Well you gotta take the good with the bad with the DarkMarket. Sure, maybe a Dallas Buyer's Club scenario might seem more legitimate to the average person (or a market for any legitimate pharmaceutical drugs at lower prices because a huge markup in Europe / North America). But what about all the other nasty, illegal stuff will this be used for? The creators of this can't control the goods and services that are sold any more than the creators of bittorrent can control the files being transferred around.
Sure, maybe some drugs seem harmless and you can argue they're a victimless crime or whatever. What about all the other insidious shit out there that this will be used to peddle? CP, hit-man & assassination services, weapons, slavery, identity theft and stolen credit cards... surely the concept of DarkMarket opens up a new market for all these types of transactions too - you can't expect these services to be somehow excluded. In my utilitarianism-based opinion; this is a far greater harm than good for the world; the benefits of being able to buy some recreational drugs or make purchases anonymously is heavily outweighed by giving the rich the ability to put out a hit some some journalist with a dissenting opinion (with a much lower chance of being caught than without this service), or a new market for CP, etc..
I wish the creators of this project would realize this. Maybe this is just somehow acceptable in the worldview of the anarchist or the libertarian-leaning types. Or maybe it's morally rationalized by some thoughts on the lines of "Hey, I didn't kill those thousands of people! I only sold those guns to that corrupt African warlord" or "I only helped create the software that assist people making illegal transactions, I didn't actually sell or make that CP" and somehow absolve themselves from guilt because they're not the ones making the transaction. I might not agree with the current laws on drugs, but I certainly don't support this project.
I this same sort of parallel with guitars as well; all of my musician friends that play guitar seem to highly value older guitars (made in the 60's and 70's) over those made recently. And they're not just valued for their sentimental value; every decent guitar player I've met seems to have some sort of fascination with vintage guitars and *knows* the sound is considerably better than anything they can buy today. I don't see this parallel with non-string instruments, such as brass, woodwinds, percussion or keyboards (possibly a couple of exceptions for keyboards, i.e. a hammond B Leslie; but certainly not the norm).
Maybe there's some other factor here, but I still have a hard time believing whether older string instruments are actually better sounding. As OP suggested with the Stradivari, they were certainly well crafted in their day. But surely we have the technology and material to surpass that now - especially with the same companies that continue to make guitars, right? Or is there truly some scientific factor that makes the sounder better (such as the wood "maturing" or drying up more over time, or something like that)? I still don't know whether vintage guitars actually sound better, or if everyone's just fooled into thinking they sound better because Hendrix or Page played that exact guitar that one time in the 70's - they don't sound any better than new guitars to me. Perhaps there is something "special" about older string instruments that hasn't been explained well yet?
Most single player games on valve, or single player versions have achievements (at least 100% of the games I've purchased, around 30 or so). If you're using a cheat on single player and you're able to get those achievements as a result, then they've been devalued. I suppose they could start disabling achievements if a hack is detected, but what would be the benefit to them for implementing such a system? Then it's a constant game of cat and mouse with detectable hacks and cheats in the game.
Maybe you and others don't care about achievements or think them silly or stupid, but plenty of gamers get some sense of accomplishment or satisfaction when they're completed - especially the harder ones. We don't want these tarnished by people with hacks and cheats.
Still missing the point. The point was we're biologically wired to want different things - male brains and female brains are hardwired differently from birth. Advertising, social differences & behavior, pink vs blue - these aren't causes of the differences we see in boys vs girls or men vs women, they're tailored to what we're biologically included to do. Differences in brain development can already be seen at 26 weeks in the womb.
"Hey I didn't actually sell financial information, I only helped set up a system that allowed criminals to sell stolen credit card details!"
"Hey I didn't actually molest those children, I only created a forum that let people purchase CP from eachother!"
"Hey I don't own any slaves, I only helped some sellers find some and shipped them across to people willing to buy!"
