Funny thing, the article is about UK military (even if published on the WSJ!). That's not to say that:
a. what TFA says is not valid for US as well
b. that I think UK has a totally underfunded army
Now I understand. Doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with you, especially when you go down the path of:
If you're a farmer, and you came up with a better way to, say, pick corn, are you gonna tell a soul if once you do, anyone can copy your method? Likely not.
Call me crazy but this is exactly what I would do: I would tell all the other farmers how to do it, and this free of charge.
You shouldn't be running around with bluetooth on anyway.
Meh - trying to get to the root of the problem.
You shouldn't be running around with bluetooth on.
You shouldn't be running around with bluetooth
You shouldn't be running around
You shouldn't be running
You shouldn't be
You shouldn't
to incentivize the distribution means to allow it out and not, say, make people sit quietly at a desk of your choosing to read your story or view your art.
Think.
I'm thinking. What exactly do you mean? Are u meaning the copyrighted item requires the "consumer" to go outside to "consume" it? Or what?
^^^ This essentially says all: the military spirit is compliance to the orders, the hacking and the necessary reaction against it is essentially a matter of improvisation at high speed.
Honestly, I can't even comprehend how is anything moving anymore in the US. I also can't see why would anyone who isn't already in a good IT position want to enter the field nowadays.
To the point that producing software in US will be so devalued that nobody will create anything... except open-source?
I don't know if I like or dislike the idea.
Sod IT, go to law school. When it's all up in the cloud and the cloud breaks there'll be a killing to be made.
If "killing" is what you are after, then yes. Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to retrain as (for example) a driving instructor: at least this job won't be outsourced anytime soon and in the spare time I can write some open-source. Remember the end of the "Office space"?
(i.e. my elaboration is that headlines and news stories can be really, really wrong)
Yes, you are right in this respect, even when you use totally improper argumentation.
that when a prostitute is murdered, someone has to have been the murderer.
Correct. You don't need studies (do they actually exist?), the simple definition of murder is enough.
critics point out that sometimes people are murdered without anyone actually murdering them.
Those critics must be wrong. The murderer by the very definition of the term has to be a person, thus someone (as opposed to anyone/nobody).
However, what is the relation of your elaboration (thanks for it) with my post? The post expressing the wish that Google chose to go ahead with Dalvik after, upon studies, they discovered the SUN patents as invalid? Or that I wish the idea of "patents for software" would be considered an oxymoron?
The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works.
I fail to see how the existence of copyright law incentivizes monkeys to take pictures.
As for the distribution of the work... don't go there... you should already have noted that the access to Internet does lower the distribution barrier that much I would not think that copyright laws now need to be used to incentivize the distribution (I rather think the contrary is happening in this case and many others).
its a good question, think about the last time you saw larry ellison.
now think about the last time you saw a murdered prostitute.
coincidence?
Before using the "correlation/causation" meme, thanks for assuming I'm a good guy that never saw a murdered prostitute. While true in my case, it isn't necessarily to be so for all the readers of/. that never saw one of the two but actually saw the other - in such cases, your "coincidence question" will not even reach the "correlation/causation" stage.
I'm not sure however what you intend to suggest. I'm afraid of a suggestion on the line that "being a dreamer, one wishes that Larry Ellison would actually murder prostitutes" - I'd reject it immediately. Do you care to elaborate?
Call me a dreamer, but instead of Did Google Knowingly Violate Java Patents? question, wouldn't it sound better better the Did Google know that SUN's patents were invalid and thus there was nothing to violate or pay for? or even Did Google know software patents are invalid?
1. It is the censorship that's obscene, not the content.
You don't think images of children being raped are obscene?
I don't know for sure, never saw one, but I think that I would found them horrible. BTW, I also found images of massacres horrible, but horror movies are not made illegal.
What I am sure though is that the act of raping children to produce that images is a crime.
2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"
No, they want to ban child sexual abuse sites, not restrict them to adult paedophiles only.
Somehow I fail to see the difference between the two, would you care to elaborate? (make sure you revisit the definition for the paedophile before).
3. A content *in itself* or being exposed to it should never be made illegal. The laws needs to prevent the illegal *actions* undertaken in creating or distributing content of any kind, but stop right before involving any control to accessing the content.
Depends where you live, bu in a lot of places (e.g. here in the UK) simply having the content is illegal already.
Directing your attention to the should in the should never be made illegal: a hint that I know that.
