Furthermore, you really do not know what you talk about with "attempting to use those services can lead to jail time". Most students I know routinely bypass the firewall via vpns or foreign proxies (or ipv6 for youtube for example) when there is a need to do so.
This happens on such a large scale that I am sure the institution that regulates the net here is aware f that. However, as long as it is not threatening, nobody cares (I suspect you may end up in jail if you are going to publicize ways to bypass things for example).
I think I'm fairly aware of what I'm talking about. Note that I never said "everyone goes to jail" or "the majority go to jail" when using services like that. The fact is that if you do things people in the party disagree with, your life as you know it is in danger, because you could be spoken to.
The USA is not clear about what is blocked because, really, it is illegal for the government to block things. If Julian Assange won the Nobel Peace Prize, Americans could tweet about it however they pleased. When Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize the consequences in China were very, very different.
Really, look at what you're saying. You can bypass the firewall if you do x,y,z.. and then you're allowed to talk about what you want, unless it is threatening. And what is threatening? That's not up to you to decide. Apparently winning the Nobel Peace Prize is threatening. Releasing diplomatic cables like Assange has done hasn't resulted in any charges, anywhere, except bringing to light an unrelated sexual assault charge in Sweden which has a maximum penalty of about $700 and no jail time.
The contrast couldn't be much more clear, and it apparently takes more than one billion wu mao dang to make it seem otherwise.
That's not very surprising at all, and it has been reported in the media over the last year or so. Searching quickly found a Jun 12, 2010 article in the Times (now behind a paywall) titled "Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites".
While I agree that the rampant calls for assassination are detestable, along with the I have to disagree with the main gist of your post.
Senator Lieberman's actions in particular are abhorrent. He has suggested that he has "spoken with" certain businesses, such as Amazon and that Tableau one which was featured on wikileaks, with an undertone that he would sic the legal dogs on them if they did not do as he wanted. Behavior such as this is disgusting and should be condemned, along with all the other similar behavior where people are ignoring the entire legal system as if it is ineffective and incorrect. People behaving like this undermine the rule of law which is the backbone of American freedom and prosperity.
China, however, behaves quite differently. While there have been plenty of knee-jerk reactions to make WikiLeaks unaccessable in the media, almost none of them have been followed through with, and those that have do not actually make it unreadable, they just make it inconvenient. WikiLeaks has periodically had DNS problems but it is still completely accessible at http://213.251.145.96/ outside of what appears to be a vigilante DDoS. In China, internet traffic which has been deemed by the party as "unharmonious" is essentially completely blocked and even attempting to use those services can lead to jail time. It's also gone on in China since long before WikiLeaks was around, so the US is hardly showing them how to.
You should take note that the people actually in charge who can actually do anything have been relatively quiet about the whole affair, having only gone so far as to condemn the release as making it more difficult for nations to conduct diplomacy. A lot of the racket being made is being done just to make those in power look bad as a way of garnering attention for themselves.
He paid money for the ability to use the domain name, and either he or the company he contracts it through should own it, or own the right to use it.
The government seized it from him and prevented the use of something he owned.
Music and movies are intellectual property, and owning intellectual property is a property in itself. If the government seized the copyrights of music files, and then accumulated royalties based on its sale, would you not say that the government seized property?
They seized the domain name. What makes a domain not actual property? If it's not actual property, then why can they seize it for distributing links to torrents (not even the files themselves) that are also not "actual" property?
I just have to point out something -- that the claim of "no drm" isn't exactly true. In order to use their forums and download most official files, you have to register a purchased copy of the game. It's probably trivial to pirate the patches and other files, but it's still there, even if it doesn't quite meet the definition of DRM.
That doesn't stop me from loving their games, though, or our mostly benevolent dictator Johan. Paradox is a tiny company which makes great strategy games (after a couple of patches), and they tend to be very moddable through text files.
Because it's obvious it had nothing to do with Windows -- the Transocean guys were just placing their left hand on the closest part of the iConsole and inadvertantly dropping the connection to the sensors. They were still getting 4 bars most of the time though, so it couldn't be a signal problem!
