Why is it everytime someone makes a mistake there is some moron who has a knee jerk reaction of "fire the person". Give me a break. The fire chief made a call. They didn't notify the town because they didn't want a crowd at the film site - which would be dangerous in and of itself. So if they cancelled the show they transported explosive chemicals to the site and would have to transfer it off the site, then transfer it to another site...all that transport = danger.
not to forget - they didn't realize the explosion was going to be so big as to break a hand-ful of windows a MILE away.
Unfortunate yes, unexpected yes, handled properly yes, fire someone no.
*consciously* using. That means what you decide to use not what your brain is automated to use. But given that i am not a scientist in the field of neurology can you link a laymen site that gives some information?
Wait we don't trust our gov't but some of us are willing to trust "smart" machines. What if the smart machines decide it is smart to kill us...to save the rest of the planet?
Until such time as the western governments stop being evil all the time, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Yup evil things, like public education (even if it sucks, it's better then nothing), social security to help our elderly, roads so we can drive our cars, the Internet....all evil things.
Organizations like the CIA tend to do whatever the US government wants them to do
Yes that is a duh statement. They are employees of the US gov't and do what the US gov't wants. Just like the KGB did what the Communist Russian gov't wanted. Just like the Mossad does what the Israeli gov't wants. Makes sense.
This may include trying to save lives (but, most probably that would be in actuality, lives of citizens of the US and, to some extent, its allies), but it most likely also includes things like toppling foreign governments which the US dislikes, irrespective if this would likely make Americans safer.
Yes the CIA tries to topple gov'ts and while there can be abuse your statement of "irrespective" makes it sound like that is their primary goal. I would argue their primary goal is to make the US safer. You would have to prove otherwise.
It is really not clear, and actually rather unlikely, that the CIA is able to accurately predict the consequences of its present-day actions on the future safety of US
Nobody can accurately predict the future - but when you stop a terrorist cell you are pretty sure you did something to help save lives - or do you think terrorist cells are going to support the Infidels?
The reality, if you would take off your glasses, is that as long as everything the CIA really does is kept secret from you, you have no idea whatsoever if what they do is actually what you believe they do. After living for a while in an Internet-enabled world, I, for one, become less and less willing to blindly believe whatever the US government tells me "the CIA is doing for me".
The reality is I do not wear glasses, nor contacts. My vision is 100% fine - so is my perception of reality. While I do not know everything the CIA does I realize I do not need to know everything. If everyone knew every inch of the CIA there is no way they would be effective. It would be in the news "CIA investigates Joe"...well first, Joe may get harassed by people as many may already assume Joe is a criminal (hey if you are being investigated you did something wrong)...second if Joe was a criminal may stop or shift his activities foiling CIA plans to figure this out.
I am not asking you or anyone to blindly believe the US gov't is 100% kosher - make sure you vote and get the right people into office...or better yet, get yourself into office and on the right comittees. Join the CIA/FBI and do the right thing - but realize secrets are needed because our enemies have no qualms about using secrets or using our knowledge against us.
Yea it was a joke, people blame bush for everything (and i do blame him for a lot) I just figured to carry it to an extreme:)
Anyhow - if the document contains information which should not be classified it is not up to joe schmoe to determine this and release the information. First off joe schmoe may not have all of the facts (and often doesn't) - there may be some legitimate reason why those sites are classified. They could tell you those reasons, but it would release more classified information. Yes some would say "that's shady, etc" but that is life. We, humans, want to know everything. We want to be the ones in on the secrets - so when we aren't we are saying they are doing things to hurt us. Which is a false arugement.
But even if this guy was correct and that all of the information he posted was fine to post - it was still a classified document and there are ways to go about doing things. He should have gone through legal channels, lawyers, court system, etc. But to release the information, while blatently violating the integrety of the classified documents is to break the law. Breaking the law carries penalties.
My post wasn't a troll, but people like you are why I firmly believe most people should NOT be mods. You disagree with me so your desire is to mod it troll. Maybe, just maybe I disagree with you. Actually considering you brought no value to the conversation I would wager you are the troll.
I called my friends, laughed and ignored it. But they were spot on their accusation. They had the IP, the time, the name of the file, the contents of the file. It was detailed. Unfortunately I do not have it anymore or I would scan it and post it for you guys to see.
If you are actually doing the stuff just stop for a while you will be fine.
or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.
