Seems there's a difference between our starting position:
* you seem to use "VR" in a "simulated game environ - proper causality be damned if no player is looking, otherwise something plausible is good enough" meaning
* I tended to favour the meaning of "reality model - can't afford to do a real experiment, I'd like to determine some possible behaviours of the system, I'm using a computer for that"
I'm Australian and the last thing we need right now is to piss off the Indonesians further. I kinda wish these documents were kept under wraps forever to be honest.
I'm Australian and I kinda wished that the Aussie spooks wouldn't be so damned interested about Indonesian shrimp trade.: call me stupid, but I believe knowing this is not making Australia more secure.
"Intelligence is judged like in sport, two boxers fighting in the ring. They punch and they counter-punch... They attack and they defend themselves, but it is in the ring — the ring of intelligence. If the officials, in this case politicians, interfere in the case, that is wrong. That is very wrong."
Now that it is in the political arena, the politicians have overreacted, he said.....
"I hope that both our leaders, SBY as well as Tony Abbott should not be too emotional... Please do not deteriorate [the relationship] because of a very small thing. This is a very technical thing."
Translation "spooks to govt: Give us your money and keep your dirty noses out of our game: it's none of your business, you see... it's too technical for you to even understand something". The only thing that wasn't explicitly said is "... or else".
And this should function as a justification for what NSA is doing? Is it meant to offer me (a citizen which pays taxes these damn'd spooks live on) assurances of a responsible behavior consistent with respect of human rights and liberties? Pray tell, exactly how the info about the Indonesian shrimp and clove cigarettes trade is something that justifies the violation of lawyer-client confidentiality?
2. Assuming this is not this, how can a country maintain military intelligence without doing this?
Shachar
Oh, yes. That's un-possible. Poor US Army, what it could do if missing the critical information about the Indonesian trade of shrimp and cloves cigarettes?
The law firm was advising Indonesia in relation to trade disputes with the US over the export of shrimp and clove cigarettes. In the latter case the World Trade Organization ruled the United States had violated international trade laws.
According to the classified document, Australian intelligence agents covertly monitored talks between Indonesian officials and the law firm, and offered to share the information obtained with America’s National Security Agency (NSA).
Foreign Minister Natalegawa admitted on Monday that he was perplexed by the claims, the latest in a string of damming revelations about the extent of Australia’s espionage activities in the region.
"I find that a bit mind-boggling and a bit difficult how I can connect or reconcile discussion about shrimps and how it impacts on Australia’s security,” Natalegawa told reporters at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is on a two-day visit to Jakarta.
You seem to have missed the context. Note this statement that I was responding to:
Listening in on dialogues relating to trade disputes has capitalism written all over it.
Two can be picky about the context. The original context:
What's the bet that the US administration has less control over its intelligence machinations than the capitalists (wanted to say oligarchy...)?
Regarding your:
Pretty much every major country is going to try to gather intelligence on matters important to it. Do you deny that?
What could be so important for a major and supposedly democratic country to disregard the liberties of all and any person in this world, their own citizens included?
What could be so important that the spying is extended to the officials of another country they are not at war with and neither made a threat with war ?
I don't know what I dislike the most:
* the idea that US administration doesn't have enough control over NSA; or * the idea the US administration is complicit... nay, scratch that... is deliberately asking NSA to do all these things.
So you think that the Indonesians don't do that sort of thing? Or the Chinese (communists)? Or the Soviets back in the day? LOL.....
Pissing context again? Is it indeed desirable to have NSA winning the competition with the NKVD of the older days?
It becomes boring... com'on, what parents you have that didn't teach you this is not a valid justification for wrong-doings.
If we are trapped in a VR, so a tree that fall in a forest when nobody is there to listen wont do any noise because it's it's will be a use of computer power unuseful.
Contrast with "Butterfly effect": how can you know the fall of the tree will not be needed for future events?
If you assume the VR programmer is able to determine it in advance, then what would be the motivation behind the simulation?
To me, it's more likely that the VR tree failing will still produce a VR sound; to determine the evolution of the system, it is more likely the programmer does not have any solution with a "lower cost" than actually running the simulation.
Is there anything like tunneling very high but narrow barriers?
