Their page is being troublesome, can anyone view the actual emails and post the juicy bits? From the article it seems like the copyright czar is working with people concerned (and being dicks about) copyright. No real surprise there. So there has to be more.
See: Harry "Never let a good crisis go to waste" Reid.)
I'm sorry. I was almost with you until this point. You were arguing against this paper, and against the politicizing of science, and I was with you. I understood. And then this. And it didn't get better.
YOU are politicizing science. You invoked your political bias against "the modern left". You're making up numbers and assuming social trends simply because that conforms to your preconceived worldview. Listen, if you think that global warming is false, you're delusional and can't conclude that 2+2=4 to save you're life. If you don't think humans aren't to blame, you're probably wrong. If you don't think there will be severe repercussions from all of this, well, you could be right. We'll see. It really depends on how fast this all goes down.
And you can argue about those last two things. Indeed it's a good thing to argue about. But the MOMENT you throw politics into the fray, one way or the other, then you're word is shit, and I wouldn't believe any figures you pull out of thin air.
You're right that politics ruin good science. You should work on that.
In further addition to supply and demand, and widespread student loans, there is the over-arcing reason that there's a demand for degrees and people willing to give loans to college kids. It's because first world countries are shifting to a service based economy. The demand for smarts has skyrocketed. The demand for muscle and backbreaking labor has dropped off. The only jobs that are worth anything require you to be smart. On the flip-side, if you bust rocks with your head for a living, you're going to face stiff competition from the third world, both local and abroad. Those who don't have to (or can't hope to) pay first world living expenses.
And that's because of globalization. Cheap transportation and communication has made us all close neighbors. The USA and Europe have been historically high and mighty, and that's balancing out with the new kids on the block. They're willing to undercut our labor, but they don't have the means to undercut intellectuals. The manufacturing jobs are gone, but the engineering jobs remain, so far.
Also, it's progress. As the cost of basics like food, clothing, and commodities bottom out, people turn to more advanced things. Things you can't just go out and get. In general, to serve those needs, it involves more advanced training or education. Hence, college.
And it's the tools. As we use more machines and automated tools to get things done, we need less manual labor and less paper pushers and more people who know how to service those machines and people who understand and automate the paper-pushing system.
And it's specialization. With globalization comes more competition, so people flee to niches. Anyone can read a book, but only a few people can tell you the ramifications for the way that ancient Sumerian referred to his wife with an idiom. Or, to be nicer, with the masses of people, we're allowed to be more specialized. Once you have so many people making food, you can have one person dedicated to making music. Once you have so many musicians, you can have one of them conduct. Once you have so many conductors, one of them can critique. Once you have so many critics... There's a joke about the collapse of society in here somewhere... Anyway, a lot of people get that specialization at college.
The price of an education has gone up because it really IS more valuable.
Well, when you give to charity, do you empty your bank accounts?
My goodness, it's as if you live in a binary world where everything is black and white, all or nothing.
Similar to... a... certain......someone.
So why do you only swear when posting anon? Do you think people are really going to go through your slashdot history?
(And why do I have to find the perpetrator to prove my own innocence?)
Uhhh. I'm a software engineer with a pretty decent job. I'm the one that isn't stressing over the cost of the filthy rabble touching my wifi. Oh, HAH! You thought I was just some poor mooch!
Swing and a miss there I'm afraid. Don't worry about it, happens to all of us.
your idea of what is a "social responsibility" is just that, YOUR idea, YOUR opinion.
Actually, it's Peter Eckersley's idea and opinion. But it's one I share. Other people also share this opinion. Some, merely because the EFF said so and they're awesome people. Some because it makes the world a better place. Together we're shaping the culture of tomorrow and how personal equipment is dealt with by society.
And you on the other hand, don't want people to be neighborly and helpful. Because... you don't like freeloaders or something. And a bit about child porn. And that's just, like, your opinion. Man.
Wait until their public wifi gets so clogged...
It's MY router, it doesn't respect network neutrality at all. It's biased as all get-out towards my own data. I don't experience their activity. Because I know how to set up a router.
Wait until those neighbors run their bandwidth allowance way over their cap...
This one is indeed a worry. For you poor sorry slobs who have a cap. But again, My router, my rules. If it was an issue, I'd have daily caps on the open wifi.
Wait until the feds come breaking down their door because they tracked piracy, child porn, death threats or terrorist activities back to their IP.
Yeah. This is the one where the lawyer from the EFF steps in and calls bullshit. I knew I liked those guys for a reason.
My router has logs, I'll share them if they have a warrant.