You could, but if your options are like mine you have:
Verizon DSL (crap-tastically slow)
Satellite (worse then DSL)
Comcast
AT&T (i don't know what they offer but I am sure they ahve something)
And I live in downtown philadelphia. I need speed I can't go below Comcast. Once I get fios (maybe 2 years it will be available) then I will be switching. But still, I am sure verizon will help the riaa too.
Forgot to mention Comcast is one of the companies participating. It's in the article. They have been doing this for years (I get letters every 3-6 months)
It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.
Clandestine organizations tend to frown whenever their agents true identities are revealed. Typically their operations are illegal because they do not have jurisdiction that country. Then again, technically the the US army and it's allies in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal. Pretty sure the Taliban and Hussein did not give the US army and it's allies permission to attack.
Agents' identities who get released = endangering their lives and their families' lives. So yea making those lists illegal to acquire, distribute, read is a good thing. Organizations like the CIA tend to do things like find out information to help save lives. I feel safer with them around. Do they have a less then steller reputation, yes, but look at what they are dealing with? They (actually all of us) deal with people such as muslim extremist terrorists who bomb weddings, mexican drug cartels which kidnap spring break kids to ransom/kill them, countries attempting to gain nuclear technology - you know the countries I am referring to...you know the ones that would like to use the bomb about 3 seconds after they acquire it and broadcast it to the world they are going to use it.
People love to mock organizations like the CIA, and they fail to show thanks when a terrorist attack is countered. BTW, this isn't a post 911 mentality, this is a mentality that has been going on for MANY MANY years.
Wait attempting to acquire/read, let alone posting, of CLASSIFIED documentation is illegal? Why, oh my god, what is this world coming to. Will this new radical law is obviously a failed george bush policy. Because we all know that classified documents, before georgey, were distributed by the gov't to anyone who wanted one....
Gave some extra information, but was biased - heavily - against the BND. I have a hard time believing biased articles because they tend to present facts to help their cause even if it is a blatent distortion of the truth.
Wow! I think I might actually start making donations to these people
Wow that's so generous of you - to think you might actually start donations. Couple that with your "if they're getting this much hassle....various gov'ts..." - you are one of those scary people who believe everything the gov't does = evil.
This case is a prime example of multiple governments collaborating in support of censorship
I am not sure (haven't RTFA yet) what they are posting on their site and what the gov'ts want to block but I am happy when governments work together. If we had more of that we would have less criminals fleeing to other countries. Meaning joe murderer who was born in in Iran kills his family plus five other people then flee's to iran immune from prosecution. So good for germany working with Australia. As for what they are doing - I can't comment because I don't know.
The international readers would like to point out that we will not miss your bare arses.
Had you been french or italian ladies, things would have been different.
Kind regards,
The International Readers
1) Run an inventory of all the legal/illegal software that you have
2) Document what you would need (in terms of money/time) to purchase/install legal software
3) Present this to your manager. Explain to him/her the advantages and disadvantages of using legal software vs illegal software
4) Explain to him/her that since you do not own any illegal software you will not be able to do things such as properly patch/udpate software (leaving vulnerabilities open). You will not be able to reinstall if someones computer gets screwed - leaving them unable to do their work.
5) Make sure they are aware of what could happen if they get busted- which is very well possible since a lot of software reports itself to the developer company.
hopefully your boss will listen and give you what you need. Conversely your boss may say "tough shit, and keep the ship running without costing me money". Then you will have to decide to either install pirated software or quit. If you quit remember you can whistle-blow.
Actually, no, that's not what I was doing at all. At what point did I lay claim to any form of correctness? Heck, I didn't even provide a counter argument.
You implied it with your words. But keep going on with your word-play games - I find it amusing.
My point was very simple: making assumptions based on anecdote and "common sense" is sloppy reasoning, doubly so if one is trying to justify something as broad and invasive as censorship.
Actually no. Making assumptions based on anecdotal/common sense information is not doubly sloppy if it is applied to something as broad/invasive as censorship. But guess what - when it comes to the human psyche it is almost always pure observation. The minimum test group size, if i remember correctly, is about 18 test subjects. That is what is considered a valid test (yes i think this is wrong but the study of human behavior disagrees with me).
Poor reasoning is a *huge* problem in society today, particularly in the area of politics. My hope is that people will begin to recognize when they're invoking simple anecdotes as proof, and will attempt to do better next time. They won't, of course. But one can dream.