The argument is that you can only get the content by recording actual child sexual abuse in the first place, therefore viewing it is (a) being an accessory to the crime and (b) encourages more of the same real life child sexual abuse to be filmed.
Overall: why police enforcement don't concentrate on finding the actual perpetrators and the victim? 'Cause every time I read news about "another band of pedophiles busted" I never find details about the investigation on the original crimes (time, place, victims being identified) and the perpetrators being punished for every one of them?
Then, point (a) is just stupid. Here's an example: I read news about the Anonymous hacking, sometimes I go and read IRC conversation of the hackers (the HBGary case have had them posted extensively). Did this make me an accessory to the crime?
Point (b)... maybe I'm quite slow, but... isn't the fact that the law enforcement fails to catch the content producers in the first place a higher encouragement? Doesn't this make the law enforcement guilty of encouraging the crimes by limiting themselves at the level of finding those who posses content depicting child sexual abuses?
Example of lots of misdirected effort at the international scale: don't you think the pedophile rings were somehow encouraged to see the stupidity of the actions?
So given the two opposing facts of censorship or preventing child sexual abuse, the law acts to try to restrict the latter at the expense of the former.
With the side effects on a larger scale and the possibility of uncontrolled abuses. Speaking for myself: no, thank you. I prefer that you let the censorship aside and instead sacrifice the money I pay as taxes to catch the producers of the content and stop them abusing other children, even when they do not produce distribute-able content as the result of their action.
No one's saying this means you don't also go after the original creators of child pornography as well.
I imagine that the media will be exploding to news of "police investigation found the sexual abusers behind a ring of pedophiles. They are accused of abusing X identified victims in the period between Y and Z". How come I don't see this kind of news?
In other words, there really is no such thing as an "advisory only" rating system, there will always be a price paid in censorship as the result of any ratings system. Some people don't have a problem with that price, but it at least needs to be acknowledged when talking about such plans.
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem if I can obtain the uncensored version from somewhere - but you are right: I'd need to know that the wmart version is censored for me to try get it from somewhere else.
Mitch Ratcliffe: “Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history, with the possible exception of tequila and hand guns”
Paul Ehrlich: “To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.”
40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.
1. It is the censorship that's obscene, not the content.
2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"
3. A content *in itself* or being exposed to it should never be made illegal. The laws needs to prevent the illegal *actions* undertaken in creating or distributing content of any kind, but stop right before involving any control to accessing the content.
Every politician wants to do something about child abuse, but why on earth would that something be to stop it?
The physicians have little to gain in curing the illnesses. Except they took an oath to do so and can be banned for life from practicing if they step aside too much from it. Why, oh why, isn't the same with the politicians?
However, it is good for getting politicians positive press and appeases the "they should be doing something" crowd, so it's not totally pointless I suppose.
It is totally pointless from the social perspective to deceive that crowd in believing that you really do something when in fact you are sweeping the garbage under a carpet - the garbage is still inside the home.
I can understand the appeal in doing so for the politicians, but this is not to say that I like or approve it.
But I don't really have a problem with the concept of domain filtering or domain takedowns for child pornography.
I do. And my problem is: go for the ones that break the law, that is the solution.
Anything else is palliative care - not only it won't ever be effective, but also has side effects, can be easily abused and it also makes the "proper cure" harder (driving the illness bury deeper). .
Utterly moronic. Peltier coolers is about as stupid as praying for fairies to raise a cooling breeze with their goddamn wings.
As moronic as the question of the OP? To such a question, such an answer... Geesh: I ask clever Slashdotters out there for novel DIY passive and active ambient cooling techniques. - like the traditional methods of the Egyptians living there for thousands of years are no longer valid?
I mean, do you really think there are any solutions for fighting an energy flux of 1 kW/sq.m on a quite large open space and create a temperature gradient against a 44C?
Assuming an area 100 x 100 m, that means an energy influx of 10 MW - if only 50% needs to be eliminated it means constantly extracting 5 MW - with a "cooling technique" of a 30% efficiency, you need a 15 MW installed power - that's the power of 3 heavy diesel electric locomotives.
No, the only practical ideas are:
1. hats
2. water spray bottles
3. awnings
4. cold drinks
5. big fucking fans with water-misters when the above aren't enough
Peltiers suck up energy. The area of PV panels needed would be impractical. The only use I can see for peltiers in this situation would be to cool down drinking water.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny thing, the article is about UK military (even if published on the WSJ!). That's not to say that:
a. what TFA says is not valid for US as well
b. that I think UK has a totally underfunded army
If you're a farmer, and you came up with a better way to, say, pick corn, are you gonna tell a soul if once you do, anyone can copy your method? Likely not.