"Hey I didn't kill those thousands of civilians, I just helped facilitate a deal between an arms dealer and a corrupt dictatorship!"
Yeesh. "merely providing a forum to communicate". It's assholes like you that make the world burn - you damn well know the consequences of the actions of a scheme, a forum set up specifically for selling stolen financial information , but somehow rationalize it away in the name of some libertarianish idea of 'all free speech should be allowed' because you're actually facilitating in the crime yourself!
I can't help notice the irony of the GP posting "People are really bad at understanding statistics.", yet you use a random stat (3/20 Tesla Accidents had an auto-fire) to make it sound like the Tesla Model S is "more likely to catch fire". Kind of ignores the ridiculously small sample size, the fact all 3 cars were going extremely high speeds (maybe sports cars in general have higher accident rates?), or that fire-related problems are less likely with a more detailed on board computer etc... And where's this 20 coming from? (honest question, I don't see anything in the links - are there only 20 reported Tesla S accidents to date?) . There were only 3 fires in the Tesla Model S... ever! You can't make a statement with odds that low.
I don't agree with your assumption that law enforcement can confiscate a bitcoin "because this bitcoin was used in a crime X months ago and Y transactions ago". By that logic, a cop could confiscate paper money because it has trace amounts of cocaine on it (so 90% of your money, or whatever the actual percentage is if that's too high). Why would a bitcoins using during the process of ANY CRIME be subject seizure anyway? I don't see how that would assist in prosecution.
I know! It's like watching two school bullies argues start to argue over something, as you're secretly hoping they'll get into a fight and both be suspended.
I could see MasterCard taking more of the hit for this though, Paypal funds can be added without any fee from a bank account, or with some new MoneyPak thing I'm just reading about for the first time - I forsee more people using this option if they have hefty fees when transferring from a credit card (Because the whole reason you're using Paypal is because you can't use your credit card in the first place, the money will be transferred if it has to be).
Ah, I kid I kid.. I just wanted to be the first person that said yes after 67 comments of NO. Slashdot is united in opinion for the first time ever! I doubt it would have made a difference
You know what would have been nice though? If twitter had been around for a couple of years before that, and it had today's popularity back in 2003. I saw somewhere earlier in this thread that claimed 90% of America was in support of the war at the time. That seems a bit high, but regardless of what that number is, I'll bet most of them are silent now. It would be nice to know which politicians, celebrities, friends & neighbors were fully supporting war back then. So when the next middle east war "opportunity" rolls around and the same people shout "We want war! But this one's legitimate this time we swear, not like Iraq", their twit / blog / wall post history can be used against them.
The conservatives didn't pass the last similar bill through, though they could have. They *could* pass any bill they like, but if there's enough public backlash they may decide against passing it. They do plan on winning seats in future elections, so they won't just pass anything unless it has a minimum threshold of public support.
I'd like to see some more detailed data on a course by course basis (or in different programs). I've taken some bio courses that are about 95% pure memorization - I'd be inclined to think the online courses like this wouldn't have 90% attrition rates. Conversely, I'd be lost in some math or comp sci courses without a teacher explaining how a concept or formula actually works. Some classes have a lot more students asking teachers than others.
See this is your problem right here, slashdot users. Instead of just reading the summary/header and commenting - you've decided to first RTFA. Maybe you even clicked on all the links the summary.
If you dumb asses would have read the comments first, you would instantly known it was a fluff piece / disguised advertising. But NOOO, you have to try to be knowledgeable about the subject before deciding you're qualified to comment. Well that'll learn ya for next time - *always* read the comments first!
What? We don't get to vote on this - this isn't a referendum. Harper and the conservatives have a majority government, they can vote whatever they want in.
Or do you mean the MPs will vote on this? Sure they will. But the end result is really no different than an "executive order from harper". Canadian MPs virtually never vote against their own party . They vote against their own party less than 0.5% of the time, if EVER.
The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.