Come on Jimmi, don't be a coward. Who else would be interested in a thread this deep?
You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
I have plenty of oversight in that I do not external wireless connections from those I do not explicitly grant permission to use my service.
Yeah, you have that. You also have the oversight to whitelist, blacklist, cap, throttle, screen, log, and reverse all the images mid trip. Duh. You have a lot more oversight about how people use your wifi connection, even an open one, then you have over how your taxes get used. This was one of your issues with leaving a wifi signal open, right? You want some oversight to the charities you give to? It's literally YOU giving it out. YOU get to choose the terms. Jesus dude, I thought this was bloody obvious. Why am I spelling this out?
The word responsibility has great meaning to it. Often, this is taken to be synonomous as "requirement". It is my social responsibility to -pay taxes to pay for police, courts, and necessary government entities. -report for jury duty -not to take from my fellow man via force or fraud. -not harm or kill my fellow man. These are
LEGAL requirements. Those are known as LAWS. By breaking those you are a CRIMINAL. The EFF doesn't want your wifi to be open by law. In fact, I imagine they'd fight that sort of bullshit. Breaking a social responsibility just makes you a dick.
Ok, let me put it this way. Mother Teresa begs you to donate a buck and help take care of a lepers. Why? Because it's your "social responsibility". Feeding your kid is a legal requirement. Getting them to stop screaming in the grocery store is your social responsibility. Are you done playing word games?
I don't expect them to be concerned that I did not donate to them more than a couple pennies, nor do I plan to encourage anyone else to do as I did
Except for, you know, posting about it on Slashdot and this conversation we're having here where you try to convince me that EFF is in the wrong for wanting more open wifi.
Bandwitdh is traded to me in exchange for my money
Except you're not giving away something that has value to you. You are not depriving yourself of value. Users don't pay for per gig. Unless you're a business with a contract. Under the typical residential system, you pay for a vague promise of a connection, somewhere between zero and an upper rate. You can utilize that connection however much you want, maybe up to a cap of some sort, but that depends. If you have an unlimited connection or don't usually don't come anywhere near your cap, you have already paid for a bunch of bandwidth that you simply aren't using, and the ISP pockets the profit. In the ideal theoretical free market, another ISP comes in and they battle over the averages driving down the cost so the use is reflected in your bill, but that's a bigger load of bullshit then I'm willing to feed anyone at this point.
So what's you've got your panties in a twist over and what you're standing on defensively claiming as your hard-earned property, is in fact surplus. That wouldn't otherwise be used. That's trivial to give away. If anyone wants it.
For me, charity is the giving of time/effort/money of my own free choice for emotional/pyschological gratification, hence, I am receiving something of perceived value (at least to myself) for my donation.
. . . yeah . . . like the gift of open wifi. I'm helping my fellow netizen connect when they're outside their normal ISP's service.
Like I said, it's altruistic. You know, like giving to charity.
. . . I'm not sure where the disconnect is happening. I think perhaps we're on the same page and we're just bickering for the fun of it. Let's stop.
Isn't Frozen Synapse fun? We should play together. Let me just hop on this wifi over here...
Ah yes, that reminds me, I need to check to see if they finally resolved the bug that kept Civ5 from crashing horrendously with my video card, and if they finally decided to include a hot-seat multilayer. You know, a professionaly made game...
My problem with the Peter Eckersley wifi article on EFF is the "open wifis are the 'socially responsible' thing to do". I pay for my access and my convenience to have wireless devices use my access from the pool of time in my limited life span devoted to providing a service for others in exchange for something useful. I have no social obligation to share the fruits of my efforts with others that could choose to have the same service and convenience I have paid for if they so desired.
Right. "I've got mine, piss off you rabble". Sharing with your neighbors is indeed the altruistic thing to do. But you actually CAN'T go pay for wireless service when around town. Well, not at any reasonable rate. So this argument stands in suburbia, but falls apart in the city/campus/office/whatnot where your signal could be used by people away from their own connection.
But you don't REALLY just want the rabble to piss off, you understand charity:
I choose to give to charity because I get satisfaction of knowing I contributed to a worthwhile cause I support, which for myself, I feel is an equal exchange. Additionally, I get a large bit of oversight into how my donation is apportioned, better than I can say how my tax money is redistributed. The *choice* to participate in a charity is infinitely better than any concept of "social responsibility" that says I should give things I have earned away. If/When EFF loses the "socially responsible" nonsense, they will be back in my personal good graces and receive more of my support again.
The Internet isn't worthwhile?
