Sure, it's a crap solution. I know! Let's pass a law requiring manufacturers to include not just a big flashing light, but a loud blaring voice, "WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! NETWORK IS UNSAFE! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!" whenever the network is up but encryption off.;-)
Well, I had heard this somewhere and I couldn't remember where. Did a quick google for it and it turns out I may have heard only half the story. At least one person has invented runless pantyhose. The problem? They explode.
The problem with groups like this is that they are decentralized and amorphous. Kill their command structure and the ranks move up into command. Kill the ranks and the back bench supporters move into the ranks. The harder you fight, the easier it is for them to recruit. To win on your terms we would have to wage a scorched earth campaign that involved killing every living thing in the region. Despite your laughable assertion to the contrary, free societies don't have the stomach for that kind of campaign.
Naked force never 'solves' issues. It provides a temporary solution while making the problem worse. Violence is not any more inherent to human nature than peace is. Both are learned responses to specific conditions. Violence does beget violence. Even if you could kill all of your enemy, and everyone that ever cared about you, you haven't lessened violence in the world. You have made a monster of yourself, and sanctioned the use of violence in everyone's eyes.
Non-violence and passive resistence actually bring out the morality in those capable of it. They do nothing against sociopaths and psychopaths, but those are very rare even in totalitarian leadership.
Your target market is makers of WiFi equipment, not end users. Makers of WiFi equipment WILL NOT EVER put a big blinking light labelled "unsafe" on their product!
What you want to sell them is the idea of a big green light labelled "Secure" that comes on when the network is up and encryption is on. Not as effective to the end (l)user, but SALEABLE to the equipment maker.
There was this guy who originally invented an easy way to get ketchup out of the bottle. Every ketchup maker in America turned him down. "But people won't think our ketchup is thick!" they cried. Another guy invented runless pantyhose. Same deal. "We want to keep selling these crappy products to women over and over and over again!" said the execs.
"Know your target market" is the first rule of actually selling inventions.
Some people don't seem to like the fact that you have some sort of precognizance, scripting, or deal with the editors that lets you make informative first posts on almost every story. It cannot be chalked up to subscription alone. Maybe you are some sort of advanced AI being tested out on the slashdot crowd? In any case, fools are jealous.
NAPKINS?!? You had it easy! All we had were rocks in holes in the ground. You'd shuffle the rocks back and forth to calculate things and they weighed over 100 pounds each and our father beat us with the rocks if we didn't get up before the crack of dawn and shuffle them fast enough for 25 hours a day, uphill, both ways, in the snow, with only rocks to eat and holes to sleep in.
But you try to explain that to the youth of today!
Thank you, Mr. AC. That was exactly what I was thinking. These "anonymous sources" are grumbling because they don't know how to program for these things. They want to stick with things they know, they are scared of the complexities of multithreading and they are used to having the processor do all the work for them. Sure, the numbers are all hype, but I don't think the situation is as bleak as AnandTech is making it out to be.
This kind of insight is why I have you marked as a friend.:-) Well, this and the way you let trolls and idiots have it with both barrels.;-)
I agree that our system has elements of equity and contains the tools for it's own reform. Raising our consciousness is indeed the only way forward. Sorry if I sounded negative, I felt I was being dispassionately realistic. When I talk about convincing the rich and powerful that the system is not serving their best interests, raising consciousness is exactly what I mean. I know I phrased it in somewhat negative terms, but what I really mean is showing them a better way.
We need to keep building bridges, focusing on common interests, and yes, clearing out the underbrush. It is good to focus on simple common sense measures that work as good weed-whackers. Your original post has some good ones that might actually stand a chance of being passed, and here I come, misunderestimating your intent, with a lecture on why we have to fix EVERYTHING.
Seriously, though, the system is so borked right now that pretty much any suggestion of WHAT to do to fix the problem would be a step in the right direction. The problem is HOW to get the powers that be to enact those steps, as they are all profiting off of the problem and wouldn't profit off of the solution.
My current favorite idea is to convince the rich and powerful that greed is destroying their quality of life. I know this flies in the face of free market ideology, but greed and competition destroy intrinsic motivation. Satisfying intrinsic motivation is inherently more enjoyable than satisfy extrinsic motivations such as profit.
Excess profit also isolates individuals from real connection with other human beings. The rich and powerful have few real friends, only temporary allies. They have no trust and can show no weakness. For most people this is an inherently stressful situation.
Doing away with excessive levels of reward, and bringing rewards more in line with actual contribution to society would help. No one needs to earn thousands of times more than anyone else to be motivated. A few dozen to a hundred times more is plenty for any sane, rational individual to experience maximum motivation. Society creates the rules that define value, and we supposedly create those rules to maximize benefit to us all.