Call me crazy but this is exactly what I would do: I would tell all the other farmers how to do it, and this free of charge.
You shouldn't be running around with bluetooth on anyway.
Meh - trying to get to the root of the problem.
You shouldn't be running around with bluetooth on.
You shouldn't be running around with bluetooth
You shouldn't be running around
You shouldn't be running
You shouldn't be
You shouldn't
YOU! Ah, it is always you at fault.
to incentivize the distribution means to allow it out and not, say, make people sit quietly at a desk of your choosing to read your story or view your art.
Think.
I'm thinking. What exactly do you mean? Are u meaning the copyrighted item requires the "consumer" to go outside to "consume" it? Or what?
^^^ This essentially says all: the military spirit is compliance to the orders, the hacking and the necessary reaction against it is essentially a matter of improvisation at high speed.
when asked if the military was capable of operating at the same speed as their opponents, he admitted they were not.
I know what's wrong! They aren't using enough explosives.
No, it's because "virtualization" is way too hard to spell.
that and v13n is hardly a buzz-word.
Honestly, I can't even comprehend how is anything moving anymore in the US. I also can't see why would anyone who isn't already in a good IT position want to enter the field nowadays.
To the point that producing software in US will be so devalued that nobody will create anything ... except open-source?
I don't know if I like or dislike the idea.
Sod IT, go to law school. When it's all up in the cloud and the cloud breaks there'll be a killing to be made.
If "killing" is what you are after, then yes.
Speaking for myself, I'd prefer to retrain as (for example) a driving instructor: at least this job won't be outsourced anytime soon and in the spare time I can write some open-source. Remember the end of the "Office space"?
(i.e. my elaboration is that headlines and news stories can be really, really wrong)
Yes, you are right in this respect, even when you use totally improper argumentation.
that when a prostitute is murdered, someone has to have been the murderer.
Correct. You don't need studies (do they actually exist?), the simple definition of murder is enough.
critics point out that sometimes people are murdered without anyone actually murdering them.
Those critics must be wrong. The murderer by the very definition of the term has to be a person, thus someone (as opposed to anyone/nobody).
However, what is the relation of your elaboration (thanks for it) with my post? The post expressing the wish that Google chose to go ahead with Dalvik after, upon studies, they discovered the SUN patents as invalid? Or that I wish the idea of "patents for software" would be considered an oxymoron?
The alleged goal of copyright is to incentivize the creation and/or distribution of works.
I fail to see how the existence of copyright law incentivizes monkeys to take pictures.
As for the distribution of the work... don't go there... you should already have noted that the access to Internet does lower the distribution barrier that much I would not think that copyright laws now need to be used to incentivize the distribution (I rather think the contrary is happening in this case and many others).
its a good question, think about the last time you saw larry ellison.
now think about the last time you saw a murdered prostitute.
coincidence?
Before using the "correlation/causation" meme, thanks for assuming I'm a good guy that never saw a murdered prostitute. While true in my case, it isn't necessarily to be so for all the readers of /. that never saw one of the two but actually saw the other - in such cases, your "coincidence question" will not even reach the "correlation/causation" stage.
I'm not sure however what you intend to suggest. I'm afraid of a suggestion on the line that "being a dreamer, one wishes that Larry Ellison would actually murder prostitutes" - I'd reject it immediately. Do you care to elaborate?
Call me a dreamer, but instead of Did Google Knowingly Violate Java Patents? question, wouldn't it sound better better the Did Google know that SUN's patents were invalid and thus there was nothing to violate or pay for? or even Did Google know software patents are invalid?
1. It is the censorship that's obscene, not the content.
You don't think images of children being raped are obscene?
I don't know for sure, never saw one, but I think that I would found them horrible.
BTW, I also found images of massacres horrible, but horror movies are not made illegal.
What I am sure though is that the act of raping children to produce that images is a crime.
2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"
No, they want to ban child sexual abuse sites, not restrict them to adult paedophiles only.
Somehow I fail to see the difference between the two, would you care to elaborate? (make sure you revisit the definition for the paedophile before).