(practical example: consider some movement differential equations for a system of particles which you solve numerically. Suppose now that you need to restrict the particles inside a box. Model the box as a potential function that increases sharply on the boundary; be careful, if the potential barrier is narrow enough relatively to you "integration quanta" - the step h you choose in integrating the DE system - some particles will "escape" the box even at energies lower than the maximum potential barrier).
Wake up from your exceptionalist dream, buddy. Last I checked, Alcatel is a French company and it's eating Cisco's market fast.
Check again: Alcatel-Lucent (there is no longer an Alcatel) is metanational.
You reckon, being metanational, is more american or asian than it is french/european? Or... let me put it this way... a metanational able to buy Bell Labs and with the top officers named Michel Combes, Philippe Camus, Ben Verwaayen and HQ in Paris won't be able to deal with an european network paid by Germany/France?
Context - the point I advancenced was in reply to:
Are there even any non-American and non-Asian entities capable of implementing and maintaining such a large scale network
Won't this European network just be subject to the same censorship and spying paid for by American and Asian entities, as the current internet is anyway?
Think of this as an investment: at least they'll have to pay EU for it; the way it stands now, it's free.
Are there even any non-American and non-Asian entities capable of implementing and maintaining such a large scale network on their own, including using their own custom built non-American, non-Asian hardware, manufactured in a non-American, non-Asian factory?
Last I checked, in a democracy, the parliament/congress and (depending on the country) maybe judges are the ones to make laws.
Besides, we aren't discussing how moral/ethical/trusted the lawyer profession is. so your remark is offtopic in the context of "NSA violating the lawyer-client confidentiality by spying on lawyers, thus hurting the client as well". How would you like to be on the "receiving end"?
Am I to understand, that a lawyer is complaining about something sleazy and underhanded? Really? A lawyer? The same guys who sleaze their way to the top, then get political jobs so they can sleazy their way to the top again? They are the ones complaining about something possible being sleazy happening to them? Really? Let me get you a tissue.
Of course, industry will have their own scientists - like the cigarette industry - that will show this is "junk science" or some other critique to prevent or at the very least, slow down any sort of regulation.
Well, call me cynical but... put this in contrast with kiddy-pr0n and then ask yourself a question "Which anatomical parts of a kid the society seems to value and protect more?"
That's the only part of their comment that you're going to respond to? Really?
I'm old and knowledgeable enough to get around their punny attempts of censorship.
Other than that... you think/. is the most appropiate place to do something about censorship in Australia? Wouldn't doing it be a waste of time vis-a-vis the desired result?
... there is considerable debate as to whether a $1.2B a year public media organisation operating across all media channels and not having to produce a profit is actually stifling any commercial competitors.
You gotta be kidding, right? I mean... what do you see as interesting to watch on other than ABC and, sometimes, SBS channels? No seriously, my interest is genuine.
I was never at all fond of Tony Abbott, but since he's come into power I've come to fucking detest him and everything he stands for.
Ummmm... pardon me, but... Tony Abbot standing for something? I know he stand against boat people, carbon tax, NBN, unions, helping local industry... I didn't quite get what he stands for: can you help me this?
Sanitized user behavioral data? Because, you know, listening to music streaming is predispose to lewd, perverted and... in any case, highly imoral... behavior?
I have to point out that this is program would remove all barrier to college entry. If there is no cost to start education, and not finish it, then there will be millions of people who do so. Think of the problem...
Easy solved: raise some other, non-monetary barriers; like organize an admission exam; make it tough enough and only those motivated to invest time in learning for the exam will pass it.
3. Dwindling population, in general, or just of graduates, will destroy the system.
Wipe your glasses, your not seeing this one right. Actually, unless mandatory euthanasia is imposed over a certain (but still a productive) age, dwingling population means lower number of kids entering the system, thus less amount to support.
Slashdot Mirror
Mike Hunt?
You missing Amanda Jamitinya badly, aren't ya?
Only if you're polluting more than your fair share, comrade.
Nah, mate... I'm not polluting even my share.
Seems there's a difference between our starting position:
* you seem to use "VR" in a "simulated game environ - proper causality be damned if no player is looking, otherwise something plausible is good enough" meaning
* I tended to favour the meaning of "reality model - can't afford to do a real experiment, I'd like to determine some possible behaviours of the system, I'm using a computer for that"
Indonesia's phone system is fairly meh in the first place. This isn't something terribly difficult to achieve.