The rules we have now seem to maximize benefit to a few, while the rest of us have been fooled into thinking that their interests are our interests. Even if they were, our current system doesn't even maximize value to most of the rich and powerful. They lack real human connection and many of them would be more satisfied persuing other forms of gratification if the profit motive were not so hideously over emphasized.
What we have now is a system that maximizes value to sociopaths and psychopaths who lack any sense of empathy and desire no real connection with others.
(OT) Is it just me or has Tom Cruise gone completely off the deep end recently? Not that he was ever the brightest or most stable bulb on the christmas tree, but I think Scientology has irrevocably damaged his brain.
and when I see the light turn red, meaning a packet with the evil bit set, I unplug the cable really quick. If that doesn't work, I get a young priest and an old priest.
"The power of Linux compels you! The power of Linux compels you!" That'll fix those zombies.
I'm a true SF geek, having read literally thousands of SF books and stories in my lifetime. I think anyone who has more than a cursory interest in the topic knows that there are very few science fiction movies at all. Most of them are science fantasy. To be frank, bad science fantasy.
Most anything that is mass marketed is dumbed down as the suits think that most audiences are stupid hicks. I'm kinda sorry for the author of this review. It's obvious he hasn't experienced any really good SF, and so has nothing to compare things to. I mean, sure, I enjoyed a lot of these movies as the escapist fluff they are, but I wouldn't try to defend any of them from serious criticism.
Awwww, is da poor baby jewous? Does it wants its kawma, too? I don't think TMM gives a rat's arse about your whiney little complaint. Your seething green envy is patently obvious to anyone. I'm not a great big fan of TMM, but he is amusing and occasionally has something informative or insightful to say. Which may be why he's got about 100 times as many fans as you do. And why not? He's not a juvenile little troll. Whether it works for you or not, he at least tries to contribute something of value to this site, which is far more than you do.
I find my thoughts drifting to images of you, red faced and out of breath as you furiously stroke your tiny member while picturing your mom doing it doggy style with a trained seal, and frankly it makes me sick. Leave the poor seals out of your deranged fantasies.
Let me know how the whole penis pump/herbal viagra thing works out for you.
1992 called, they want their dumb catchphrase back.
As to your last point: There are some people, myself included, who believe that artists should be able to reap the fruits of their work, and retain full rights to them. I think that copyright is a basic moral right that in principle belongs with the artist, and is not something to be lightly toyed with in order to maximise the benefit to society, as if we're communists dividing up the harvest.
Maximising benefit to society is exactly what copyright and patents are all about. At least according to the US Constitution. Here's the exact phrase, from Article 1, Section 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
One of the things that can end your chances at reproduction is contracting a major STD. The urge to get ones face close to the genitals of one's prospective partner comes from that. If you aren't exclusive, you can at least look and see if they have sores. If you think you are, you can potentially smell any other sex partners they have on their crotch.
Homosexuality is evolutionary, too. In the same way that drone ants or bees who don't themselves breed are evolutionary, homosexuals can help their relatives procreate. They can give same sex realtives early experience that helps them get a mate (I know, sounds gross. Evolution often is.) They can also form same sex pair bonds that reduce violence and increase goodwill. If my two brothers and my cousin, between them, carry all of my genes (statistically likely) then helping them procreate will pass on my genes to the next generation. Genes don't care how they get passed on. Whatever works.
As far as victimization, choice, and consequences go, try reading Mark Twain's essay, "What is a Man?" for an interesting take on things.
What is it with "you people" and your prejudicial overgeneralizations? Let me make perfectly clear what I am trying to say, because people like you need things spelled out for them: I don't like "our form" of free market.
While I'm not one of those Libertarian types who think a real free market would solve every problem (quite the opposite), what we have is even worse. It favors the rich and the powerful. Most of them claim they want smaller government, privitization of everything, no regulations, less taxes, no government interference, and so forth, but that is not true. They want all the benefits of government to accrue to them and not have to pay for it. It's hypocritical in the extreme.
But that's just like "you people" to gloss over the legitimate complaints of others with condescension and ad-hominem attacks because everyone knows that people like you are too stupid to come up with rational arguments.
I'm trying to point out that 'compromise' in this country is made in the interest of the rich more often than of the poor, and that the myth is that we have (and should have) a free market. The ones who squawk the loudest about the free market are usually the ones who want it the least.
Oh, and thanks for implying that I am a school child, have no grasp of the real world, and need to relax. Could you have crammed any more underhanded ad-hominem attacks in that short of a post? I think not.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, it's a crap solution. I know! Let's pass a law requiring manufacturers to include not just a big flashing light, but a loud blaring voice, "WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! NETWORK IS UNSAFE! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!" whenever the network is up but encryption off. ;-)
Well, I had heard this somewhere and I couldn't remember where. Did a quick google for it and it turns out I may have heard only half the story. At least one person has invented runless pantyhose. The problem? They explode.
