No doubt many Slashdotters will trip over each other in their rush to proclaim that this will never work, insisting that the internet never forgets, and maybe mentioning the Streisand effect.
But the point isn't to erase the past entirely. Just to make it not so obvious. For example, a certain Republican presidential candidate used to have a "Google problem". Now, maybe that problem was well deserved given his policy positions, but he wanted to erase it. He didn't need it to disappear from the internet entirely, which would be impossible in any case, he just wanted it to not be the top result when someone searched his name.
It seems both possible and beneficial to allow young adults to bury some of the embarrassments of their college and high school years. The information is still there for anyone looking for it, but does it really make sense for it to be the top result? If I'm Googling potential employees, I'm probably more interested in papers they published than a YouTube video of them drunkenly dancing on a table.
Are all the politicians being blackmailed? Every one? Don't you think they talk to each other on occasion? There are hundreds of them, they work together every day. They go out for drinks. They form friendships, just like any other coworkers. Surely one would mention "Hey Bill, I got this threatening phone call from the NSA..." They could disband the entire organization like flipping a light switch if they all wanted to, and if they all were being blackmailed, they'd certainly want to.
And what would the NSA do? Release documents on every person in Congress? That would just prove them right.
You're suffering from a group delusion. The only way to cure yourself is by trying to apply some logic to the situation. I know it's tough. But set aside your anger, your hate, your fear, and THINK.
And what should he say on that phone call? "Don't be evil"?
This is not a binary issue. There's a whole lot of ground between the status quo and "DISBAND EVERYTHING!!!" What, exactly, should he say on that phone call? I guarantee, that whatever your answer, there will be a hundred million outraged people demanding that he do less, and another hundred million demanding he do more.
You can disagree with his policies, and voice your disagreement, and vote accordingly, and encourage others to do the same. But don't pretend that this, or any other choice, is some simple choice between "be a good guy" and "tie ladies to railroad tracks". That sort of oversimplification does no one any favors.
So you want the objectively more oppressive country on top, to the detriment of billions, because it won't personally affect you. What a great guy you are.
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options"
What's so hard to understand about that? NATO will only use nukes in defense. That includes defending against chemical or biological attacks, for example. Signing on to a NFU treaty would take away that option.
When you lose a RFID card or a password, you can get a new one. When someone hacks into a system and steals your fingerprints, that's it for you. They're compromised for the rest of your life. No system using them as a means of authentication will ever be safe for you, ever again.
Using biometrics for trivial purposes like this is fucking idiotic. The business is putting its employees security at risk for their entire lives, in order to squeeze a few more man-hours a month out of them.
I don't see how anyone can side with company here, unless either they haven't thought about it much, or they've swallowed so much anti-union propaganda that they can't think straight anymore.
The added value that you're paying for comes from the recommendation system. I haven't tried it, since I don't have any iOS devices, but if it works well it could be worthwhile.
If you don't want to pay, there are still libraries, not to mention plenty of sites with free ebooks.
No, not always. Kids can be different. The parents' situation can be different.
So his "point" is that some percentage of parents can get by without this? So fucking what? Some people can get by without a refrigerator. That doesn't mean those who need one are bad cooks.
Welp, that's it everyone. Acapulco's parents' technique worked on him, therefore it will work on EVERY CHILD EVER. Close up shop, this guy's got it all figured out.
It's rather sad how people always blame the parents for not controlling their kids, and then those same people bitch and moan whenever someone tries to introduce a technology to help parents control their kids.
Those people always insist that technology is no substitute for good parenting, as if that's some sort of sage revelation. But it's not. It's a distraction. It's changing the subject. No one is saying technology like this replaces good parenting. It's not designed to replace good parenting. It's designed to enable it.
Sure, do that. But do it knowing that you are giving every dictator in the world carte blanche to gas their own citizens. Assad knew that the West was too war weary to get involved, and he was right. That's it. Chemical weapons are now free to use.
Stop re-writing history. That YouTube video was well known before the attacks, and was the cause of the riots which the attackers used as cover. It wasn't that long ago. Do you really think we've all forgotten?