You know, for such an Orwellian sounding program, you'd think the marketing droids there would have picked a better acronym than RIOT. Like Worldwide Online Overlord Technology or something on the lines of that.
There must be a huge difference in paper usage in an office vs a classroom. Classrooms demand a heavy volume of handout material, because you're constantly feeding large amounts of students multiple handouts, perhaps at least one a day.
10,000 a year is an absolutely bogus exaggeration of a number for the average office worker; that's 30 pieces of paper per worker being used up every single day of the year. Maybe law offices, or education centers use higher volumes because of the nature of the business, but I doubt most offices use that much. In an IT office, I'll print maybe 100 documents a year.
Sorry for a wiki link, too lazy to look up more sources. Basically we'd have better battery technology if Oil & Car companies didn't deliberately stifle technology
Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!
What's next, Ms paint found to be inferior to Photoshop in comprehensive image-editing software test?
"I used to be with it, but then they changed what "It" was. Now what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too"
Replace "It" with "Slashdot", and replace "Weird and scary" with "Stupid and gone down the toilet". Voila!!
At least buy local to be green. The majority of comments here seem to be stressing the importance of buying local so your local community thrives and discussing the economics of the situation. There's little on the externality of pollution costs via transportation. Granted you can't buy a lot of things that are locally made, thanks to Walmart, cheap overseas labor etc.. But if your groceries come from a local farm instead of being shipped 3000km, that's a net gain and the greener option. Buy your stuff from a farmer's market (all local) instead of having your goods shipped from another country.
Yes, the world would still be a better place. First off, we're not totally restricting imports - the idea is to buy things locally that you can't purchase elsewhere. Unfortunately that's not an option for most electronics, toys and other things generally made in China. But shopping at a farmer's market is a net + for everyone (as opposed to buying your groceries from somewhere where it's all imported).
Of course the biggest net gain is the reduced transportation. Even if you don't particularly care for the welfare of your community, buying something that was manufactured less than 50km away is better than getting your goods imported from China right? Think of all the wasted transportation costs from all those goods made over 3000km away. The only reason this still happens is that the goods are made in a place where laborers are paid more like 10 cents an hour instead of 10 dollars an hour, so it's still profitable to have it made in asia and exported here.
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ?
If not it has nothing to do with the case.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Suppose there's a wall post by the defendant, or a note or a message to a friend that says something on the lines of "Boy my employer is a hottie, I'd just like to take him for a ride if you know what I mean!" - how would that having nothing to do with the case? A statement like that would pretty much throw this case out - if it's reasonable (or provable) that she was the one that made these statements (meaning someone else didn't make the statements via a hacked account) then I don't see why facebook statements can't be used or relevant.
One of the tidbits of information the plaintiff claims is relevant is this:
; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her);
Now we're getting into a bit of a grey area here, but such a photograph would be relevant. Now it's obviously not acceptable to call your employee a cunt to their face, I would expect harassment charges to stand here. But if the defendant hears the employer using that term to describe someone else, or happens to overhear that term being used and the defendant isn't the person being referred to - then such a picture of the t-shirt would be quite relevant. If the defendant claims that "such use offended her" by simply overhearing the word, but if a photograph shows her in a shirt with CUNT on it - then it's pretty clear she doesn't have a valid claim to simply be offended by hearing the word
You make a good point on being "forced to give the password to others" - but this is the plantiff, not the defendant. If it was the defendant, then I'd be more outraged. But if the defendant says "the plaintiff first sent me sexually suggestive messages on facebook!", it seems perfectly reasonable for the judge to request proof from the plaintiff
Slashdot Mirror
Well you gotta take the good with the bad with the DarkMarket. Sure, maybe a Dallas Buyer's Club scenario might seem more legitimate to the average person (or a market for any legitimate pharmaceutical drugs at lower prices because a huge markup in Europe / North America). But what about all the other nasty, illegal stuff will this be used for? The creators of this can't control the goods and services that are sold any more than the creators of bittorrent can control the files being transferred around.