Only because something is possible or even easy doesn't necessarily imply one should do it.
I'm Australian and the last thing we need right now is to piss off the Indonesians further. I kinda wish these documents were kept under wraps forever to be honest.
I'm Australian and I kinda wished that the Aussie spooks wouldn't be so damned interested about Indonesian shrimp trade.: call me stupid, but I believe knowing this is not making Australia more secure.
"Intelligence is judged like in sport, two boxers fighting in the ring. They punch and they counter-punch... They attack and they defend themselves, but it is in the ring — the ring of intelligence. If the officials, in this case politicians, interfere in the case, that is wrong. That is very wrong."
Now that it is in the political arena, the politicians have overreacted, he said. ....
"I hope that both our leaders, SBY as well as Tony Abbott should not be too emotional... Please do not deteriorate [the relationship] because of a very small thing. This is a very technical thing."
Translation "spooks to govt: Give us your money and keep your dirty noses out of our game: it's none of your business, you see... it's too technical for you to even understand something".
The only thing that wasn't explicitly said is "... or else".
And this should function as a justification for what NSA is doing? Is it meant to offer me (a citizen which pays taxes these damn'd spooks live on) assurances of a responsible behavior consistent with respect of human rights and liberties?
Pray tell, exactly how the info about the Indonesian shrimp and clove cigarettes trade is something that justifies the violation of lawyer-client confidentiality?
2. Assuming this is not this, how can a country maintain military intelligence without doing this?
Shachar
Oh, yes. That's un-possible. Poor US Army, what it could do if missing the critical information about the Indonesian trade of shrimp and cloves cigarettes?
The law firm was advising Indonesia in relation to trade disputes with the US over the export of shrimp and clove cigarettes. In the latter case the World Trade Organization ruled the United States had violated international trade laws.
According to the classified document, Australian intelligence agents covertly monitored talks between Indonesian officials and the law firm, and offered to share the information obtained with America’s National Security Agency (NSA).
Foreign Minister Natalegawa admitted on Monday that he was perplexed by the claims, the latest in a string of damming revelations about the extent of Australia’s espionage activities in the region.
"I find that a bit mind-boggling and a bit difficult how I can connect or reconcile discussion about shrimps and how it impacts on Australia’s security,” Natalegawa told reporters at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who is on a two-day visit to Jakarta.
You seem to have missed the context. Note this statement that I was responding to:
Listening in on dialogues relating to trade disputes has capitalism written all over it.
Two can be picky about the context. The original context:
What's the bet that the US administration has less control over its intelligence machinations than the capitalists (wanted to say oligarchy...)?
Regarding your:
Pretty much every major country is going to try to gather intelligence on matters important to it. Do you deny that?
What could be so important for a major and supposedly democratic country to disregard the liberties of all and any person in this world, their own citizens included?
What could be so important that the spying is extended to the officials of another country they are not at war with and neither made a threat with war ?
I don't know what I dislike the most:
* the idea that US administration doesn't have enough control over NSA; or
* the idea the US administration is complicit... nay, scratch that... is deliberately asking NSA to do all these things.
So you think that the Indonesians don't do that sort of thing? Or the Chinese (communists)? Or the Soviets back in the day? LOL .....
Pissing context again? Is it indeed desirable to have NSA winning the competition with the NKVD of the older days?
It becomes boring... com'on, what parents you have that didn't teach you this is not a valid justification for wrong-doings.
If we are trapped in a VR, so a tree that fall in a forest when nobody is there to listen wont do any noise because it's it's will be a use of computer power unuseful.
Contrast with "Butterfly effect": how can you know the fall of the tree will not be needed for future events?
If you assume the VR programmer is able to determine it in advance, then what would be the motivation behind the simulation?
To me, it's more likely that the VR tree failing will still produce a VR sound; to determine the evolution of the system, it is more likely the programmer does not have any solution with a "lower cost" than actually running the simulation.
etc...
Is there anything like tunneling very high but narrow barriers?
(practical example: consider some movement differential equations for a system of particles which you solve numerically. Suppose now that you need to restrict the particles inside a box. Model the box as a potential function that increases sharply on the boundary; be careful, if the potential barrier is narrow enough relatively to you "integration quanta" - the step h you choose in integrating the DE system - some particles will "escape" the box even at energies lower than the maximum potential barrier).