My company, of a couple thousand people, has switched to paid Skype accounts for all of our conference calls. Tell me, which market do you think Microsoft is most interested in... corporate teleconferencing, or gamers chatting about the latest WoW raid?
I'm not saying Microsoft will make back their investment (they won't), but the fact that your group of friends prefers TeamSpeak could not possibly matter any less to them.
The NYT also published an Op-Ed today entitled Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal. I think it's quite easy to imagine some nationalist Syrian hackers targeting the site. That seems far more likely than some dark government conspiracy. Many major international players are already signalling support for the US bombing Syria. Why would Obama fake a minor hack against some newspaper? What would he have to gain? The downside if caught seems much, much greater than the tiny potential upside.
But Dwarf Fortress exists. So do Super Hexagon and I Wanna Be The Guy and a bunch of other difficult games. Mainstream titles too, e.g. XCOM's hardest mode with save-scumming disabled (I forget the name of it). There are plenty of options for people who want something extremely challenging. It's just that there are also options for people who don't have the time to master that shit, and just want to unwind. The only people who think that's a problem are the "elite" gamers who are angry that their hobby has gone mainstream and attracted a broader audience.
Are you seriously bitching that games these days are too fun? That they should be punishing and brutal? Maybe you're some unemployed shut-in who can devote 10+ hours a day to mastering a Nintendo-hard game, but that ain't something to brag about.
It's because we're more concerned over people like you, who are so quick to talk of "overturning" the government. Bloody, violent rebellion that would leave the country in tatters, as a response to a program that's absolutely angelic compared to the shit done throughout most of the 20th century? You're nuts. We can push on our representatives to reel in the NSA, but abolishing the NSA (or worse, abolishing the government) would be disastrous. The militant anarchists are a far greater threat to our way of life.
We've come a long way since the age of Nixon. We have an even longer way to go, but burning it all down in frustration would be moronic.
I imagine a lot of people would prefer to know whether the results are faked before devoting long hours and large amounts of money to trying to replicate them. Not to mention the stress of working round the clock on an experiment trying to figure out why your results aren't matching the published paper. Without this sort of revelation, you'd be left to assume that you were the one doing something wrong.
We left Iraq years ago. We still have a few embassies/consulates, and they have guards (as do all such locations), but we're not occupying the country any more.
If you had bothered to even read the summary, you would have seen that this is about Afghanistan, and the name of the Craigslist section is just a holdover.
I've actually got a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly why Netflix uses envelopes that don't let you see the name of the movie without opening them. There's a little window to make the barcode visible, and they could easily make the title visible as well if they wanted. It would even be useful for customers with a multiple DVD plan. But the risk of theft probably goes up if people are able to see what they're stealing.
Okay, here's the deal. You have until your 30th birthday to fully fund a retirement account that must last until you turn 95. If you can't, you must declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Sound fair?
That was a different time. These days, if you want to score big at the box office, you need to do well in the international market. That means selling to people who will be watching a subbed/dubbed translation of your movie, and who won't have the same cultural frame of reference as the writers.
Writing a plot that can cross cultural and linguistic borders is hard. Dazzling an audience with explosions and slow motion fight scenes is much easier.
You're arguing with a voice in your head. I didn't make any of the claims that you're trying to refute.
It is indeed their project, and I not about to propose some law to force them to be polite. They're free to run it however they like, just as I'm free to point out that they may be missing out on a way to run it even better. Is there some flaw in my reasoning, or are you just upset that I could dare to question their methods?
As for the morality bit, I was responding only to the part I quoted. TsuruchiBrian stated that there's no absolute morality, only what works. I pointed out that that attitude can be used to support all sorts of awful things. I specifically said the their behavior on the newsgroup wasn't really a morality problem (a statement you carefully removed when you quoted me), and I also prefaced that whole section by stating that it wasn't really related to the topic at hand. But in your quest to be outraged, you ignored all that.
Like you said, some people may like screaming obscenities at each other. Some people like whipping each other while having sex. And I like talking down to nitwits on the internet when they get their panties in a bunch over what they wrongly inferred from my post.
Slashdot Mirror
No doubt many Slashdotters will trip over each other in their rush to proclaim that this will never work, insisting that the internet never forgets, and maybe mentioning the Streisand effect.