The problem with groups like this is that they are decentralized and amorphous. Kill their command structure and the ranks move up into command. Kill the ranks and the back bench supporters move into the ranks. The harder you fight, the easier it is for them to recruit. To win on your terms we would have to wage a scorched earth campaign that involved killing every living thing in the region. Despite your laughable assertion to the contrary, free societies don't have the stomach for that kind of campaign.
Naked force never 'solves' issues. It provides a temporary solution while making the problem worse. Violence is not any more inherent to human nature than peace is. Both are learned responses to specific conditions. Violence does beget violence. Even if you could kill all of your enemy, and everyone that ever cared about you, you haven't lessened violence in the world. You have made a monster of yourself, and sanctioned the use of violence in everyone's eyes.
Non-violence and passive resistence actually bring out the morality in those capable of it. They do nothing against sociopaths and psychopaths, but those are very rare even in totalitarian leadership.
Your target market is makers of WiFi equipment, not end users. Makers of WiFi equipment WILL NOT EVER put a big blinking light labelled "unsafe" on their product!
What you want to sell them is the idea of a big green light labelled "Secure" that comes on when the network is up and encryption is on. Not as effective to the end (l)user, but SALEABLE to the equipment maker.
There was this guy who originally invented an easy way to get ketchup out of the bottle. Every ketchup maker in America turned him down. "But people won't think our ketchup is thick!" they cried. Another guy invented runless pantyhose. Same deal. "We want to keep selling these crappy products to women over and over and over again!" said the execs.
"Know your target market" is the first rule of actually selling inventions.
Some people don't seem to like the fact that you have some sort of precognizance, scripting, or deal with the editors that lets you make informative first posts on almost every story. It cannot be chalked up to subscription alone. Maybe you are some sort of advanced AI being tested out on the slashdot crowd? In any case, fools are jealous.
A sarcasm detector, that's a real useful invention. [/comic book guy]
Managerium
NAPKINS?!? You had it easy! All we had were rocks in holes in the ground. You'd shuffle the rocks back and forth to calculate things and they weighed over 100 pounds each and our father beat us with the rocks if we didn't get up before the crack of dawn and shuffle them fast enough for 25 hours a day, uphill, both ways, in the snow, with only rocks to eat and holes to sleep in.
But you try to explain that to the youth of today!
A MONITOR? You lucky, lucky bastard. All we had were blinking lights and toggle switches on the front panel. And we were GRATEFUL!
Thank you, Mr. AC. That was exactly what I was thinking. These "anonymous sources" are grumbling because they don't know how to program for these things. They want to stick with things they know, they are scared of the complexities of multithreading and they are used to having the processor do all the work for them. Sure, the numbers are all hype, but I don't think the situation is as bleak as AnandTech is making it out to be.
This kind of insight is why I have you marked as a friend. :-) Well, this and the way you let trolls and idiots have it with both barrels. ;-)
I agree that our system has elements of equity and contains the tools for it's own reform. Raising our consciousness is indeed the only way forward. Sorry if I sounded negative, I felt I was being dispassionately realistic. When I talk about convincing the rich and powerful that the system is not serving their best interests, raising consciousness is exactly what I mean. I know I phrased it in somewhat negative terms, but what I really mean is showing them a better way.
We need to keep building bridges, focusing on common interests, and yes, clearing out the underbrush. It is good to focus on simple common sense measures that work as good weed-whackers. Your original post has some good ones that might actually stand a chance of being passed, and here I come, misunderestimating your intent, with a lecture on why we have to fix EVERYTHING.
I'd like a pony.
Seriously, though, the system is so borked right now that pretty much any suggestion of WHAT to do to fix the problem would be a step in the right direction. The problem is HOW to get the powers that be to enact those steps, as they are all profiting off of the problem and wouldn't profit off of the solution.
My current favorite idea is to convince the rich and powerful that greed is destroying their quality of life. I know this flies in the face of free market ideology, but greed and competition destroy intrinsic motivation. Satisfying intrinsic motivation is inherently more enjoyable than satisfy extrinsic motivations such as profit.
Excess profit also isolates individuals from real connection with other human beings. The rich and powerful have few real friends, only temporary allies. They have no trust and can show no weakness. For most people this is an inherently stressful situation.
Doing away with excessive levels of reward, and bringing rewards more in line with actual contribution to society would help. No one needs to earn thousands of times more than anyone else to be motivated. A few dozen to a hundred times more is plenty for any sane, rational individual to experience maximum motivation. Society creates the rules that define value, and we supposedly create those rules to maximize benefit to us all.