Wake up from your exceptionalist dream, buddy. Last I checked, Alcatel is a French company and it's eating Cisco's market fast.
Check again: Alcatel-Lucent (there is no longer an Alcatel) is metanational.
You reckon, being metanational, is more american or asian than it is french/european?
Or... let me put it this way... a metanational able to buy Bell Labs and with the top officers named Michel Combes, Philippe Camus, Ben Verwaayen and HQ in Paris won't be able to deal with an european network paid by Germany/France?
Context - the point I advancenced was in reply to:
Are there even any non-American and non-Asian entities capable of implementing and maintaining such a large scale network
Won't this European network just be subject to the same censorship and spying paid for by American and Asian entities, as the current internet is anyway?
Think of this as an investment: at least they'll have to pay EU for it; the way it stands now, it's free.
Are there even any non-American and non-Asian entities capable of implementing and maintaining such a large scale network on their own, including using their own custom built non-American, non-Asian hardware, manufactured in a non-American, non-Asian factory?
Wake up from your exceptionalist dream, buddy. Last I checked, Alcatel is a French company and it's eating Cisco's market fast.
Last I checked, in a democracy, the parliament/congress and (depending on the country) maybe judges are the ones to make laws.
Besides, we aren't discussing how moral/ethical/trusted the lawyer profession is. so your remark is offtopic in the context of "NSA violating the lawyer-client confidentiality by spying on lawyers, thus hurting the client as well".
How would you like to be on the "receiving end"?
Am I to understand, that a lawyer is complaining about something sleazy and underhanded? Really? A lawyer? The same guys who sleaze their way to the top, then get political jobs so they can sleazy their way to the top again? They are the ones complaining about something possible being sleazy happening to them? Really? Let me get you a tissue.
Yes, sure, shoot the messenger.
Bored much today?
Of course, industry will have their own scientists - like the cigarette industry - that will show this is "junk science" or some other critique to prevent or at the very least, slow down any sort of regulation.
Well, call me cynical but... put this in contrast with kiddy-pr0n and then ask yourself a question "Which anatomical parts of a kid the society seems to value and protect more?"
That's the only part of their comment that you're going to respond to? Really?
I'm old and knowledgeable enough to get around their punny attempts of censorship. /. is the most appropiate place to do something about censorship in Australia? Wouldn't doing it be a waste of time vis-a-vis the desired result?
Other than that... you think
... there is considerable debate as to whether a $1.2B a year public media organisation operating across all media channels and not having to produce a profit is actually stifling any commercial competitors.
You gotta be kidding, right? I mean... what do you see as interesting to watch on other than ABC and, sometimes, SBS channels? No seriously, my interest is genuine.
I was never at all fond of Tony Abbott, but since he's come into power I've come to fucking detest him and everything he stands for.
Ummmm... pardon me, but... Tony Abbot standing for something? I know he stand against boat people, carbon tax, NBN, unions, helping local industry... I didn't quite get what he stands for: can you help me this?
While it drives massive sales of consumer goods, but it also drives interest in sports, even though most just watch them and forget about it
Well, I matered this. I don't even need to watch it and I still forget about it the next moment.
Sanitized user behavioral data?
Because, you know, listening to music streaming is predispose to lewd, perverted and... in any case, highly imoral... behavior?
I have to point out that this is program would remove all barrier to college entry. If there is no cost to start education, and not finish it, then there will be millions of people who do so. Think of the problem...
Easy solved: raise some other, non-monetary barriers; like organize an admission exam; make it tough enough and only those motivated to invest time in learning for the exam will pass it.
3. Dwindling population, in general, or just of graduates, will destroy the system.
Wipe your glasses, your not seeing this one right. Actually, unless mandatory euthanasia is imposed over a certain (but still a productive) age, dwingling population means lower number of kids entering the system, thus less amount to support.
If military intelligence are using IE 10 with Flash enabled, they really need to drop the last half of their name.
ummm... somebody please explain how "US Veterans of Foreign Wars" equates "military intelligence"
(I mean, in other ways than "they were the one to survive, so they may not be stupid").
The West prides themselves on being fair democracies.
This is what they want you to believe. In fact, they are at most managed democracies
Yet corporations are still handled with medieval traditions.
The possible evolution: inverted totalitarism.