up to them to install some sort of blocklist/filtering software? Why the fuck does it have to be a government mandated, nay regulated, nay again, state policed offence to NOT have this set up?
I am all for libertarianism, but with a touch of ethics and morals thrown in - I want people to be able to do whatever they want, and sincerly hopethat they will do the right thing - but if they choose to have effectively a red-light-district cafe, then they should be able to - hopefully ina red light district part of town. There MUST be some point where common sense kicks in with capitalism surely. You have a cafe, in the center of three primary schools, politely ask folks watching porn to move on as they are disrupting your normal business of soccer moms. Oh, you don't want a dingey establishment in the first place, okay, ask anyone watching risque content to move on if anyone notices. And if no-one does, who the fuck is it harming?
I really want to beat some common sense into idiot meddling politicians trying to force their public policies down the throats of others with a really big hard, solid, heavy stick - with nails in the end of it. There is a difference between making laws that prohibit unsafe buildings, or fire hazzards or man-eating-star-wars-type-desert-creatures and trying to ban anything that the politician doesn't want to admit to or show that he/her is doing in public from being an offence.
There are ways around it. Fire them an email once asking a really simple question that can be answered in three words. If you get the to reply, BAM they helped you with your app - even if you already had that bit done. There are many ways around such fraud mate - just be choosey with your words. "You collaborated with them..." for example, rather than "He wrote the entire app..." Court-case avoided - and the same outcome.
For every summarisation site that is sold for even a relatively decent amount, there are probably thousands that never made it past the initial bandwidth hit that the server fell over with.
Also, the article itself is really full of things that aren't likely to happen. Read it for a giggle or a smirk, but beyond that, it's not a formally laid out plan to make buckets of cash - and forbes smashes loads of advertising on the site (once you even get to the article that is) that is annoying.
If you ask me, Forbes is the only real one making the real kerduckets here with a wishy-washy story that displays more ads than I have fingers and toes...
Finding bugs in 10 year old spaghetti code will do anybody's head in.
As will finding bugs ten years ago and finding them still not fixed... That's closer to how I feel with these sort of things....
... says the seriousness of the crime is not about the magnitude of damage done, but the breach of security.
Which is a nice way of saying "Well, they didn't really do anything that bad, but they made a lot of people look foolish, so they must be punished harshly...". I think these days we must remember that pulling down someone's trousers in public will make an enemy of that person - and their friends.
Well, clearly Australia isn't safe to do it in! They would get nabbed here.... unless they did it anonymously... no wait... too soon?
Hmmmm, okay. The way that I was reading it, they have only started putting hoods on the lights now.
Why don't lights in the US have these covers anyway? We don't have much snow at all around here in Australia, but we still put the hoods on to stop glare from the sun making it difficult to see what the light signal is (as shown in the big image here.
I totally agree with you on all but one point. The end users see *some* value in giving away all their privacy. They might not understand what the consequences are, but they are agreeing to give it away.
I don't use facbook or other social media as such, I find it a pointless waste of time, I don't care who just did a really great big poo, or who went out to where, or what sad fuck is sad right now - but a lot of my friends do - and they seem to be happy to have access to all that stuff in exchange for those providers having all their personal information.
One day, all those fucks will come to me and ask me to make it all better, to clean up the mess they have made, and I will say... No. (Bonus points for getting the reference) - that's really my approach to them. Let them have their fun now, they will pay for it later.
Your comment is actually supporting my position. You and I might not think that targetted advertising is worth trading for all your privacy, but apparently these folks do - so it sort of means that the GP is looking at it wrong. There is a perceived benefit which is being traded for privacy.
I personally hate coupons, advertising and prefer to keep my privacy, but apparently I am in the minority.
I don't think there is anything in it for you... and there is nothing in it for you... are not the same thing.
One man's trash is another's treasure.
You are looking at it completely wrong. There is something in it for them, something that they very clearly value. They can post stuff on walls, get followers and all the other shit that comes with these social media accounts. Personally, I find it utterly ingenious that companies like these have made something completely intagible into a very prized commodity.
And going on your statement, the users have weighed up the pro's and con's and decided that being turned into a product is worth the price of some privacy. Sure, most of them don't know how much they have actually given up, but that's their problem.
Oh my god, don't start putting logic into your fiscal planning and equations! That's not how the world works. Witch! Burn the Witch!!!
Interesting read actually. Very interesting.
As an upside on a global scale though, I don't think that this time round the rest of the world will have as much of the rubbish bonds/stocks, so at least (hopefully) the next time the bubble bursts, it won't wipe out economies throughout Europe. Bad news for the US I think though.
Oh great, so it's M.A.D. then is it? We fool them into imploding, but they take out the entire economy as they go down. Brilliant, now we can't live with them and can't live without them. It's like the Cylon treaty.
I agree with this as well, but then that opens up another can of worms. You have these massive banks and generally "safe" investments for mom and pop share portfolios. They suddenly go belly up due to some badly placed trade. You have the option, let them fall flat on their face (and many nerds here would say that's the best thing to do) but the flipside is that if they do fall over completely, you aren't just punishing those bad traders, but you are punishing all the mom and pop investors. At that point, what is the lesser of two evils? Do you let the company fold as a "Well, you were the idiot..." and in turn pass that message on to all the investors - or do you try to tighten up regulations, save the company and tell them not to do it again?
If it was as simple as a bunch of hot-head-traders being kicked out on the street, no brainer in my books, but it really isn't as simple as that. That's the whole point of "too big to fail". It means that if *this* company failed, then the knock on effect not only to direct investors, but also to the greater marketplace and economy in general might well be too great and it is better to throw money (ableit that no-one seems to have, lets print some) and make everything okay for the next few months and hopefully things will pick up.
I personally think that the bailouts were a terrible lesson to the traders and the entire country (if not world) is paying for it now, but at the same time, I don't even want to imagine what would have occured had the bailouts not been given.
Why don't they commit to it then?
Because that would mean that they have to provide the same level of service as the OP got to any hooplehead that cannot find a search result, doesn't like what they find in a search result or is plain pebkac.