But the point isn't to erase the past entirely. Just to make it not so obvious. For example, a certain Republican presidential candidate used to have a "Google problem". Now, maybe that problem was well deserved given his policy positions, but he wanted to erase it. He didn't need it to disappear from the internet entirely, which would be impossible in any case, he just wanted it to not be the top result when someone searched his name.
It seems both possible and beneficial to allow young adults to bury some of the embarrassments of their college and high school years. The information is still there for anyone looking for it, but does it really make sense for it to be the top result? If I'm Googling potential employees, I'm probably more interested in papers they published than a YouTube video of them drunkenly dancing on a table.
Are all the politicians being blackmailed? Every one? Don't you think they talk to each other on occasion? There are hundreds of them, they work together every day. They go out for drinks. They form friendships, just like any other coworkers. Surely one would mention "Hey Bill, I got this threatening phone call from the NSA..." They could disband the entire organization like flipping a light switch if they all wanted to, and if they all were being blackmailed, they'd certainly want to.
And what would the NSA do? Release documents on every person in Congress? That would just prove them right.
You're suffering from a group delusion. The only way to cure yourself is by trying to apply some logic to the situation. I know it's tough. But set aside your anger, your hate, your fear, and THINK.
And what should he say on that phone call? "Don't be evil"?
This is not a binary issue. There's a whole lot of ground between the status quo and "DISBAND EVERYTHING!!!" What, exactly, should he say on that phone call? I guarantee, that whatever your answer, there will be a hundred million outraged people demanding that he do less, and another hundred million demanding he do more.
You can disagree with his policies, and voice your disagreement, and vote accordingly, and encourage others to do the same. But don't pretend that this, or any other choice, is some simple choice between "be a good guy" and "tie ladies to railroad tracks". That sort of oversimplification does no one any favors.
So you want the objectively more oppressive country on top, to the detriment of billions, because it won't personally affect you. What a great guy you are.
So you run around telling the world you will use them only in defense AND wont sign a NFU as it "limits options"
What's so hard to understand about that? NATO will only use nukes in defense. That includes defending against chemical or biological attacks, for example. Signing on to a NFU treaty would take away that option.
When you lose a RFID card or a password, you can get a new one. When someone hacks into a system and steals your fingerprints, that's it for you. They're compromised for the rest of your life. No system using them as a means of authentication will ever be safe for you, ever again.
Using biometrics for trivial purposes like this is fucking idiotic. The business is putting its employees security at risk for their entire lives, in order to squeeze a few more man-hours a month out of them.
I don't see how anyone can side with company here, unless either they haven't thought about it much, or they've swallowed so much anti-union propaganda that they can't think straight anymore.
The added value that you're paying for comes from the recommendation system. I haven't tried it, since I don't have any iOS devices, but if it works well it could be worthwhile.
If you don't want to pay, there are still libraries, not to mention plenty of sites with free ebooks.
No, not always. Kids can be different. The parents' situation can be different.
So his "point" is that some percentage of parents can get by without this? So fucking what? Some people can get by without a refrigerator. That doesn't mean those who need one are bad cooks.
Welp, that's it everyone. Acapulco's parents' technique worked on him, therefore it will work on EVERY CHILD EVER. Close up shop, this guy's got it all figured out.
It's rather sad how people always blame the parents for not controlling their kids, and then those same people bitch and moan whenever someone tries to introduce a technology to help parents control their kids.
Those people always insist that technology is no substitute for good parenting, as if that's some sort of sage revelation. But it's not. It's a distraction. It's changing the subject. No one is saying technology like this replaces good parenting. It's not designed to replace good parenting. It's designed to enable it.
Who do you think pays for the Peace Corps? Or more accurately, AmeriCorps?
Sure, do that. But do it knowing that you are giving every dictator in the world carte blanche to gas their own citizens. Assad knew that the West was too war weary to get involved, and he was right. That's it. Chemical weapons are now free to use.
Stop re-writing history. That YouTube video was well known before the attacks, and was the cause of the riots which the attackers used as cover. It wasn't that long ago. Do you really think we've all forgotten?
