Everyone knows that the CIA hackers are 31337 and hack people ALL the time! They even hack into computers that aren't even connected to the 'net! I once saw this hacker and he hacked a system so much that it EXPLODED and it KILLED like a million people! And that was just with his pinky. And I knew right then he had to be a CIA hacker d00d. And I asked him. And he hacked my laptop which was OFF and closed AND HAD no battery! And he did it just by looking at it and he scowled and he turned around and then he hacked a park bench and then digitally vanished. And when I opened my laptop it said "I'm a CIA hacker d00d and am 31337. Tell n0 0n3." Oh crap...,mnb,b4, #$$# NO CARRIER>>>
Just wait. Once the link between copyright violation and terrorism is firmly established, then they can make the already very strong link between copyright piracy and p2p become: p2p = copyright piracy = terrorist.
And not long after that, it could suddenly be found that anyone who builds a p2p network is, in effect, support copyright infringement which, as we all know, is just a front for terrorism.
Hush! We all know that if you make something already illegal *more* illegal the terrorists won't do it. Everyone knows that terrorists are just annoying people who won't follow laws unless the law specifically states that a terrorist can't do it. So all we need to do is make sure every law also outlaws terrorists and we'll be home free!
" some associates of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah may be involved in copyright violations"
*gasp*
I'd bet very good money that some associates of major Christian religions may be involved in copyright violations, too, but that alone proves NOTHING about the evilness or wrongness of it.
Propaganda seems to work best when you leave the illogical conclusions unstated. That way the consumers of the propaganda wonder what the point was, and, assuming there is a point, try to fill in the blanks on their own which leads to deeper emotional investment. Thus simply stating that there may be a link between copyright violation and terrorists (which are clearly evil) leads to some people making the seemingly logical leap to the conclusion that either all copyright violations are terrorist motivated or that anyone who violates copyright must therefore be a terrorist. Since the person made this connection themselves, they are now likely to defend their position very emotionally in the future when the sad reality is that the whole message was worded specifically so that would happen and they didn't even notice.
Slang is part of it, but not the whole story. I think it is mostly the pacing and tones that really throw us at times. America is pretty big and most people don't do a lot of traveling. I'd say a huge percentage of my midwestern family has never traveled far enough to be fully immersed in a place with a significantly different accent.
It is even more tricky for most midwesterners (I'm talking Iowa and maybe Nebraska here) because the networks and actors all seem to strive for a midwestern accent. There's virtually no difference to the practiced accents we hear everyday on CNN vs. the way we talk around here in "real life." So exposure can be very limited.
When it comes down to it, is is pretty much just a function of having no practice. Having lived in London for a semester, I don't have that problem very much and frequently find myself translating for my friends whenever there's a British character in a movie or TV show. Sometimes I have problems with the slang, but I can make out what they say just as easily as I can for an American accent (unless we're talking deep bayou...). So it doesn't take long to get accustomed to it, but most people simple aren't ever in a situation where they need to.
A delete function would probably not work, I agree. It'd be nice if there could be a block function, though. Almost like you could subscribe to a decency filter and thus reasonably ensure that your node would never accept blocks that contain content that you oppose. Of course the real problem with something like that is even identifying what you want to block. If the system is really anonymous/secure in that sense, you don't really even know what is out there on the network so blocking what you don't want to see depends upon someone (or yourself) seeing/identifying that content you dislike so you can block it. It seems like a nasty catch-22 that might be insurmountable.
If content was blocked from being routed and/or stored on the network on an individual basis, that'd result in a kind of community vote without actually needing a direct voting mechanism. It'd be an emergent property because the content wouldn't be able to propagate if enough people were individually blocking it and thus it would eventually go away. But of course you can't catch it all. And then there's the issue of corporations or countries using that very feature to essentially stop the spread of content a network like Freenet is supposed to be designed to facilitate. Ugh.
There have been several comments so far mentioning how Freenet aids the spread of child porn and other evil things (IMO) and how the user of a Freenet node has no say in what kind of content is spread using their net connection and computer.
My question is, ignoring Freenet's ideological notion that all speech (even nasty/evil stuff) is worth protecting, can anyone think of a possible solution to this situation? In other words, do you think it is even possible that Freenet or something that works like Freenet could be modified to alleviate these concerns?