You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
It's arguable that rich people such as, well, pretty much everyone in the USA has a social responsibility to be charitable. It's one of those social glues that keeps us all together and balances out bad luck and such. It's part of, you know, "Be nice". That said, you still have a choice to be a dick. So, let me restate that: just because something is a "social responsibility" doesn't mean you're forced to do it. There's no contract, law, or power that will take your cash or force open your wifi. And the EFF isn't arguing for that.
Peter Eckersley wants to shift culture so you'll feel guilty about not sharing. He doesn't want to take away your choice. To work towards that he specifically want to abolish the idea that having an open wifi connection is a legal liability, which I agree is bullshit.
The EFF also wants your cold hard cash. Entirely because they're lawyers that aren't dicks. A lot like Child's Play, which presumably you donated to with the bundle. So you feel fine with giving CASH, but not your unused bandwidth?
I guess Braid is for people that realize that the SET YOUR OWN PRICE model allows you to pay $1 and get Trine.
Well, it did while the event was going on at least...
wtf!? Gish was AWESOME! Let me guess, you never got the hang of jumping, did you? There's a lot of finesse there and if you don't have it, you can barely move around.
The game is ok. It needs more feedback over what area is being covered with what sort of suppression. Sometimes the 3D gets in the way of that, but it's not too bad. It could also be a little more clear and discreet about the differences of the weapon types. A visible range limit for the shotguns would be nice. I found snipers to be worthless. The story is a little crufty with too many names and a lot of chatting that's hardly coupled to the gameplay. Still, the concept is fun and it IS pretty addicting.
Wait, what's wrong with having open wifi? You are really bitching about "commie koolaid" after participating in a charity event? Really?
By "gold star" I mean something more akin to a teacher saying "good job"
... huh? No, that's STILL exactly the issue. If the teacher pumps up and encourages one student while doing the same for another student that's the same as a gold star, and at least in the ballpark of similarity of this color coding system. If everyone gets a gold star, or if the teacher tells everyone "good job", then the praise becomes meaningless. The issue: Do you differentiate the kids based on their performance or do you treat them all the same. Kids are smart (well, the smart ones are at least), they notice when everyone gets the same reward. Trust me. I went through that. When everyone is on the honor roll, it's a meaningless distinction. It IS a better environment when the overall message is positive. Telling everyone they're super is better then telling everyone they're little shitballs. But if you want to encourage kids to be smart, you're going to have to reward them in some meaningful way.
What I think we really need is a fundamental shift in the entire culture of education - both within the school and in the wider society. We don't need a strict dog-eat-dog meritocracy,
Well we STRIVE for a meritocracy out in the real world. That's a good thing. It's leaps and bounds better then Mr.McMoneyPant's kids inheriting the company/job and making a mess of it. Let me be clear about this. If you're arguing against a meritocracy for society on the whole, then you're working to destroy us. Because our competitors will do it better, faster, and cheaper, and we will go hungry. Now, as far as the education system is concerned, it's not a meritocracy at all. There's quite a bit of coddling and everyone gets a gold star. In the rare exception, kids are held back. Some kids excel at and rewarded for sports or whatnot, but that's the not academics. Well, at least it was a decade ago when I got out.
...we need a system that encourages and enables all members to be more engaged in their own learning and encouraging of everyone's successes.
And that's a lovely dream. But what sort of system encourages that behavior. Now, bear with me a second, some people would argue that giving kids a challenge and turning school into a competitive thing, like a sport, does exactly that. Everyone wants to do better, and through contraptions like "sportsmanship" you encourage everyone to play/study hard.
It's not a great argument, but it's there. And it's a proposed solution. Right now, you have a goal, but you have no plan about how to get there.
You've definitely have a streak of optimism in you if you think that's going to happen. I'm guessing you're a democrat. Me too. Listen, one of the attractive but weak points of this philosophy is it's optimism. If your plan doesn't account for snot nosed little brats being horrible to each other, if your plan for that scenario is "let's hope it doesn't happen" or "get the parents to fix that", then you really don't have a plan. If you want kids to be doves and co-operate with the other prisoners, you're going to have to give them a real psychological and sociological reason to do so. And even then you'll only have maybe 70% of them on board and you'll still have the occasional little bastard to deal with.
Bravo and doubleplus good points to you for keeping the theme!
But hey now, I just thought it funny that the argument went something like:
"Insults make people learn!"
*rebuttle*
*insult*
"Thanks for reminding me, I'll try to avoid it in the future."