My hope is that people will look to find the root cause of issues instead of knee-jerking at everything that moves. More likely then not this is some politician who is very conservative and dislikes computer games because it goes against his/her conservative beliefs.
Ah, no. Unless you're an accredited psychologist, you're not an "expert", any more than I, a computing science graduate, am an accredited mathematician. At best, you're an educated layman. If you were an expert, it'd be *you* who would be citing evidence to actually support your claims. Your haven't done that, so at best, I'm going to assume that you, too, are appealing to anecdote and "common sense" in your particular field. Either that, or you're appealing to your own authority, which would be, I gotta say, rather tacky.
Your example is poor. Not all computer science graduates are experts in math and not all math graduates are experts in computer science. You are, however, an expert in computer science (unless you sailed by without learning anything). I am, however, an accredited expert - and no it wouldn't be psychologist it would be sociologist since we are talking about societal behaviors. I would cite evidence to support my claims, but alas, you are not my employer (meanign you don't pay me) and you are not my professor. When you earn one of those two titles I will cite sources for you. As for your assumptions - you can assume all you want - but your wrong. Considering you are a computer science graduate *MY* education supersedes yours with regards to this topic. If you want to supersede me in this conversation you better change it to matters of computer science. Actually appealing to my authority is correct - you even agree with that though you believe I have to be a psychologist to appeal to my own authority. It is more apt to say you are being tacky since you assume, with your lack of education in the social sciences, you are more correct, with regards to the social sciences, then a person educated in that field.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it everytime someone makes a mistake there is some moron who has a knee jerk reaction of "fire the person". Give me a break. The fire chief made a call. They didn't notify the town because they didn't want a crowd at the film site - which would be dangerous in and of itself. So if they cancelled the show they transported explosive chemicals to the site and would have to transfer it off the site, then transfer it to another site...all that transport = danger.
not to forget - they didn't realize the explosion was going to be so big as to break a hand-ful of windows a MILE away.
Unfortunate yes, unexpected yes, handled properly yes, fire someone no.
*consciously* using. That means what you decide to use not what your brain is automated to use. But given that i am not a scientist in the field of neurology can you link a laymen site that gives some information?
If it's as smart as a human then it can learn to adapt.
about a tenth of the complexity of the human brain
considering we use 10% of our conscious brain...
Wait we don't trust our gov't but some of us are willing to trust "smart" machines. What if the smart machines decide it is smart to kill us...to save the rest of the planet?
LOL. Though Limewire? isn't that like saying "hey come here, i have a few gigs available for your viruses" :)
Until such time as the western governments stop being evil all the time, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Yup evil things, like public education (even if it sucks, it's better then nothing), social security to help our elderly, roads so we can drive our cars, the Internet....all evil things.
Organizations like the CIA tend to do whatever the US government wants them to do
Yes that is a duh statement. They are employees of the US gov't and do what the US gov't wants. Just like the KGB did what the Communist Russian gov't wanted. Just like the Mossad does what the Israeli gov't wants. Makes sense.
This may include trying to save lives (but, most probably that would be in actuality, lives of citizens of the US and, to some extent, its allies), but it most likely also includes things like toppling foreign governments which the US dislikes, irrespective if this would likely make Americans safer.
Yes the CIA tries to topple gov'ts and while there can be abuse your statement of "irrespective" makes it sound like that is their primary goal. I would argue their primary goal is to make the US safer. You would have to prove otherwise.
It is really not clear, and actually rather unlikely, that the CIA is able to accurately predict the consequences of its present-day actions on the future safety of US
Nobody can accurately predict the future - but when you stop a terrorist cell you are pretty sure you did something to help save lives - or do you think terrorist cells are going to support the Infidels?
The reality, if you would take off your glasses, is that as long as everything the CIA really does is kept secret from you, you have no idea whatsoever if what they do is actually what you believe they do. After living for a while in an Internet-enabled world, I, for one, become less and less willing to blindly believe whatever the US government tells me "the CIA is doing for me".
The reality is I do not wear glasses, nor contacts. My vision is 100% fine - so is my perception of reality. While I do not know everything the CIA does I realize I do not need to know everything. If everyone knew every inch of the CIA there is no way they would be effective. It would be in the news "CIA investigates Joe"...well first, Joe may get harassed by people as many may already assume Joe is a criminal (hey if you are being investigated you did something wrong)...second if Joe was a criminal may stop or shift his activities foiling CIA plans to figure this out.