Can something like this be built in, say, a garage? Tech like this always sounds so intimidating but at the same time it seems like very simple principals. Anyone more familiar with this have any insight on how hard it actually is to experiment with stuff like this as a hobbyist?
Well there's a good reason not to make them bigger... it is a much more interesting challenge to work within an artificially imposed constraint than it is to just go ahead and remove that constraint.:-)
Umm.. I think you actually do mean disrespect. You clearly have some kind of concocted image of what a soldier should and should not be and that is severely clouding your judgment.
Wouldn't having tons of sensors all over the place somehow contaminate the very environment they are trying to test? I mean.. animals aren't all oblivious to foreign objects in their world and are prone to changing behavior in response to them. I've seen documentaries about herds that move differently thanks to things like the Alaskan pipeline, roads across wild places in Africa, and the like. Lots of little sensors in the rivers, forests, plains, etc. would likely have some kind of impact. Plus, if there's millions of them, they are going to go clean them up someday, right.... right?
Oh come on.. Rush is pure entertainment. Sure, it is entertainment disguised as political talk, but I think even Rush considers his show to be about entertainment first -- the best talk show hosts understand that. The hacks are the ones who think they are changing the world and actually believe what they shovel (see Bill O'Reilly).
I will second this--although it was several years ago. I had purchased a motherboard from them which worked for about a day and then failed. So I called to get it sent back in. No problem. Except they never *NEVER* sent me a replacement or a refund or anything. I was completely left hanging. The worst part is, I had bought the motherboard for someone else--so I had to replace it out of my own pocket. This was back in high school when losing the cost of a motherboard was next to bankruptcy. Bastards. I hope they are burned for this idiotic blatant money-grubbing tactic.
Yeah, learning the basics like memory management is essential, I think, to really "getting" CS. You don't need to know that stuff if you're just going to be a code monkey (although it helps). CS should be about more than just learning how to code.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows that the CIA hackers are 31337 and hack people ALL the time! They even hack into computers that aren't even connected to the 'net! I once saw this hacker and he hacked a system so much that it EXPLODED and it KILLED like a million people! And that was just with his pinky. And I knew right then he had to be a CIA hacker d00d. And I asked him. And he hacked my laptop which was OFF and closed AND HAD no battery! And he did it just by looking at it and he scowled and he turned around and then he hacked a park bench and then digitally vanished. And when I opened my laptop it said "I'm a CIA hacker d00d and am 31337. Tell n0 0n3." Oh crap... ,mnb,b4, #$$# NO CARRIER>>>
- BLACK IS WHITE
Just beware the zebra crossings...Just wait. Once the link between copyright violation and terrorism is firmly established, then they can make the already very strong link between copyright piracy and p2p become: p2p = copyright piracy = terrorist.
And not long after that, it could suddenly be found that anyone who builds a p2p network is, in effect, support copyright infringement which, as we all know, is just a front for terrorism.
Hush! We all know that if you make something already illegal *more* illegal the terrorists won't do it. Everyone knows that terrorists are just annoying people who won't follow laws unless the law specifically states that a terrorist can't do it. So all we need to do is make sure every law also outlaws terrorists and we'll be home free!
" some associates of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah may be involved in copyright violations"
*gasp*
I'd bet very good money that some associates of major Christian religions may be involved in copyright violations, too, but that alone proves NOTHING about the evilness or wrongness of it.
Propaganda seems to work best when you leave the illogical conclusions unstated. That way the consumers of the propaganda wonder what the point was, and, assuming there is a point, try to fill in the blanks on their own which leads to deeper emotional investment. Thus simply stating that there may be a link between copyright violation and terrorists (which are clearly evil) leads to some people making the seemingly logical leap to the conclusion that either all copyright violations are terrorist motivated or that anyone who violates copyright must therefore be a terrorist. Since the person made this connection themselves, they are now likely to defend their position very emotionally in the future when the sad reality is that the whole message was worded specifically so that would happen and they didn't even notice.
*pffft* I'm so sure.
Slang is part of it, but not the whole story. I think it is mostly the pacing and tones that really throw us at times. America is pretty big and most people don't do a lot of traveling. I'd say a huge percentage of my midwestern family has never traveled far enough to be fully immersed in a place with a significantly different accent.
It is even more tricky for most midwesterners (I'm talking Iowa and maybe Nebraska here) because the networks and actors all seem to strive for a midwestern accent. There's virtually no difference to the practiced accents we hear everyday on CNN vs. the way we talk around here in "real life." So exposure can be very limited.