Rhetorical gold right there. But anyway, you're right, this sort of thing is unethical and teaches kids that they're stupid. Ignoring the fact that some kids really ARE stupid though destroys any semblance of a meritocracy, which is why it isn't cool to be smart is school. Which sucks.
I dunno how to fix that.
Actually, it's kind of like an S&M relationship. You have the guy who thinks people learn from being embarrassed and the guy who thinks you should admit to making mistakes.
This is just an abusive relationship waiting to happen.
Just for a gauge, mind telling us the professions of your cousin & spouse and your estimate of their gross income? "Rich" has a pretty wide swing now a days.
Giving a loan? No crime there no matter how stupid it is for the lender. But it's FRAUD when they sell that loan to someone else, because they're lying about what they're selling.
Well you can start over on the wiki page. Racial issues is it's own section. It starts out with republicans complaining about everyone thinking they're racist, and then proceeds to show a bunch of evidence showing how they're racist.
Not, you know, the SAME people. But people in the party. Now, you could say something about a few bad apples, but there's an averaging effect which makes the group on the whole only "moderately racist".
Sure, we want to celibate success so maybe the top performer deserves a gold star,
Which is exactly what they're trying to do here, and which is exactly what you're arguing against. Give out gold starts to the top 10%, and you've shown the bottom 90% that they are, in fact, not gold star sort of people.
but even more important would be to give positive reinforcement for those who manage great improvements
This is what you're getting after. But it leads to little Jimmy, who got 9/10, being neglected as Tommy gets praised and rewarded when he gets 6/10. Just because he was a real fuckup at the start of the year. This destroys the meritocracy.
You are no longer rewarding success, you're rewarding effort. I think this is part of the reason it's not cool to be a geek or nerd in the USA educational system. Sure, being a top sports jock or a lead in a play is respectable. But getting top grades is not.
I'm not going to ignore the studies though. Kids get tracked (and put themselves in a track). But we need to promote merit. We can't hand out gold stars to whoever wants one. They can't all be the top 10%.
And honestly, I have no idea how to get those two things to mesh.
Yeah, yeah, I was asked to imagine it and it invoked the slippery slope. You bring up good points about the legal issues, technical limitations, and ways around this device.
But if violators can simply tape over the camera.... then why is it there? Really, it's about as useful as asking if someone is lying and trusting them not to lie to you.
And I imagine that once it's used to capture drunks there will be a push to make it required in all cars, hooked into the battery. Hey man, I'm on the slippery slope. I know that's way down the line, but I'm really not worried about this device that's patented. It's the concept of installed survellence inside my vehicle.
I'd actually prefer a camera next to the toll station that scans for passengers. It's the difference between a gas-station attendant looking at you when you come up to the counter, and an attendant following you around as you shop. Staring at you. Silently.
The Internet is by far the most useful tool for sedition, rabble-rousing, revolution and corrupting upstanding citizens. You simply MUST be tracked.
I'm all for getting drunks off the road. I have an issue with losing my own privacy to do it.
Because of cultural issues with the judicial system, media, congress, and moral outrage among the public. If I was on the ball I'd have also said that he would crash into a van full of kids. This is politics playing in the legal realm. The forces that be; lawyer, district attorneys, police, politicians. They know that this sort of thing pushes back privacy. They're just doing their jobs and they want to catch the bad guy. And this is the exact sort of thing that hippies and slashdotters rally against. So they choose their fights (I probably should have opened with that). They choose the case that the public will support even though it's not the typical use-case-scenario.
Same thing happened with Rosa Parks. Remember her? There were other black people that refused to give up their seat, but the heads of the civil rights movement didn't defend them. They chose to defend Rosa, in part, because she was a soft-spoken beautiful woman. It helps sway the public. Because in mass, people are stupid.
a toll device that can enforce HOV Tolls by detecting if you actually have more then one person in the vehicle . . . . imagine that.
I am imagining it. And it's horrible. Think about this. As you drive down the road, they take a picture of you in your car using a camera in your car which is required to use the service. They send that to someone to check to see if you're breaking the rules.... That's a 1984 telescreen snooping on you.
Now, of course, they only want to use it to enforce the commuter lanes. And as lame as it is, I'm going to invoke the slippery slope argument. If they can catch you for breaking one rule, you KNOW they're going to append the rules to bust drunks. Then video is going to be used as evidence in some horrible crash of a white male not paying attention as he slams into someone. It'll be contested. They'll win. And now you drive in a Panopticon.
I'm all for people following the rules, but this is putting WAY too much trust in the toll road operators.
Slashdot Mirror
Their page is being troublesome, can anyone view the actual emails and post the juicy bits? From the article it seems like the copyright czar is working with people concerned (and being dicks about) copyright. No real surprise there. So there has to be more.
