Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between.
And remember, there's always a worse atrocity out there, so the horrible things I'm doing are totally OK, because "that guy over there" is worse.
Case in point: the old mayor of Toronto is quoted as saying people should relax about the G20 mass arrests because the Federal government was way worse during the FLQ crisis in the 70s.
- Deciding when to start hitting the buzzer. Humans tend to start buzzing before the question is fully revealed if it's a category they feel strong on, and hold off buzzing at all until they know the answer if they feel weaker. This can make a huge difference in the game, as someone who doesn't know as quickly can still win over someone who knows faster but hesitates on the buzzer. (of course it can backfire too)
I'll bet this part *is* in the test - after all, someone's gotta hit the buzzer. If I remember correctly, you get penalized for hitting the buzzer early in Jeopardy, but since you're testing against real people, there'll likely be some way for the system to guess how close it is to an answer before it buzzes in. (Otherwise, you'd either just buzz in as fast as possible every time and hope you can crunch the numbers in time - and probably losing points - or waiting until you know you have the answer and getting beat out by the humans.)
I think Moore is a necessary evil. Evil because he does tend to overstate his case, and (more annoyingly to me) he forgoes the quiet "show the truth" for showboating (i.e. showing how the Canadian medical system works as a comparison to US = useful. Parking off Cuba yelling for medical care = stupid).
But he is necessary, if only as the counterpoint to the O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world - liberals get screwed too often by being the only ones compromising in politics. They need Moore anchoring the far left.
Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't even think of the possibility that the other Wikileaks boardmembers might deny to post bail from WL funds...
Actually, I'd be very disappointed if Wikileaks used their money to pay his bail - those donations are intended to keep the work going. And considering the amount of bouncing they've had to do recently to stay online, I think they'll need the cash...
For a little more background, the Globe is "Toronto's national newspaper", a business rag primarily aimed at our version of Wall Street, hence a specific connotation on Lunch here.
My read of it was that the lunch anecdote was meant to reinforce that she takes the rules seriously (even the minor, easily excusable ones). It's a desirable trait in someone who's job it is to enforce rules. (Contrast with a local story about cops being caught driving in their patrol cars, coffee cup in one hand and cell phone in the other.)
So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead?
You know, people need money to survive.
The sad thing is, it's not that expensive to get the "free" services these days. If you're online, your ISP probably already provides you with email accounts. I spend ~10 a month for external hosting, and that gives me all the email addresses, webspace, and other net-goodies I'll ever need.
Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.
On the upside, it looks like we might see some change come from it - it didn't take long for the police to give up the "mystery cop" who beat up Adam Nobody, for instance.
Sadly, Harper's Conservatives do like stealing the worst pages of the Republican playbook. And until Alberta stops being their bitch-monkeys we won't be rid of them...
Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.
I'm probably getting the exact technical details wrong, but if Facebook can't find a match for you, it creates a "temporary account" for you and tracks you using that number. (So while it might not know your exact details, it can track which sites you've been to.) The punchline is that if you ever create a Facebook account, the system automatically merges your temporary account into your Facebook account (retroactively adding all your previously anonymous details).
It's a pretty interesting system, in a privacy-stomping sort of way.
It's already been covered multiple times above, but here's the tl;dr version: it's freakin' expensive to get stuff in orbit, so nothing goes up unless it absolutely has to.
So criminal behavior is protected free speech? And stopping criminals from committing crimes is the same as censorship?
What crime? WL hasn't be charged with *any* crimes, *anywhere* in the world. (Assange is charged with a crime, but that's for his personal life.)
And nice try moving the goalposts - no matter how much the US wants to think they're the global policemen, their legal authority stops at the border - after that it's cowboy diplomacy.
I don't know, but I'd suggest asking China, since they seem to be the industry leaders in such thing.
And before anyone asks, yes, I'm equating the US takedowns to Chinese censorship. It's a government deciding what it's citizens can or can't see online. The only difference is that China generally has the good manners to only censor to people inside it's borders.
"Well give you your space, but it can be no larger than a broom closet."
It's bigger than that. 9 feet x 15 feet is about the size of a non-master bedroom. If there's only one person working in there, and you're not working on anything too large (in physical volume), it'd probably be OK.
On the one hand we have people championing DDOS attacks on websites via vigilante action which inflict damage to innocent websites on the other hand, many of these same people are protesting a government with properly issued warrant shutting down websites.
The question is, for those that support the former, and not the latter, exactly what kind of society you are really wanting where laws are meaningless and mobs rule? I'm sure you're fine with it until the mob ruling isn't your kind of mob. What then??
You're looking at it from an American point of view. If the US wants to block a website, that's their prerogative. But they blocked it *everywhere* - in the US, in Canada, in China, in Europe - everywhere. (And it just occured to me that they also gained the ability to see - at least for a limited time - *who* was going to those sites, which would explain why they didn't just blackhole the domains).
So look at it in reverse - if China (for instance) had provided a properly issued warrant demanding that a site be redirected to their servers worldwide, would you have a problem with it?