I am not asking you or anyone to blindly believe the US gov't is 100% kosher - make sure you vote and get the right people into office...or better yet, get yourself into office and on the right comittees. Join the CIA/FBI and do the right thing - but realize secrets are needed because our enemies have no qualms about using secrets or using our knowledge against us.
Yea it was a joke, people blame bush for everything (and i do blame him for a lot) I just figured to carry it to an extreme :)
Anyhow - if the document contains information which should not be classified it is not up to joe schmoe to determine this and release the information. First off joe schmoe may not have all of the facts (and often doesn't) - there may be some legitimate reason why those sites are classified. They could tell you those reasons, but it would release more classified information. Yes some would say "that's shady, etc" but that is life. We, humans, want to know everything. We want to be the ones in on the secrets - so when we aren't we are saying they are doing things to hurt us. Which is a false arugement.
But even if this guy was correct and that all of the information he posted was fine to post - it was still a classified document and there are ways to go about doing things. He should have gone through legal channels, lawyers, court system, etc. But to release the information, while blatently violating the integrety of the classified documents is to break the law. Breaking the law carries penalties.
My post wasn't a troll, but people like you are why I firmly believe most people should NOT be mods. You disagree with me so your desire is to mod it troll. Maybe, just maybe I disagree with you. Actually considering you brought no value to the conversation I would wager you are the troll.
I called my friends, laughed and ignored it. But they were spot on their accusation. They had the IP, the time, the name of the file, the contents of the file. It was detailed. Unfortunately I do not have it anymore or I would scan it and post it for you guys to see.
If you are actually doing the stuff just stop for a while you will be fine.
or you can cancel your service and move to an ISP who wont harass and threaten you based on unsubstantiated accusations.
You could, but if your options are like mine you have: Verizon DSL (crap-tastically slow)
Satellite (worse then DSL)
Comcast
AT&T (i don't know what they offer but I am sure they ahve something) And I live in downtown philadelphia. I need speed I can't go below Comcast. Once I get fios (maybe 2 years it will be available) then I will be switching. But still, I am sure verizon will help the riaa too.
Forgot to mention Comcast is one of the companies participating. It's in the article. They have been doing this for years (I get letters every 3-6 months)
we're talking about Comcast/Verizon here
No we are talking about AT&T. You didn't even have to RTFA to see that. Look at the title, or hell the first word in the snippit
It's not a court of law and most (if not all) ISPs have the right to discountinue service to you at their whim.
Now since AT&T doesn't want to lose money they may require the RIAA to show some kind of proof (e.g. logs). Also you will get warnings before you get disconnected. So when you get your first warning, if you are innocent, see if your network has a list fix it and you are done. If you don't find a leak call AT&T to help you out. Maybe the IP address they have listed for you is actually your neighbor who is downloading stuff.
Clandestine organizations tend to frown whenever their agents true identities are revealed. Typically their operations are illegal because they do not have jurisdiction that country. Then again, technically the the US army and it's allies in Afghanistan and Iraq are illegal. Pretty sure the Taliban and Hussein did not give the US army and it's allies permission to attack.
Agents' identities who get released = endangering their lives and their families' lives. So yea making those lists illegal to acquire, distribute, read is a good thing. Organizations like the CIA tend to do things like find out information to help save lives. I feel safer with them around. Do they have a less then steller reputation, yes, but look at what they are dealing with? They (actually all of us) deal with people such as muslim extremist terrorists who bomb weddings, mexican drug cartels which kidnap spring break kids to ransom/kill them, countries attempting to gain nuclear technology - you know the countries I am referring to...you know the ones that would like to use the bomb about 3 seconds after they acquire it and broadcast it to the world they are going to use it.
People love to mock organizations like the CIA, and they fail to show thanks when a terrorist attack is countered. BTW, this isn't a post 911 mentality, this is a mentality that has been going on for MANY MANY years.
Wait attempting to acquire/read, let alone posting, of CLASSIFIED documentation is illegal? Why, oh my god, what is this world coming to. Will this new radical law is obviously a failed george bush policy. Because we all know that classified documents, before georgey, were distributed by the gov't to anyone who wanted one....