See: Harry "Never let a good crisis go to waste" Reid.)
I'm sorry. I was almost with you until this point. You were arguing against this paper, and against the politicizing of science, and I was with you. I understood. And then this. And it didn't get better.
YOU are politicizing science. You invoked your political bias against "the modern left". You're making up numbers and assuming social trends simply because that conforms to your preconceived worldview. Listen, if you think that global warming is false, you're delusional and can't conclude that 2+2=4 to save you're life. If you don't think humans aren't to blame, you're probably wrong. If you don't think there will be severe repercussions from all of this, well, you could be right. We'll see. It really depends on how fast this all goes down.
And you can argue about those last two things. Indeed it's a good thing to argue about. But the MOMENT you throw politics into the fray, one way or the other, then you're word is shit, and I wouldn't believe any figures you pull out of thin air.
You're right that politics ruin good science. You should work on that.
In further addition to supply and demand, and widespread student loans, there is the over-arcing reason that there's a demand for degrees and people willing to give loans to college kids. It's because first world countries are shifting to a service based economy. The demand for smarts has skyrocketed. The demand for muscle and backbreaking labor has dropped off. The only jobs that are worth anything require you to be smart. On the flip-side, if you bust rocks with your head for a living, you're going to face stiff competition from the third world, both local and abroad. Those who don't have to (or can't hope to) pay first world living expenses.
And that's because of globalization. Cheap transportation and communication has made us all close neighbors. The USA and Europe have been historically high and mighty, and that's balancing out with the new kids on the block. They're willing to undercut our labor, but they don't have the means to undercut intellectuals. The manufacturing jobs are gone, but the engineering jobs remain, so far.
Also, it's progress. As the cost of basics like food, clothing, and commodities bottom out, people turn to more advanced things. Things you can't just go out and get. In general, to serve those needs, it involves more advanced training or education. Hence, college.
And it's the tools. As we use more machines and automated tools to get things done, we need less manual labor and less paper pushers and more people who know how to service those machines and people who understand and automate the paper-pushing system.
And it's specialization. With globalization comes more competition, so people flee to niches. Anyone can read a book, but only a few people can tell you the ramifications for the way that ancient Sumerian referred to his wife with an idiom. Or, to be nicer, with the masses of people, we're allowed to be more specialized. Once you have so many people making food, you can have one person dedicated to making music. Once you have so many musicians, you can have one of them conduct. Once you have so many conductors, one of them can critique. Once you have so many critics... There's a joke about the collapse of society in here somewhere... Anyway, a lot of people get that specialization at college.
The price of an education has gone up because it really IS more valuable.
Well, when you give to charity, do you empty your bank accounts?
...someone.
My goodness, it's as if you live in a binary world where everything is black and white, all or nothing.
Similar to... a... certain...
So why do you only swear when posting anon? Do you think people are really going to go through your slashdot history?
(And why do I have to find the perpetrator to prove my own innocence?)
Swing and a miss there I'm afraid. Don't worry about it, happens to all of us.
your idea of what is a "social responsibility" is just that, YOUR idea, YOUR opinion.
Actually, it's Peter Eckersley's idea and opinion. But it's one I share. Other people also share this opinion. Some, merely because the EFF said so and they're awesome people. Some because it makes the world a better place. Together we're shaping the culture of tomorrow and how personal equipment is dealt with by society.
And you on the other hand, don't want people to be neighborly and helpful. Because... you don't like freeloaders or something. And a bit about child porn. And that's just, like, your opinion. Man.
Wait until their public wifi gets so clogged...
It's MY router, it doesn't respect network neutrality at all. It's biased as all get-out towards my own data. I don't experience their activity. Because I know how to set up a router.
Wait until those neighbors run their bandwidth allowance way over their cap...
This one is indeed a worry. For you poor sorry slobs who have a cap. But again, My router, my rules. If it was an issue, I'd have daily caps on the open wifi.
Wait until the feds come breaking down their door because they tracked piracy, child porn, death threats or terrorist activities back to their IP.
Yeah. This is the one where the lawyer from the EFF steps in and calls bullshit. I knew I liked those guys for a reason.
My router has logs, I'll share them if they have a warrant.
Come on Jimmi, don't be a coward. Who else would be interested in a thread this deep?
You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
I have plenty of oversight in that I do not external wireless connections from those I do not explicitly grant permission to use my service.