Sure, maybe some drugs seem harmless and you can argue they're a victimless crime or whatever. What about all the other insidious shit out there that this will be used to peddle? CP, hit-man & assassination services, weapons, slavery, identity theft and stolen credit cards... surely the concept of DarkMarket opens up a new market for all these types of transactions too - you can't expect these services to be somehow excluded. In my utilitarianism-based opinion; this is a far greater harm than good for the world; the benefits of being able to buy some recreational drugs or make purchases anonymously is heavily outweighed by giving the rich the ability to put out a hit some some journalist with a dissenting opinion (with a much lower chance of being caught than without this service), or a new market for CP, etc..
I wish the creators of this project would realize this. Maybe this is just somehow acceptable in the worldview of the anarchist or the libertarian-leaning types. Or maybe it's morally rationalized by some thoughts on the lines of "Hey, I didn't kill those thousands of people! I only sold those guns to that corrupt African warlord" or "I only helped create the software that assist people making illegal transactions, I didn't actually sell or make that CP" and somehow absolve themselves from guilt because they're not the ones making the transaction. I might not agree with the current laws on drugs, but I certainly don't support this project.
I this same sort of parallel with guitars as well; all of my musician friends that play guitar seem to highly value older guitars (made in the 60's and 70's) over those made recently. And they're not just valued for their sentimental value; every decent guitar player I've met seems to have some sort of fascination with vintage guitars and *knows* the sound is considerably better than anything they can buy today. I don't see this parallel with non-string instruments, such as brass, woodwinds, percussion or keyboards (possibly a couple of exceptions for keyboards, i.e. a hammond B Leslie; but certainly not the norm).
Maybe there's some other factor here, but I still have a hard time believing whether older string instruments are actually better sounding. As OP suggested with the Stradivari, they were certainly well crafted in their day. But surely we have the technology and material to surpass that now - especially with the same companies that continue to make guitars, right? Or is there truly some scientific factor that makes the sounder better (such as the wood "maturing" or drying up more over time, or something like that)? I still don't know whether vintage guitars actually sound better, or if everyone's just fooled into thinking they sound better because Hendrix or Page played that exact guitar that one time in the 70's - they don't sound any better than new guitars to me. Perhaps there is something "special" about older string instruments that hasn't been explained well yet?
Most single player games on valve, or single player versions have achievements (at least 100% of the games I've purchased, around 30 or so). If you're using a cheat on single player and you're able to get those achievements as a result, then they've been devalued. I suppose they could start disabling achievements if a hack is detected, but what would be the benefit to them for implementing such a system? Then it's a constant game of cat and mouse with detectable hacks and cheats in the game.
Maybe you and others don't care about achievements or think them silly or stupid, but plenty of gamers get some sense of accomplishment or satisfaction when they're completed - especially the harder ones. We don't want these tarnished by people with hacks and cheats.
Still missing the point. The point was we're biologically wired to want different things - male brains and female brains are hardwired differently from birth. Advertising, social differences & behavior, pink vs blue - these aren't causes of the differences we see in boys vs girls or men vs women, they're tailored to what we're biologically included to do. Differences in brain development can already be seen at 26 weeks in the womb.
Even babies react differently depending on the gender. How are you going to pin these differences on nurture instead of nature?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2486497
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19334302
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10692611
"Hey I didn't actually sell financial information, I only helped set up a system that allowed criminals to sell stolen credit card details!"
"Hey I didn't actually molest those children, I only created a forum that let people purchase CP from eachother!"
"Hey I don't own any slaves, I only helped some sellers find some and shipped them across to people willing to buy!"
"Hey I didn't kill those thousands of civilians, I just helped facilitate a deal between an arms dealer and a corrupt dictatorship!"
Yeesh. "merely providing a forum to communicate". It's assholes like you that make the world burn - you damn well know the consequences of the actions of a scheme, a forum set up specifically for selling stolen financial information , but somehow rationalize it away in the name of some libertarianish idea of 'all free speech should be allowed' because you're actually facilitating in the crime yourself!