Gave some extra information, but was biased - heavily - against the BND. I have a hard time believing biased articles because they tend to present facts to help their cause even if it is a blatent distortion of the truth.
Wow! I think I might actually start making donations to these people
Wow that's so generous of you - to think you might actually start donations. Couple that with your "if they're getting this much hassle....various gov'ts..." - you are one of those scary people who believe everything the gov't does = evil.
This case is a prime example of multiple governments collaborating in support of censorship
I am not sure (haven't RTFA yet) what they are posting on their site and what the gov'ts want to block but I am happy when governments work together. If we had more of that we would have less criminals fleeing to other countries. Meaning joe murderer who was born in in Iran kills his family plus five other people then flee's to iran immune from prosecution. So good for germany working with Australia. As for what they are doing - I can't comment because I don't know.
You are correct - but you can sue them for wrongful termination. All employees are protected under whistle-blower laws.
They just don't want to see that just because the download is free you cannot ignore the license terms (the usual "free for non-commercial use").
Sounds like /. users to me.
The international readers would like to point out that we will not miss your bare arses. Had you been french or italian ladies, things would have been different. Kind regards, The International Readers
Seems like a hairy situation to me. I'll pass.
1) Run an inventory of all the legal/illegal software that you have
2) Document what you would need (in terms of money/time) to purchase/install legal software
3) Present this to your manager. Explain to him/her the advantages and disadvantages of using legal software vs illegal software
4) Explain to him/her that since you do not own any illegal software you will not be able to do things such as properly patch/udpate software (leaving vulnerabilities open). You will not be able to reinstall if someones computer gets screwed - leaving them unable to do their work.
5) Make sure they are aware of what could happen if they get busted- which is very well possible since a lot of software reports itself to the developer company.
hopefully your boss will listen and give you what you need. Conversely your boss may say "tough shit, and keep the ship running without costing me money". Then you will have to decide to either install pirated software or quit. If you quit remember you can whistle-blow.
Actually, no, that's not what I was doing at all. At what point did I lay claim to any form of correctness? Heck, I didn't even provide a counter argument.
You implied it with your words. But keep going on with your word-play games - I find it amusing.
My point was very simple: making assumptions based on anecdote and "common sense" is sloppy reasoning, doubly so if one is trying to justify something as broad and invasive as censorship.
Actually no. Making assumptions based on anecdotal/common sense information is not doubly sloppy if it is applied to something as broad/invasive as censorship. But guess what - when it comes to the human psyche it is almost always pure observation. The minimum test group size, if i remember correctly, is about 18 test subjects. That is what is considered a valid test (yes i think this is wrong but the study of human behavior disagrees with me).
Poor reasoning is a *huge* problem in society today, particularly in the area of politics. My hope is that people will begin to recognize when they're invoking simple anecdotes as proof, and will attempt to do better next time. They won't, of course. But one can dream.
My hope is that people will look to find the root cause of issues instead of knee-jerking at everything that moves. More likely then not this is some politician who is very conservative and dislikes computer games because it goes against his/her conservative beliefs.
Ah, no. Unless you're an accredited psychologist, you're not an "expert", any more than I, a computing science graduate, am an accredited mathematician. At best, you're an educated layman. If you were an expert, it'd be *you* who would be citing evidence to actually support your claims. Your haven't done that, so at best, I'm going to assume that you, too, are appealing to anecdote and "common sense" in your particular field. Either that, or you're appealing to your own authority, which would be, I gotta say, rather tacky.
Your example is poor. Not all computer science graduates are experts in math and not all math graduates are experts in computer science. You are, however, an expert in computer science (unless you sailed by without learning anything). I am, however, an accredited expert - and no it wouldn't be psychologist it would be sociologist since we are talking about societal behaviors. I would cite evidence to support my claims, but alas, you are not my employer (meanign you don't pay me) and you are not my professor. When you earn one of those two titles I will cite sources for you. As for your assumptions - you can assume all you want - but your wrong. Considering you are a computer science graduate *MY* education supersedes yours with regards to this topic. If you want to supersede me in this conversation you better change it to matters of computer science. Actually appealing to my authority is correct - you even agree with that though you believe I have to be a psychologist to appeal to my own authority. It is more apt to say you are being tacky since you assume, with your lack of education in the social sciences, you are more correct, with regards to the social sciences, then a person educated in that field.