Yeah, you have that. You also have the oversight to whitelist, blacklist, cap, throttle, screen, log, and reverse all the images mid trip. Duh. You have a lot more oversight about how people use your wifi connection, even an open one, then you have over how your taxes get used. This was one of your issues with leaving a wifi signal open, right? You want some oversight to the charities you give to? It's literally YOU giving it out. YOU get to choose the terms. Jesus dude, I thought this was bloody obvious. Why am I spelling this out?
The word responsibility has great meaning to it. Often, this is taken to be synonomous as "requirement". It is my social responsibility to
-pay taxes to pay for police, courts, and necessary government entities.
-report for jury duty
-not to take from my fellow man via force or fraud.
-not harm or kill my fellow man. These are
LEGAL requirements. Those are known as LAWS. By breaking those you are a CRIMINAL. The EFF doesn't want your wifi to be open by law. In fact, I imagine they'd fight that sort of bullshit. Breaking a social responsibility just makes you a dick.
Ok, let me put it this way. Mother Teresa begs you to donate a buck and help take care of a lepers. Why? Because it's your "social responsibility". Feeding your kid is a legal requirement. Getting them to stop screaming in the grocery store is your social responsibility. Are you done playing word games?
I don't expect them to be concerned that I did not donate to them more than a couple pennies, nor do I plan to encourage anyone else to do as I did
Except for, you know, posting about it on Slashdot and this conversation we're having here where you try to convince me that EFF is in the wrong for wanting more open wifi.
Bandwitdh is traded to me in exchange for my money
Except you're not giving away something that has value to you. You are not depriving yourself of value. Users don't pay for per gig. Unless you're a business with a contract. Under the typical residential system, you pay for a vague promise of a connection, somewhere between zero and an upper rate. You can utilize that connection however much you want, maybe up to a cap of some sort, but that depends. If you have an unlimited connection or don't usually don't come anywhere near your cap, you have already paid for a bunch of bandwidth that you simply aren't using, and the ISP pockets the profit. In the ideal theoretical free market, another ISP comes in and they battle over the averages driving down the cost so the use is reflected in your bill, but that's a bigger load of bullshit then I'm willing to feed anyone at this point.
So what's you've got your panties in a twist over and what you're standing on defensively claiming as your hard-earned property, is in fact surplus.
That wouldn't otherwise be used.
That's trivial to give away.
If anyone wants it.
For me, charity is the giving of time/effort/money of my own free choice for emotional/pyschological gratification, hence, I am receiving something of perceived value (at least to myself) for my donation.
. . . yeah . . . like the gift of open wifi. I'm helping my fellow netizen connect when they're outside their normal ISP's service.
Like I said, it's altruistic. You know, like giving to charity.
. . . I'm not sure where the disconnect is happening. I think perhaps we're on the same page and we're just bickering for the fun of it. Let's stop.
Isn't Frozen Synapse fun? We should play together. Let me just hop on this wifi over here...
Ah yes, that reminds me, I need to check to see if they finally resolved the bug that kept Civ5 from crashing horrendously with my video card, and if they finally decided to include a hot-seat multilayer. You know, a professionaly made game...
My problem with the Peter Eckersley wifi article on EFF is the "open wifis are the 'socially responsible' thing to do". I pay for my access and my convenience to have wireless devices use my access from the pool of time in my limited life span devoted to providing a service for others in exchange for something useful. I have no social obligation to share the fruits of my efforts with others that could choose to have the same service and convenience I have paid for if they so desired.
Right. "I've got mine, piss off you rabble". Sharing with your neighbors is indeed the altruistic thing to do. But you actually CAN'T go pay for wireless service when around town. Well, not at any reasonable rate. So this argument stands in suburbia, but falls apart in the city/campus/office/whatnot where your signal could be used by people away from their own connection.
But you don't REALLY just want the rabble to piss off, you understand charity:
I choose to give to charity because I get satisfaction of knowing I contributed to a worthwhile cause I support, which for myself, I feel is an equal exchange. Additionally, I get a large bit of oversight into how my donation is apportioned, better than I can say how my tax money is redistributed. The *choice* to participate in a charity is infinitely better than any concept of "social responsibility" that says I should give things I have earned away. If/When EFF loses the "socially responsible" nonsense, they will be back in my personal good graces and receive more of my support again.
The Internet isn't worthwhile?
You have no oversight for what YOUR OWN ROUTER forwards on?
It's arguable that rich people such as, well, pretty much everyone in the USA has a social responsibility to be charitable. It's one of those social glues that keeps us all together and balances out bad luck and such. It's part of, you know, "Be nice". That said, you still have a choice to be a dick. So, let me restate that: just because something is a "social responsibility" doesn't mean you're forced to do it. There's no contract, law, or power that will take your cash or force open your wifi. And the EFF isn't arguing for that.