I can't help notice the irony of the GP posting "People are really bad at understanding statistics.", yet you use a random stat (3/20 Tesla Accidents had an auto-fire) to make it sound like the Tesla Model S is "more likely to catch fire". Kind of ignores the ridiculously small sample size, the fact all 3 cars were going extremely high speeds (maybe sports cars in general have higher accident rates?), or that fire-related problems are less likely with a more detailed on board computer etc... And where's this 20 coming from? (honest question, I don't see anything in the links - are there only 20 reported Tesla S accidents to date?) . There were only 3 fires in the Tesla Model S... ever! You can't make a statement with odds that low.
I don't agree with your assumption that law enforcement can confiscate a bitcoin "because this bitcoin was used in a crime X months ago and Y transactions ago". By that logic, a cop could confiscate paper money because it has trace amounts of cocaine on it (so 90% of your money, or whatever the actual percentage is if that's too high). Why would a bitcoins using during the process of ANY CRIME be subject seizure anyway? I don't see how that would assist in prosecution.
first
That must be a imperial first, not a metric first.
"One time about 6000 years ago, a magical unicorn from a different dimension farted the universe into existence"
Prove me wrong!
I know! It's like watching two school bullies argues start to argue over something, as you're secretly hoping they'll get into a fight and both be suspended.
I could see MasterCard taking more of the hit for this though, Paypal funds can be added without any fee from a bank account, or with some new MoneyPak thing I'm just reading about for the first time - I forsee more people using this option if they have hefty fees when transferring from a credit card (Because the whole reason you're using Paypal is because you can't use your credit card in the first place, the money will be transferred if it has to be).
Ah, I kid I kid.. I just wanted to be the first person that said yes after 67 comments of NO. Slashdot is united in opinion for the first time ever! I doubt it would have made a difference
You know what would have been nice though? If twitter had been around for a couple of years before that, and it had today's popularity back in 2003. I saw somewhere earlier in this thread that claimed 90% of America was in support of the war at the time. That seems a bit high, but regardless of what that number is, I'll bet most of them are silent now. It would be nice to know which politicians, celebrities, friends & neighbors were fully supporting war back then. So when the next middle east war "opportunity" rolls around and the same people shout "We want war! But this one's legitimate this time we swear, not like Iraq", their twit / blog / wall post history can be used against them.
The conservatives didn't pass the last similar bill through, though they could have. They *could* pass any bill they like, but if there's enough public backlash they may decide against passing it. They do plan on winning seats in future elections, so they won't just pass anything unless it has a minimum threshold of public support.
What can you make out of $100 bills? Besides crappy paper airplanes.
Better question, what can you make out of a $100 bill with a value close to $100?
I'd like to see some more detailed data on a course by course basis (or in different programs). I've taken some bio courses that are about 95% pure memorization - I'd be inclined to think the online courses like this wouldn't have 90% attrition rates. Conversely, I'd be lost in some math or comp sci courses without a teacher explaining how a concept or formula actually works. Some classes have a lot more students asking teachers than others.
See this is your problem right here, slashdot users. Instead of just reading the summary/header and commenting - you've decided to first RTFA. Maybe you even clicked on all the links the summary.
If you dumb asses would have read the comments first, you would instantly known it was a fluff piece / disguised advertising. But NOOO, you have to try to be knowledgeable about the subject before deciding you're qualified to comment. Well that'll learn ya for next time - *always* read the comments first!
What? We don't get to vote on this - this isn't a referendum. Harper and the conservatives have a majority government, they can vote whatever they want in.
Or do you mean the MPs will vote on this? Sure they will. But the end result is really no different than an "executive order from harper". Canadian MPs virtually never vote against their own party . They vote against their own party less than 0.5% of the time, if EVER.
The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.