As for the Anonymous tactics, I think they're quite proportional to the tactics of the companies involved. To put it in pretty terms, they've discontinued service while an investigation into the legality of their actions takes place. Should only take, oh, 90 days or so?:)
Removing the main DNS entry is really quite pointless: anyone who really wants to get to the site can just enter the IP into the browser. DNS is simply "syntactic sugar" to make websites easier to remember.
I'm wondering if we'll just revert back to plain ol' IP addresses. We remember phone numbers, after all.
since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
Sure, if the ships are in arrow range, and they haven't wet everything down first.
My understanding was that the mirrors weren't effective at a significantly greater range than archers. And wetting down the ship won't protect you from puncture wounds, even if you're protected from the fire.
I was wondering if that's why they were going for it a third time - they haven't managed to hit the usual finisher of "what would it take to make it work?" that they like to have. (i.e., they haven't managed to build a solar-powered death ray). Five hundred kids isn't going to make it "plausible" though, since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
they aren't going for accuracy as much as they are reasonably plausible tests that look good when filmed, scientific rigor doesn't sell, but at least they pay it lip service
My understanding is that they do a lot more testing than what makes it onscreen (I seem to recall an interview saying they turn in 25-30 hours of footage for each show), and they just grab the cool parts for the show (because.. um.. I wants my booms?)
I've never had any major complaints about the "science", considering that most of the premises are fairly loose to begin with. It's not like they're trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe or anything.
Ellsberge and Assange are two peas in a pod. Why would anybody be surprised by this? This merits a front page story here?
Unless there's a/. page 2 I haven't noticed, isn't every story a "front page story"?
I can see some merit here - the "good leak" guy saying "you know, the only difference between me and him is that history hasn't moved on far enough for him to become a hero too."
Slashdot Mirror
Wargames. I re watched it recently. It actually has some of the most realistic representations of hacking and hackers in any movie ever.
I've always considered Sneakers to be the gold standard of "real life hacking". (Once you get past the McGuffin, of course).
Right, it's the worst atrocities, or nothing. Nobody's supposed to condemn any of the other stuff in between.
And remember, there's always a worse atrocity out there, so the horrible things I'm doing are totally OK, because "that guy over there" is worse.
Case in point: the old mayor of Toronto is quoted as saying people should relax about the G20 mass arrests because the Federal government was way worse during the FLQ crisis in the 70s.
- Deciding when to start hitting the buzzer. Humans tend to start buzzing before the question is fully revealed if it's a category they feel strong on, and hold off buzzing at all until they know the answer if they feel weaker. This can make a huge difference in the game, as someone who doesn't know as quickly can still win over someone who knows faster but hesitates on the buzzer. (of course it can backfire too)
I'll bet this part *is* in the test - after all, someone's gotta hit the buzzer. If I remember correctly, you get penalized for hitting the buzzer early in Jeopardy, but since you're testing against real people, there'll likely be some way for the system to guess how close it is to an answer before it buzzes in. (Otherwise, you'd either just buzz in as fast as possible every time and hope you can crunch the numbers in time - and probably losing points - or waiting until you know you have the answer and getting beat out by the humans.)
I think Moore is a necessary evil. Evil because he does tend to overstate his case, and (more annoyingly to me) he forgoes the quiet "show the truth" for showboating (i.e. showing how the Canadian medical system works as a comparison to US = useful. Parking off Cuba yelling for medical care = stupid).
But he is necessary, if only as the counterpoint to the O'Reillys and Limbaughs of the world - liberals get screwed too often by being the only ones compromising in politics. They need Moore anchoring the far left.
Yes, you're quite right -- I didn't even think of the possibility that the other Wikileaks boardmembers might deny to post bail from WL funds...
Actually, I'd be very disappointed if Wikileaks used their money to pay his bail - those donations are intended to keep the work going. And considering the amount of bouncing they've had to do recently to stay online, I think they'll need the cash...
For a little more background, the Globe is "Toronto's national newspaper", a business rag primarily aimed at our version of Wall Street, hence a specific connotation on Lunch here.
My read of it was that the lunch anecdote was meant to reinforce that she takes the rules seriously (even the minor, easily excusable ones). It's a desirable trait in someone who's job it is to enforce rules. (Contrast with a local story about cops being caught driving in their patrol cars, coffee cup in one hand and cell phone in the other.)
So then you would like to pay for the free services you use instead? You know, people need money to survive.
The sad thing is, it's not that expensive to get the "free" services these days. If you're online, your ISP probably already provides you with email accounts. I spend ~10 a month for external hosting, and that gives me all the email addresses, webspace, and other net-goodies I'll ever need.
Now they don't even bother with the legal niceties.
On the upside, it looks like we might see some change come from it - it didn't take long for the police to give up the "mystery cop" who beat up Adam Nobody, for instance.
Sadly, Harper's Conservatives do like stealing the worst pages of the Republican playbook. And until Alberta stops being their bitch-monkeys we won't be rid of them...
Nope, according to the paper, even if you don't USE Facebook, even if you have never visited Facebook, the like button appearing on other sites can gather data about your visit.