Italian scientist Giampaolo Giuliani, a researcher at the National Physical Laboratory of Gran Sasso, recently gave warning about an earthquake that was to happen on March 29th of this year near L'Aquilla. Based on radon gas emissions and a series of observed tremors he tried to convince residents to evacuate, drawing much criticism from the city's mayor and others. Giuliani was forced to take down warnings he had posted on the internet. The researcher had said that a 'disastrous' earthquake would strike on March 29, but when it didn't, Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, last week officially denounced Giuliani in court for false alarm. 'These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news,' Bertalaso was quoted as saying. 'Everyone knows that you can't predict earthquakes.' Giuliani, it turns out, was partially right. A much smaller seismic shift struck on the day he said it would, with the truly disastrous one arriving just one week later. 'Someone owes me an apology,' said Giuliani, who is also a resident of L'Aquila. 'The situation here is dramatic. I am devastated, but also angry.'"
Oh, Italy, please don't ever change.
Re:Back to the original subject...
on
Time To Dump XP?
·
· Score: 1
I agree with your general sentiment, but I hate the missing up button. Back functions differently from up, and I waste more time than I save by going back to some other place I had no intention of going, especially while I was in the habit of thinking I could go up.
Are you willing to show people that have never been to the United States because you know its set size (~billions) can match the set size of Democrats driving American cars?
That implies you believe there are billions of Democrats driving American cars.
I politely decline this contest, but I am willing to take you up on many bets.
Yet it was about "fight" initially; I don't see how using "struggle" (in milder meaning, the one intuitive to me BTW - but nowhere near universal) would be appropriate as a counterargument. And now we're down to "vigorous effort" & "effort"...which was somehow my point.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with your point. But you're kind of doing the same thing if you immediately think of armed conflict between people, or whatever, when you hear the word fight. Aren't you? I agree that it seems to happen all too often, but you can't really assume other people are doing it if you're the one doing it and they aren't.
ie, it's not incorrect to say "you have to fight to keep your rights", because you do, sometimes in a violent conflict (the American revolution), sometimes not (now). Right? In that sense, I think the more active use of 'struggle' and 'fight' in saying it is a good portrayal, since it clearly shows what it can escalate to, and what effort it can entail even in times of peace and happiness. It depends on the context of what you're saying.
As for the quote - as I said, a bit too universal. Don't attach moral value (etc.) to "indolent" in modification; it could be just as well, say, late Roman decadency.
This is where you lost me. What are you reading indolent to mean here? Indolent, as I know it, means something like perpetually lazy, or maybe complacent with what someone already has. There's no moral value to that at all -- an indolent person wouldn't have many exploits. They don't do much because they're lazy. I'm not sure why you changed that, in the quote, to say exploit, as it makes no sense in that context for me. Those who don't look out for their rights will lose them eventually to someone who is looking for them.
I suppose so, but I see it differently. I actually changed the word "fight" (from who I was replying to) to "struggle" because I thought it was a much more meaningful choice of words -- while fight can make sense, it is also the kind of watered-down English that so often leads to binary views on topics.
As I see it, a struggle doesn't have to be a conflict between two people, as is implied with the comparison to fight. A struggle can be an especially vigorous effort, or really, any kind of effort that is at all strenuous or time-consuming. That is, of course, a nuance of language which seems to be lost on a lot of technical types.
(in a way a bit too universal also; look how curious it gets after substitution of just one word: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their exploits become a prey to the active")
I'm not sure I understand your point here -- the indolent don't have many exploits at all.
it has always been a struggle, and always it will be.
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
Catholics care. They care because they believe in the sacrament of forgiveness. They care because they believe that people have immortal souls that can last more than 500 years after someone's death.
And like some of the (still) ongoing sexual abuse scandals, they believe that forgiveness can come from someone other than the victims.
I'm all for genuine forgiveness, but this isn't it! This is a PR stunt, and is only not truly shameful because anyone who feels a genuine connection to the events has long since passed. It's slightly better than being forgiven by the Pope for rubbing children's penises, while covering up any information or news about it, without actually apologizing to the children, or the churchgoers, or the public. But it's not much better!
It's due to personal responsibility, or rather, the liberal concept that people are rational beings who are capable of making their own decisions. There's an ingrained attitude with all things financial that people are rational actors behaving in their own best interests. If this story is true, someone sold a bunch of stock, and then other people decided afterwards, on their own, to sell all kinds of stock as well. To add to your analogy, this would be more like a faulty sensor on a plane telling the pilot that he his altitude was 238,857 miles above sea level, where he made the logical decision that he needed to suddenly and steeply dive in order to get back to Earth.
It's all a legitimately crazy system, but people put up with it because, for the most part, it's people making decisions to buy and sell things. For this same reason it's also incredibly difficult and complex to regulate. It seems like it could use with some forced latency in the transactions -- after all, if computers are making decisions to buy and sell, then it's not necessarily rational, right? -- but a change like this is not only nearly impossible to implement, but would with certainty produce strange and unintended side effects.