When it comes down to it, is is pretty much just a function of having no practice. Having lived in London for a semester, I don't have that problem very much and frequently find myself translating for my friends whenever there's a British character in a movie or TV show. Sometimes I have problems with the slang, but I can make out what they say just as easily as I can for an American accent (unless we're talking deep bayou...). So it doesn't take long to get accustomed to it, but most people simple aren't ever in a situation where they need to.
Ironic that this quote is attributed to "anonymous." :-)
A delete function would probably not work, I agree. It'd be nice if there could be a block function, though. Almost like you could subscribe to a decency filter and thus reasonably ensure that your node would never accept blocks that contain content that you oppose. Of course the real problem with something like that is even identifying what you want to block. If the system is really anonymous/secure in that sense, you don't really even know what is out there on the network so blocking what you don't want to see depends upon someone (or yourself) seeing/identifying that content you dislike so you can block it. It seems like a nasty catch-22 that might be insurmountable.
If content was blocked from being routed and/or stored on the network on an individual basis, that'd result in a kind of community vote without actually needing a direct voting mechanism. It'd be an emergent property because the content wouldn't be able to propagate if enough people were individually blocking it and thus it would eventually go away. But of course you can't catch it all. And then there's the issue of corporations or countries using that very feature to essentially stop the spread of content a network like Freenet is supposed to be designed to facilitate. Ugh.
"Not that Apple-Fanboys would understand anything of that"
Why not?
There have been several comments so far mentioning how Freenet aids the spread of child porn and other evil things (IMO) and how the user of a Freenet node has no say in what kind of content is spread using their net connection and computer.
My question is, ignoring Freenet's ideological notion that all speech (even nasty/evil stuff) is worth protecting, can anyone think of a possible solution to this situation? In other words, do you think it is even possible that Freenet or something that works like Freenet could be modified to alleviate these concerns?
Can something like this be built in, say, a garage? Tech like this always sounds so intimidating but at the same time it seems like very simple principals. Anyone more familiar with this have any insight on how hard it actually is to experiment with stuff like this as a hobbyist?
In at work, we also disabled hyperthreading on several Linux Java servers with dual Xeons and performance improved pretty dramatically.
Well there's a good reason not to make them bigger... it is a much more interesting challenge to work within an artificially imposed constraint than it is to just go ahead and remove that constraint. :-)
Umm.. I think you actually do mean disrespect. You clearly have some kind of concocted image of what a soldier should and should not be and that is severely clouding your judgment.
Wouldn't having tons of sensors all over the place somehow contaminate the very environment they are trying to test? I mean.. animals aren't all oblivious to foreign objects in their world and are prone to changing behavior in response to them. I've seen documentaries about herds that move differently thanks to things like the Alaskan pipeline, roads across wild places in Africa, and the like. Lots of little sensors in the rivers, forests, plains, etc. would likely have some kind of impact. Plus, if there's millions of them, they are going to go clean them up someday, right.... right?
..the camera projects on YOU!
Does Apple usually delay putting updates into software update or was slashdot just amazingly fast getting this news story published?
Dan Quayle was a funny guy -- for me to poop on!
Oh come on.. Rush is pure entertainment. Sure, it is entertainment disguised as political talk, but I think even Rush considers his show to be about entertainment first -- the best talk show hosts understand that. The hacks are the ones who think they are changing the world and actually believe what they shovel (see Bill O'Reilly).
They are only just now getting around to rewarding Al Gore. Give them another 10 years and they might think of Google...
I will second this--although it was several years ago. I had purchased a motherboard from them which worked for about a day and then failed. So I called to get it sent back in. No problem. Except they never *NEVER* sent me a replacement or a refund or anything. I was completely left hanging. The worst part is, I had bought the motherboard for someone else--so I had to replace it out of my own pocket. This was back in high school when losing the cost of a motherboard was next to bankruptcy. Bastards. I hope they are burned for this idiotic blatant money-grubbing tactic.
If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a car!
(I'm not really sure why your comment caused that line to pop into my head... but I enjoyed it, so thanks.)
How many Library of Congress' is that?
Yeah, learning the basics like memory management is essential, I think, to really "getting" CS. You don't need to know that stuff if you're just going to be a code monkey (although it helps). CS should be about more than just learning how to code.