I'm probably getting the exact technical details wrong, but if Facebook can't find a match for you, it creates a "temporary account" for you and tracks you using that number. (So while it might not know your exact details, it can track which sites you've been to.) The punchline is that if you ever create a Facebook account, the system automatically merges your temporary account into your Facebook account (retroactively adding all your previously anonymous details).
It's a pretty interesting system, in a privacy-stomping sort of way.
Don't forget our Elections folks, who are currently putting the screws to the Conservatives over bogus accounting during the election.
It's already been covered multiple times above, but here's the tl;dr version: it's freakin' expensive to get stuff in orbit, so nothing goes up unless it absolutely has to.
For a smooth glide through heavenly bodies?
So criminal behavior is protected free speech? And stopping criminals from committing crimes is the same as censorship?
What crime? WL hasn't be charged with *any* crimes, *anywhere* in the world. (Assange is charged with a crime, but that's for his personal life.)
And nice try moving the goalposts - no matter how much the US wants to think they're the global policemen, their legal authority stops at the border - after that it's cowboy diplomacy.
All the more reason we shouldn't let random politicians mess with it arbitrarily, no?
And I'll happily admit I'm not an expert on the inner workings of DNS. But the US actions show that DNS can't necessarily be trusted anymore, either.
I don't know, but I'd suggest asking China, since they seem to be the industry leaders in such thing.
And before anyone asks, yes, I'm equating the US takedowns to Chinese censorship. It's a government deciding what it's citizens can or can't see online. The only difference is that China generally has the good manners to only censor to people inside it's borders.
"Well give you your space, but it can be no larger than a broom closet."
It's bigger than that. 9 feet x 15 feet is about the size of a non-master bedroom. If there's only one person working in there, and you're not working on anything too large (in physical volume), it'd probably be OK.
On the one hand we have people championing DDOS attacks on websites via vigilante action which inflict damage to innocent websites on the other hand, many of these same people are protesting a government with properly issued warrant shutting down websites.
The question is, for those that support the former, and not the latter, exactly what kind of society you are really wanting where laws are meaningless and mobs rule? I'm sure you're fine with it until the mob ruling isn't your kind of mob. What then??
You're looking at it from an American point of view. If the US wants to block a website, that's their prerogative. But they blocked it *everywhere* - in the US, in Canada, in China, in Europe - everywhere. (And it just occured to me that they also gained the ability to see - at least for a limited time - *who* was going to those sites, which would explain why they didn't just blackhole the domains).
So look at it in reverse - if China (for instance) had provided a properly issued warrant demanding that a site be redirected to their servers worldwide, would you have a problem with it?
As for the Anonymous tactics, I think they're quite proportional to the tactics of the companies involved. To put it in pretty terms, they've discontinued service while an investigation into the legality of their actions takes place. Should only take, oh, 90 days or so? :)
(Sadly, not l33t enough to be part of the DDOS.)
Removing the main DNS entry is really quite pointless: anyone who really wants to get to the site can just enter the IP into the browser. DNS is simply "syntactic sugar" to make websites easier to remember.
I'm wondering if we'll just revert back to plain ol' IP addresses. We remember phone numbers, after all.
since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
Sure, if the ships are in arrow range, and they haven't wet everything down first.
My understanding was that the mirrors weren't effective at a significantly greater range than archers. And wetting down the ship won't protect you from puncture wounds, even if you're protected from the fire.
Ah. I knew about the sections, didn't realize that some stories skip the front page. Thanks!
I was wondering if that's why they were going for it a third time - they haven't managed to hit the usual finisher of "what would it take to make it work?" that they like to have. (i.e., they haven't managed to build a solar-powered death ray). Five hundred kids isn't going to make it "plausible" though, since five hundred archers would be far more effective.
We already know the President likes a human backdrop: soldiers, doctors, union members... you get the idea.
Is there a politician alive who doesn't prefer a backdrop of "supporters" whenever they can arrange one?
they aren't going for accuracy as much as they are reasonably plausible tests that look good when filmed, scientific rigor doesn't sell, but at least they pay it lip service
My understanding is that they do a lot more testing than what makes it onscreen (I seem to recall an interview saying they turn in 25-30 hours of footage for each show), and they just grab the cool parts for the show (because.. um.. I wants my booms?)
I've never had any major complaints about the "science", considering that most of the premises are fairly loose to begin with. It's not like they're trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe or anything.
Considering that Vietnam wasn't a war, and that we haven't had a war since WWII...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause
Hate to break it to you, but if you bomb like a war, and shoot like a war, you're in a war. No matter what the government decides to call it.
Same reason I can't kill you with a knife and say "no, I'm not allowed to murder people. That was a 'love tap'."
Ellsberge and Assange are two peas in a pod. Why would anybody be surprised by this? This merits a front page story here?
Unless there's a /. page 2 I haven't noticed, isn't every story a "front page story"?
I can see some merit here - the "good leak" guy saying "you know, the only difference between me and him is that history hasn't moved on far enough for him to become a hero too."