And that's before even delving into the actual arguments against such types of regulation. If these kinds of computer-driven sale behavior is banned in New York, what is going to stop traders in London from taking advantage of the financiers in New York? What would stop all the New Yorkers from packing up shop and doing their trading in London? If this behavior is regulated in NYC and London, what is going to stop the traders in Hong Kong from taking advantage of the situation, or what would stop the companies moving their trading to Hong Kong? If it's banned in NYC, London, and Hong Kong, wouldn't a new trading hub form? Since this is 'rational' behavior of individual actors, not only is it likely, it's almost guaranteed -- just as individual economic centers have sprung up across the globe independently of one another in the first place.
That's not to be apologetic towards the Wall St type, as the negative stereotypes and negative behavior are fairly well known, and have been for hundreds of years. They hardly need to be embellished. It's just that everybody has yet to come up with something better, that is more efficient and less dangerous. As others have pointed out, Wall Street has attracted all kinds of intelligent people who may have gone on to do much better things, but that glosses over the fact that Wall Street itself is responsible for great things of its own -- it's just easy to lose it in the murk of the individual greed. Until we as humanity come up with something better, that works, and is more than a pipe dream, it will continue to lure many of our best and brightest, and who can really blame them?
The labor value theory of doesn't explain the price of Helvetica which has been around for 50 years and heavily used (and bought).
My point is only that the "fonts are expensive to design" argument needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because fonts become so widely used. It seems to me that it would only require very small payments from all users (or a few medium-sized payments from big players who want immediate access to new fonts that other people are not using yet) to fully-fund font development.
It's not so much the cost in making it -- in terms of dollars -- as it is why the cost of making it is what it is. If making a font is terribly difficult, and as such attracts a relatively small pool of skilled laborers, the cost of the font will be higher, regardless of the actual dollar-value of the cost of production. If there are only two people in the world who can make fonts others enjoy reading, then the demand for their fonts will skyrocket, along with the price. Even if it cost them only a dollar to make the font.
Slashdot Mirror
I think I'm fairly aware of what I'm talking about. Note that I never said "everyone goes to jail" or "the majority go to jail" when using services like that. The fact is that if you do things people in the party disagree with, your life as you know it is in danger, because you could be spoken to.
The USA is not clear about what is blocked because, really, it is illegal for the government to block things. If Julian Assange won the Nobel Peace Prize, Americans could tweet about it however they pleased. When Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel Peace Prize the consequences in China were very, very different.
Really, look at what you're saying. You can bypass the firewall if you do x,y,z.. and then you're allowed to talk about what you want, unless it is threatening. And what is threatening? That's not up to you to decide. Apparently winning the Nobel Peace Prize is threatening. Releasing diplomatic cables like Assange has done hasn't resulted in any charges, anywhere, except bringing to light an unrelated sexual assault charge in Sweden which has a maximum penalty of about $700 and no jail time.
The contrast couldn't be much more clear, and it apparently takes more than one billion wu mao dang to make it seem otherwise.
That's not very surprising at all, and it has been reported in the media over the last year or so. Searching quickly found a Jun 12, 2010 article in the Times (now behind a paywall) titled "Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites".
While I agree that the rampant calls for assassination are detestable, along with the I have to disagree with the main gist of your post.
Senator Lieberman's actions in particular are abhorrent. He has suggested that he has "spoken with" certain businesses, such as Amazon and that Tableau one which was featured on wikileaks, with an undertone that he would sic the legal dogs on them if they did not do as he wanted. Behavior such as this is disgusting and should be condemned, along with all the other similar behavior where people are ignoring the entire legal system as if it is ineffective and incorrect. People behaving like this undermine the rule of law which is the backbone of American freedom and prosperity.
China, however, behaves quite differently. While there have been plenty of knee-jerk reactions to make WikiLeaks unaccessable in the media, almost none of them have been followed through with, and those that have do not actually make it unreadable, they just make it inconvenient. WikiLeaks has periodically had DNS problems but it is still completely accessible at http://213.251.145.96/ outside of what appears to be a vigilante DDoS. In China, internet traffic which has been deemed by the party as "unharmonious" is essentially completely blocked and even attempting to use those services can lead to jail time. It's also gone on in China since long before WikiLeaks was around, so the US is hardly showing them how to.
You should take note that the people actually in charge who can actually do anything have been relatively quiet about the whole affair, having only gone so far as to condemn the release as making it more difficult for nations to conduct diplomacy. A lot of the racket being made is being done just to make those in power look bad as a way of garnering attention for themselves.