Peter Eckersley wants to shift culture so you'll feel guilty about not sharing. He doesn't want to take away your choice. To work towards that he specifically want to abolish the idea that having an open wifi connection is a legal liability, which I agree is bullshit.
The EFF also wants your cold hard cash. Entirely because they're lawyers that aren't dicks. A lot like Child's Play, which presumably you donated to with the bundle. So you feel fine with giving CASH, but not your unused bandwidth?
I guess Braid is for people that realize that the SET YOUR OWN PRICE model allows you to pay $1 and get Trine.
Well, it did while the event was going on at least...
wtf!? Gish was AWESOME! Let me guess, you never got the hang of jumping, did you? There's a lot of finesse there and if you don't have it, you can barely move around.
cynical and tin-foily.
The game is ok. It needs more feedback over what area is being covered with what sort of suppression. Sometimes the 3D gets in the way of that, but it's not too bad. It could also be a little more clear and discreet about the differences of the weapon types. A visible range limit for the shotguns would be nice. I found snipers to be worthless. The story is a little crufty with too many names and a lot of chatting that's hardly coupled to the gameplay. Still, the concept is fun and it IS pretty addicting.
Wait, what's wrong with having open wifi? You are really bitching about "commie koolaid" after participating in a charity event? Really?
By "gold star" I mean something more akin to a teacher saying "good job"
... huh? No, that's STILL exactly the issue. If the teacher pumps up and encourages one student while doing the same for another student that's the same as a gold star, and at least in the ballpark of similarity of this color coding system. If everyone gets a gold star, or if the teacher tells everyone "good job", then the praise becomes meaningless. The issue: Do you differentiate the kids based on their performance or do you treat them all the same. Kids are smart (well, the smart ones are at least), they notice when everyone gets the same reward. Trust me. I went through that. When everyone is on the honor roll, it's a meaningless distinction.
It IS a better environment when the overall message is positive. Telling everyone they're super is better then telling everyone they're little shitballs. But if you want to encourage kids to be smart, you're going to have to reward them in some meaningful way.
What I think we really need is a fundamental shift in the entire culture of education - both within the school and in the wider society. We don't need a strict dog-eat-dog meritocracy,
Well we STRIVE for a meritocracy out in the real world. That's a good thing. It's leaps and bounds better then Mr.McMoneyPant's kids inheriting the company/job and making a mess of it. Let me be clear about this. If you're arguing against a meritocracy for society on the whole, then you're working to destroy us. Because our competitors will do it better, faster, and cheaper, and we will go hungry.
Now, as far as the education system is concerned, it's not a meritocracy at all. There's quite a bit of coddling and everyone gets a gold star. In the rare exception, kids are held back. Some kids excel at and rewarded for sports or whatnot, but that's the not academics. Well, at least it was a decade ago when I got out.
...we need a system that encourages and enables all members to be more engaged in their own learning and encouraging of everyone's successes.
And that's a lovely dream. But what sort of system encourages that behavior. Now, bear with me a second, some people would argue that giving kids a challenge and turning school into a competitive thing, like a sport, does exactly that. Everyone wants to do better, and through contraptions like "sportsmanship" you encourage everyone to play/study hard.
It's not a great argument, but it's there. And it's a proposed solution. Right now, you have a goal, but you have no plan about how to get there.
You've definitely have a streak of optimism in you if you think that's going to happen. I'm guessing you're a democrat. Me too. Listen, one of the attractive but weak points of this philosophy is it's optimism. If your plan doesn't account for snot nosed little brats being horrible to each other, if your plan for that scenario is "let's hope it doesn't happen" or "get the parents to fix that", then you really don't have a plan. If you want kids to be doves and co-operate with the other prisoners, you're going to have to give them a real psychological and sociological reason to do so. And even then you'll only have maybe 70% of them on board and you'll still have the occasional little bastard to deal with.
Bravo and doubleplus good points to you for keeping the theme!
But hey now, I just thought it funny that the argument went something like:
"Insults make people learn!"
*rebuttle*
*insult*
"Thanks for reminding me, I'll try to avoid it in the future."
Rhetorical gold right there. But anyway, you're right, this sort of thing is unethical and teaches kids that they're stupid. Ignoring the fact that some kids really ARE stupid though destroys any semblance of a meritocracy, which is why it isn't cool to be smart is school. Which sucks.
I dunno how to fix that.