My company, of a couple thousand people, has switched to paid Skype accounts for all of our conference calls. Tell me, which market do you think Microsoft is most interested in... corporate teleconferencing, or gamers chatting about the latest WoW raid?
I'm not saying Microsoft will make back their investment (they won't), but the fact that your group of friends prefers TeamSpeak could not possibly matter any less to them.
The NYT also published an Op-Ed today entitled Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal. I think it's quite easy to imagine some nationalist Syrian hackers targeting the site. That seems far more likely than some dark government conspiracy. Many major international players are already signalling support for the US bombing Syria. Why would Obama fake a minor hack against some newspaper? What would he have to gain? The downside if caught seems much, much greater than the tiny potential upside.
But Dwarf Fortress exists. So do Super Hexagon and I Wanna Be The Guy and a bunch of other difficult games. Mainstream titles too, e.g. XCOM's hardest mode with save-scumming disabled (I forget the name of it). There are plenty of options for people who want something extremely challenging. It's just that there are also options for people who don't have the time to master that shit, and just want to unwind. The only people who think that's a problem are the "elite" gamers who are angry that their hobby has gone mainstream and attracted a broader audience.
Are you seriously bitching that games these days are too fun? That they should be punishing and brutal? Maybe you're some unemployed shut-in who can devote 10+ hours a day to mastering a Nintendo-hard game, but that ain't something to brag about.
It's because we're more concerned over people like you, who are so quick to talk of "overturning" the government. Bloody, violent rebellion that would leave the country in tatters, as a response to a program that's absolutely angelic compared to the shit done throughout most of the 20th century? You're nuts. We can push on our representatives to reel in the NSA, but abolishing the NSA (or worse, abolishing the government) would be disastrous. The militant anarchists are a far greater threat to our way of life.
We've come a long way since the age of Nixon. We have an even longer way to go, but burning it all down in frustration would be moronic.
I imagine a lot of people would prefer to know whether the results are faked before devoting long hours and large amounts of money to trying to replicate them. Not to mention the stress of working round the clock on an experiment trying to figure out why your results aren't matching the published paper. Without this sort of revelation, you'd be left to assume that you were the one doing something wrong.
We left Iraq years ago. We still have a few embassies/consulates, and they have guards (as do all such locations), but we're not occupying the country any more.
If you had bothered to even read the summary, you would have seen that this is about Afghanistan, and the name of the Craigslist section is just a holdover.
I've actually got a sneaking suspicion that this is exactly why Netflix uses envelopes that don't let you see the name of the movie without opening them. There's a little window to make the barcode visible, and they could easily make the title visible as well if they wanted. It would even be useful for customers with a multiple DVD plan. But the risk of theft probably goes up if people are able to see what they're stealing.
Okay, here's the deal. You have until your 30th birthday to fully fund a retirement account that must last until you turn 95. If you can't, you must declare bankruptcy and lose everything. Sound fair?
That was a different time. These days, if you want to score big at the box office, you need to do well in the international market. That means selling to people who will be watching a subbed/dubbed translation of your movie, and who won't have the same cultural frame of reference as the writers.
Writing a plot that can cross cultural and linguistic borders is hard. Dazzling an audience with explosions and slow motion fight scenes is much easier.
"Underwater" doesn't mean "at the bottom of the Mariana Trench".
You're arguing with a voice in your head. I didn't make any of the claims that you're trying to refute.
It is indeed their project, and I not about to propose some law to force them to be polite. They're free to run it however they like, just as I'm free to point out that they may be missing out on a way to run it even better. Is there some flaw in my reasoning, or are you just upset that I could dare to question their methods?
As for the morality bit, I was responding only to the part I quoted. TsuruchiBrian stated that there's no absolute morality, only what works. I pointed out that that attitude can be used to support all sorts of awful things. I specifically said the their behavior on the newsgroup wasn't really a morality problem (a statement you carefully removed when you quoted me), and I also prefaced that whole section by stating that it wasn't really related to the topic at hand. But in your quest to be outraged, you ignored all that.
Like you said, some people may like screaming obscenities at each other. Some people like whipping each other while having sex. And I like talking down to nitwits on the internet when they get their panties in a bunch over what they wrongly inferred from my post.