He paid money for the ability to use the domain name, and either he or the company he contracts it through should own it, or own the right to use it.
The government seized it from him and prevented the use of something he owned.
Music and movies are intellectual property, and owning intellectual property is a property in itself. If the government seized the copyrights of music files, and then accumulated royalties based on its sale, would you not say that the government seized property?
Are you really surprised that diplomatic cables between US diplomats express a "US world view"?
They seized the domain name. What makes a domain not actual property? If it's not actual property, then why can they seize it for distributing links to torrents (not even the files themselves) that are also not "actual" property?
You could easliy change "90's" to "1900's", or "the 19th century", or "the last 300 years", or "the last 400 years" or ... I think you get the point.
Not voting is implicit support of both candidates.
It's only specialized and irrelevant in the same sense that graphing lines to learn about the cartesian plane is specialized and irrelevant.
Have a nice day!
Who cares how futile it is, if you can delay potential nuclear armageddon for a century or two?
We need to create a Department of Department of Homeland Security Security immediately.
Care to explain how you knew the other potential jurors were lying?
I just have to point out something -- that the claim of "no drm" isn't exactly true. In order to use their forums and download most official files, you have to register a purchased copy of the game. It's probably trivial to pirate the patches and other files, but it's still there, even if it doesn't quite meet the definition of DRM.
That doesn't stop me from loving their games, though, or our mostly benevolent dictator Johan. Paradox is a tiny company which makes great strategy games (after a couple of patches), and they tend to be very moddable through text files.
Because it's obvious it had nothing to do with Windows -- the Transocean guys were just placing their left hand on the closest part of the iConsole and inadvertantly dropping the connection to the sensors. They were still getting 4 bars most of the time though, so it couldn't be a signal problem!
Little did they know.
Article on slashdot about this is found here:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/06/1935246
Italian scientist Giampaolo Giuliani, a researcher at the National Physical Laboratory of Gran Sasso, recently gave warning about an earthquake that was to happen on March 29th of this year near L'Aquilla. Based on radon gas emissions and a series of observed tremors he tried to convince residents to evacuate, drawing much criticism from the city's mayor and others. Giuliani was forced to take down warnings he had posted on the internet. The researcher had said that a 'disastrous' earthquake would strike on March 29, but when it didn't, Guido Bertolaso, head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency, last week officially denounced Giuliani in court for false alarm. 'These imbeciles enjoy spreading false news,' Bertalaso was quoted as saying. 'Everyone knows that you can't predict earthquakes.' Giuliani, it turns out, was partially right. A much smaller seismic shift struck on the day he said it would, with the truly disastrous one arriving just one week later. 'Someone owes me an apology,' said Giuliani, who is also a resident of L'Aquila. 'The situation here is dramatic. I am devastated, but also angry.'"
Oh, Italy, please don't ever change.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I hate the missing up button. Back functions differently from up, and I waste more time than I save by going back to some other place I had no intention of going, especially while I was in the habit of thinking I could go up.
how in the world is that no better than just guessing?
You're going to have to explain your logic on that one.
Are you willing to show people that have never been to the United States because you know its set size (~billions) can match the set size of Democrats driving American cars?
That implies you believe there are billions of Democrats driving American cars.
I politely decline this contest, but I am willing to take you up on many bets.
Yet it was about "fight" initially; I don't see how using "struggle" (in milder meaning, the one intuitive to me BTW - but nowhere near universal) would be appropriate as a counterargument. And now we're down to "vigorous effort" & "effort"...which was somehow my point.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with your point. But you're kind of doing the same thing if you immediately think of armed conflict between people, or whatever, when you hear the word fight. Aren't you? I agree that it seems to happen all too often, but you can't really assume other people are doing it if you're the one doing it and they aren't.
ie, it's not incorrect to say "you have to fight to keep your rights", because you do, sometimes in a violent conflict (the American revolution), sometimes not (now). Right? In that sense, I think the more active use of 'struggle' and 'fight' in saying it is a good portrayal, since it clearly shows what it can escalate to, and what effort it can entail even in times of peace and happiness. It depends on the context of what you're saying.
As for the quote - as I said, a bit too universal. Don't attach moral value (etc.) to "indolent" in modification; it could be just as well, say, late Roman decadency.