You know, for such an Orwellian sounding program, you'd think the marketing droids there would have picked a better acronym than RIOT. Like Worldwide Online Overlord Technology or something on the lines of that.
There must be a huge difference in paper usage in an office vs a classroom. Classrooms demand a heavy volume of handout material, because you're constantly feeding large amounts of students multiple handouts, perhaps at least one a day.
10,000 a year is an absolutely bogus exaggeration of a number for the average office worker; that's 30 pieces of paper per worker being used up every single day of the year. Maybe law offices, or education centers use higher volumes because of the nature of the business, but I doubt most offices use that much. In an IT office, I'll print maybe 100 documents a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries
Sorry for a wiki link, too lazy to look up more sources. Basically we'd have better battery technology if Oil & Car companies didn't deliberately stifle technology
Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!
What's next, Ms paint found to be inferior to Photoshop in comprehensive image-editing software test?
"I used to be with it, but then they changed what "It" was. Now what I'm with isn't "it", and what's "it" seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too"
Replace "It" with "Slashdot", and replace "Weird and scary" with "Stupid and gone down the toilet". Voila!!
At least buy local to be green. The majority of comments here seem to be stressing the importance of buying local so your local community thrives and discussing the economics of the situation. There's little on the externality of pollution costs via transportation. Granted you can't buy a lot of things that are locally made, thanks to Walmart, cheap overseas labor etc.. But if your groceries come from a local farm instead of being shipped 3000km, that's a net gain and the greener option. Buy your stuff from a farmer's market (all local) instead of having your goods shipped from another country.
Yes, the world would still be a better place. First off, we're not totally restricting imports - the idea is to buy things locally that you can't purchase elsewhere. Unfortunately that's not an option for most electronics, toys and other things generally made in China. But shopping at a farmer's market is a net + for everyone (as opposed to buying your groceries from somewhere where it's all imported).
Of course the biggest net gain is the reduced transportation. Even if you don't particularly care for the welfare of your community, buying something that was manufactured less than 50km away is better than getting your goods imported from China right? Think of all the wasted transportation costs from all those goods made over 3000km away. The only reason this still happens is that the goods are made in a place where laborers are paid more like 10 cents an hour instead of 10 dollars an hour, so it's still profitable to have it made in asia and exported here.
2002 called. They politely (must have been Canadian) asked to stop making currency exchange jokes, as the USD is actually worth less now
Were these women sexually harassed on FaceBook ? If not it has nothing to do with the case.
I wouldn't agree with that statement. Suppose there's a wall post by the defendant, or a note or a message to a friend that says something on the lines of "Boy my employer is a hottie, I'd just like to take him for a ride if you know what I mean!" - how would that having nothing to do with the case? A statement like that would pretty much throw this case out - if it's reasonable (or provable) that she was the one that made these statements (meaning someone else didn't make the statements via a hacked account) then I don't see why facebook statements can't be used or relevant.
:
One of the tidbits of information the plaintiff claims is relevant is this
; a photograph of herself wearing a shirt with the word “CUNT” in large letters written across the front (a term she alleges was used pejoratively against her, also alleging that such use offended her);
Now we're getting into a bit of a grey area here, but such a photograph would be relevant. Now it's obviously not acceptable to call your employee a cunt to their face, I would expect harassment charges to stand here. But if the defendant hears the employer using that term to describe someone else, or happens to overhear that term being used and the defendant isn't the person being referred to - then such a picture of the t-shirt would be quite relevant. If the defendant claims that "such use offended her" by simply overhearing the word, but if a photograph shows her in a shirt with CUNT on it - then it's pretty clear she doesn't have a valid claim to simply be offended by hearing the word
You make a good point on being "forced to give the password to others" - but this is the plantiff, not the defendant. If it was the defendant, then I'd be more outraged. But if the defendant says "the plaintiff first sent me sexually suggestive messages on facebook!", it seems perfectly reasonable for the judge to request proof from the plaintiff