The rules we have now seem to maximize benefit to a few, while the rest of us have been fooled into thinking that their interests are our interests. Even if they were, our current system doesn't even maximize value to most of the rich and powerful. They lack real human connection and many of them would be more satisfied persuing other forms of gratification if the profit motive were not so hideously over emphasized.
What we have now is a system that maximizes value to sociopaths and psychopaths who lack any sense of empathy and desire no real connection with others.
Psychopathitalism would be a good term.
Crapitalism?
that I already patented the process of patenting the process of meta-patenting.
(OT) Is it just me or has Tom Cruise gone completely off the deep end recently? Not that he was ever the brightest or most stable bulb on the christmas tree, but I think Scientology has irrevocably damaged his brain.
and when I see the light turn red, meaning a packet with the evil bit set, I unplug the cable really quick. If that doesn't work, I get a young priest and an old priest.
"The power of Linux compels you! The power of Linux compels you!" That'll fix those zombies.
I'm a true SF geek, having read literally thousands of SF books and stories in my lifetime. I think anyone who has more than a cursory interest in the topic knows that there are very few science fiction movies at all. Most of them are science fantasy. To be frank, bad science fantasy.
Most anything that is mass marketed is dumbed down as the suits think that most audiences are stupid hicks. I'm kinda sorry for the author of this review. It's obvious he hasn't experienced any really good SF, and so has nothing to compare things to. I mean, sure, I enjoyed a lot of these movies as the escapist fluff they are, but I wouldn't try to defend any of them from serious criticism.
Awwww, is da poor baby jewous? Does it wants its kawma, too? I don't think TMM gives a rat's arse about your whiney little complaint. Your seething green envy is patently obvious to anyone. I'm not a great big fan of TMM, but he is amusing and occasionally has something informative or insightful to say. Which may be why he's got about 100 times as many fans as you do. And why not? He's not a juvenile little troll. Whether it works for you or not, he at least tries to contribute something of value to this site, which is far more than you do.
I find my thoughts drifting to images of you, red faced and out of breath as you furiously stroke your tiny member while picturing your mom doing it doggy style with a trained seal, and frankly it makes me sick. Leave the poor seals out of your deranged fantasies.
Let me know how the whole penis pump/herbal viagra thing works out for you.
1992 called, they want their dumb catchphrase back.
"Now bend over. I just want to search you for proprietary code. Yes, that's my finger, I swear!"
Well, they pet every open source program on the head and say, "Who's a good boy? You are! Yes you are, yes you! Give me a kiss." before they ship it.
Maximising benefit to society is exactly what copyright and patents are all about. At least according to the US Constitution. Here's the exact phrase, from Article 1, Section 8:
Are you calling our Founding Fathers commies?!?
One of the things that can end your chances at reproduction is contracting a major STD. The urge to get ones face close to the genitals of one's prospective partner comes from that. If you aren't exclusive, you can at least look and see if they have sores. If you think you are, you can potentially smell any other sex partners they have on their crotch.
Homosexuality is evolutionary, too. In the same way that drone ants or bees who don't themselves breed are evolutionary, homosexuals can help their relatives procreate. They can give same sex realtives early experience that helps them get a mate (I know, sounds gross. Evolution often is.) They can also form same sex pair bonds that reduce violence and increase goodwill. If my two brothers and my cousin, between them, carry all of my genes (statistically likely) then helping them procreate will pass on my genes to the next generation. Genes don't care how they get passed on. Whatever works.
As far as victimization, choice, and consequences go, try reading Mark Twain's essay, "What is a Man?" for an interesting take on things.
What is it with "you people" and your prejudicial overgeneralizations? Let me make perfectly clear what I am trying to say, because people like you need things spelled out for them: I don't like "our form" of free market.
While I'm not one of those Libertarian types who think a real free market would solve every problem (quite the opposite), what we have is even worse. It favors the rich and the powerful. Most of them claim they want smaller government, privitization of everything, no regulations, less taxes, no government interference, and so forth, but that is not true. They want all the benefits of government to accrue to them and not have to pay for it. It's hypocritical in the extreme.
But that's just like "you people" to gloss over the legitimate complaints of others with condescension and ad-hominem attacks because everyone knows that people like you are too stupid to come up with rational arguments.
The judges swing both ways, huh? Bow chicka bow-bow. Who wouldn't pay to see some bisexual supreme court justice on justice action!
I'm trying to point out that 'compromise' in this country is made in the interest of the rich more often than of the poor, and that the myth is that we have (and should have) a free market. The ones who squawk the loudest about the free market are usually the ones who want it the least.
Oh, and thanks for implying that I am a school child, have no grasp of the real world, and need to relax. Could you have crammed any more underhanded ad-hominem attacks in that short of a post? I think not.