This is where you lost me. What are you reading indolent to mean here? Indolent, as I know it, means something like perpetually lazy, or maybe complacent with what someone already has. There's no moral value to that at all -- an indolent person wouldn't have many exploits. They don't do much because they're lazy. I'm not sure why you changed that, in the quote, to say exploit, as it makes no sense in that context for me. Those who don't look out for their rights will lose them eventually to someone who is looking for them.
I suppose so, but I see it differently. I actually changed the word "fight" (from who I was replying to) to "struggle" because I thought it was a much more meaningful choice of words -- while fight can make sense, it is also the kind of watered-down English that so often leads to binary views on topics.
As I see it, a struggle doesn't have to be a conflict between two people, as is implied with the comparison to fight. A struggle can be an especially vigorous effort, or really, any kind of effort that is at all strenuous or time-consuming. That is, of course, a nuance of language which seems to be lost on a lot of technical types.
(in a way a bit too universal also; look how curious it gets after substitution of just one word: "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their exploits become a prey to the active")
I'm not sure I understand your point here -- the indolent don't have many exploits at all.
it has always been a struggle, and always it will be.
It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.
John Philpot Curran, 1790
Catholics care. They care because they believe in the sacrament of forgiveness. They care because they believe that people have immortal souls that can last more than 500 years after someone's death.
And like some of the (still) ongoing sexual abuse scandals, they believe that forgiveness can come from someone other than the victims.
I'm all for genuine forgiveness, but this isn't it! This is a PR stunt, and is only not truly shameful because anyone who feels a genuine connection to the events has long since passed. It's slightly better than being forgiven by the Pope for rubbing children's penises, while covering up any information or news about it, without actually apologizing to the children, or the churchgoers, or the public. But it's not much better!
They produce money.
It's due to personal responsibility, or rather, the liberal concept that people are rational beings who are capable of making their own decisions. There's an ingrained attitude with all things financial that people are rational actors behaving in their own best interests. If this story is true, someone sold a bunch of stock, and then other people decided afterwards, on their own, to sell all kinds of stock as well. To add to your analogy, this would be more like a faulty sensor on a plane telling the pilot that he his altitude was 238,857 miles above sea level, where he made the logical decision that he needed to suddenly and steeply dive in order to get back to Earth.
It's all a legitimately crazy system, but people put up with it because, for the most part, it's people making decisions to buy and sell things. For this same reason it's also incredibly difficult and complex to regulate. It seems like it could use with some forced latency in the transactions -- after all, if computers are making decisions to buy and sell, then it's not necessarily rational, right? -- but a change like this is not only nearly impossible to implement, but would with certainty produce strange and unintended side effects.
And that's before even delving into the actual arguments against such types of regulation. If these kinds of computer-driven sale behavior is banned in New York, what is going to stop traders in London from taking advantage of the financiers in New York? What would stop all the New Yorkers from packing up shop and doing their trading in London? If this behavior is regulated in NYC and London, what is going to stop the traders in Hong Kong from taking advantage of the situation, or what would stop the companies moving their trading to Hong Kong? If it's banned in NYC, London, and Hong Kong, wouldn't a new trading hub form? Since this is 'rational' behavior of individual actors, not only is it likely, it's almost guaranteed -- just as individual economic centers have sprung up across the globe independently of one another in the first place.
That's not to be apologetic towards the Wall St type, as the negative stereotypes and negative behavior are fairly well known, and have been for hundreds of years. They hardly need to be embellished. It's just that everybody has yet to come up with something better, that is more efficient and less dangerous. As others have pointed out, Wall Street has attracted all kinds of intelligent people who may have gone on to do much better things, but that glosses over the fact that Wall Street itself is responsible for great things of its own -- it's just easy to lose it in the murk of the individual greed. Until we as humanity come up with something better, that works, and is more than a pipe dream, it will continue to lure many of our best and brightest, and who can really blame them?
The labor value theory of doesn't explain the price of Helvetica which has been around for 50 years and heavily used (and bought).
My point is only that the "fonts are expensive to design" argument needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because fonts become so widely used. It seems to me that it would only require very small payments from all users (or a few medium-sized payments from big players who want immediate access to new fonts that other people are not using yet) to fully-fund font development.
It's not so much the cost in making it -- in terms of dollars -- as it is why the cost of making it is what it is. If making a font is terribly difficult, and as such attracts a relatively small pool of skilled laborers, the cost of the font will be higher, regardless of the actual dollar-value of the cost of production. If there are only two people in the world who can make fonts others enjoy reading, then the demand for their fonts will skyrocket, along with the price. Even if it cost them only a dollar to make the font.