Actually, it's kind of like an S&M relationship. You have the guy who thinks people learn from being embarrassed and the guy who thinks you should admit to making mistakes.
This is just an abusive relationship waiting to happen.
Nope, fearmongering and spreading FUD doesn't need no E lab or ation!
Just for a gauge, mind telling us the professions of your cousin & spouse and your estimate of their gross income?
"Rich" has a pretty wide swing now a days.
Giving a loan? No crime there no matter how stupid it is for the lender. But it's FRAUD when they sell that loan to someone else, because they're lying about what they're selling.
Well you can start over on the wiki page. Racial issues is it's own section. It starts out with republicans complaining about everyone thinking they're racist, and then proceeds to show a bunch of evidence showing how they're racist.
Not, you know, the SAME people. But people in the party. Now, you could say something about a few bad apples, but there's an averaging effect which makes the group on the whole only "moderately racist".
So... There you go.
Sure, we want to celibate success so maybe the top performer deserves a gold star,
Which is exactly what they're trying to do here, and which is exactly what you're arguing against. Give out gold starts to the top 10%, and you've shown the bottom 90% that they are, in fact, not gold star sort of people.
but even more important would be to give positive reinforcement for those who manage great improvements
This is what you're getting after. But it leads to little Jimmy, who got 9/10, being neglected as Tommy gets praised and rewarded when he gets 6/10. Just because he was a real fuckup at the start of the year. This destroys the meritocracy.
You are no longer rewarding success, you're rewarding effort. I think this is part of the reason it's not cool to be a geek or nerd in the USA educational system. Sure, being a top sports jock or a lead in a play is respectable. But getting top grades is not.
I'm not going to ignore the studies though. Kids get tracked (and put themselves in a track). But we need to promote merit. We can't hand out gold stars to whoever wants one. They can't all be the top 10%.
And honestly, I have no idea how to get those two things to mesh.
Whoa, hold up a second... Did Hognoxious's post motivate you to do better?
Think about that.
Now read your post.
Now look at me.
Now look at your post.
Now look at Hognoxious.
Now who is insightful?
Yeah, yeah, I was asked to imagine it and it invoked the slippery slope. You bring up good points about the legal issues, technical limitations, and ways around this device.
But if violators can simply tape over the camera.... then why is it there? Really, it's about as useful as asking if someone is lying and trusting them not to lie to you.
And I imagine that once it's used to capture drunks there will be a push to make it required in all cars, hooked into the battery. Hey man, I'm on the slippery slope. I know that's way down the line, but I'm really not worried about this device that's patented. It's the concept of installed survellence inside my vehicle.
I'd actually prefer a camera next to the toll station that scans for passengers. It's the difference between a gas-station attendant looking at you when you come up to the counter, and an attendant following you around as you shop. Staring at you. Silently.
The Internet is by far the most useful tool for sedition, rabble-rousing, revolution and corrupting upstanding citizens. You simply MUST be tracked.
I'm all for getting drunks off the road. I have an issue with losing my own privacy to do it.
Because of cultural issues with the judicial system, media, congress, and moral outrage among the public. If I was on the ball I'd have also said that he would crash into a van full of kids. This is politics playing in the legal realm. The forces that be; lawyer, district attorneys, police, politicians. They know that this sort of thing pushes back privacy. They're just doing their jobs and they want to catch the bad guy. And this is the exact sort of thing that hippies and slashdotters rally against. So they choose their fights (I probably should have opened with that). They choose the case that the public will support even though it's not the typical use-case-scenario.
Same thing happened with Rosa Parks. Remember her? There were other black people that refused to give up their seat, but the heads of the civil rights movement didn't defend them. They chose to defend Rosa, in part, because she was a soft-spoken beautiful woman. It helps sway the public. Because in mass, people are stupid.
a toll device that can enforce HOV Tolls by detecting if you actually have more then one person in the vehicle . . . . imagine that.
I am imagining it. And it's horrible. Think about this. As you drive down the road, they take a picture of you in your car using a camera in your car which is required to use the service. They send that to someone to check to see if you're breaking the rules.... That's a 1984 telescreen snooping on you.
Now, of course, they only want to use it to enforce the commuter lanes. And as lame as it is, I'm going to invoke the slippery slope argument. If they can catch you for breaking one rule, you KNOW they're going to append the rules to bust drunks. Then video is going to be used as evidence in some horrible crash of a white male not paying attention as he slams into someone. It'll be contested. They'll win. And now you drive in a Panopticon.
I'm all for people following the rules, but this is putting WAY too much trust in the toll road operators.