3. A content *in itself* or being exposed to it should never be made illegal. The laws needs to prevent the illegal *actions* undertaken in creating or distributing content of any kind, but stop right before involving any control to accessing the content.
Depends where you live, bu in a lot of places (e.g. here in the UK) simply having the content is illegal already.
Directing your attention to the should in the should never be made illegal: a hint that I know that.
The argument is that you can only get the content by recording actual child sexual abuse in the first place, therefore viewing it is (a) being an accessory to the crime and (b) encourages more of the same real life child sexual abuse to be filmed.
Overall: why police enforcement don't concentrate on finding the actual perpetrators and the victim? 'Cause every time I read news about "another band of pedophiles busted" I never find details about the investigation on the original crimes (time, place, victims being identified) and the perpetrators being punished for every one of them?
Then, point (a) is just stupid. Here's an example: I read news about the Anonymous hacking, sometimes I go and read IRC conversation of the hackers (the HBGary case have had them posted extensively). Did this make me an accessory to the crime?
Point (b)... maybe I'm quite slow, but... isn't the fact that the law enforcement fails to catch the content producers in the first place a higher encouragement? Doesn't this make the law enforcement guilty of encouraging the crimes by limiting themselves at the level of finding those who posses content depicting child sexual abuses?
Example of lots of misdirected effort at the international scale: don't you think the pedophile rings were somehow encouraged to see the stupidity of the actions?
So given the two opposing facts of censorship or preventing child sexual abuse, the law acts to try to restrict the latter at the expense of the former.
With the side effects on a larger scale and the possibility of uncontrolled abuses. Speaking for myself: no, thank you. I prefer that you let the censorship aside and instead sacrifice the money I pay as taxes to catch the producers of the content and stop them abusing other children, even when they do not produce distribute-able content as the result of their action.
No one's saying this means you don't also go after the original creators of child pornography as well.
I imagine that the media will be exploding to news of "police investigation found the sexual abusers behind a ring of pedophiles. They are accused of abusing X identified victims in the period between Y and Z". How come I don't see this kind of news?
In other words, there really is no such thing as an "advisory only" rating system, there will always be a price paid in censorship as the result of any ratings system. Some people don't have a problem with that price, but it at least needs to be acknowledged when talking about such plans.
Speaking for myself, I don't have a problem if I can obtain the uncensored version from somewhere - but you are right: I'd need to know that the wmart version is censored for me to try get it from somewhere else.
Mitch Ratcliffe: “Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history, with the possible exception of tequila and hand guns”
Paul Ehrlich: “To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a computer.”
40 thousand dollars per URL. I think that's really all that needs to be said. Even if every one of those URLs was related to child pornography, I'm sure that spending the $40 million on actually catching people who abuse children would be an infinitely better allocation of resources.
1. It is the censorship that's obscene, not the content.
2. I'd somehow accept the idea of a "content classification" if it would limit to being "advisory only"
3. A content *in itself* or being exposed to it should never be made illegal. The laws needs to prevent the illegal *actions* undertaken in creating or distributing content of any kind, but stop right before involving any control to accessing the content.
Every politician wants to do something about child abuse, but why on earth would that something be to stop it?
The physicians have little to gain in curing the illnesses. Except they took an oath to do so and can be banned for life from practicing if they step aside too much from it.
Why, oh why, isn't the same with the politicians?
However, it is good for getting politicians positive press and appeases the "they should be doing something" crowd, so it's not totally pointless I suppose.
It is totally pointless from the social perspective to deceive that crowd in believing that you really do something when in fact you are sweeping the garbage under a carpet - the garbage is still inside the home.
I can understand the appeal in doing so for the politicians, but this is not to say that I like or approve it.
But I don't really have a problem with the concept of domain filtering or domain takedowns for child pornography.
I do. And my problem is: go for the ones that break the law, that is the solution.
Anything else is palliative care - not only it won't ever be effective, but also has side effects, can be easily abused and it also makes the "proper cure" harder (driving the illness bury deeper). .
Not sure when this is going to end.
Why does it need to end? I mean, using driving a car exposes one to risks - I still see people driving.
That will fix our banking system for sure!
GIGO at tremendous speed.
Utterly moronic. Peltier coolers is about as stupid as praying for fairies to raise a cooling breeze with their goddamn wings.
As moronic as the question of the OP? To such a question, such an answer... Geesh: I ask clever Slashdotters out there for novel DIY passive and active ambient cooling techniques. - like the traditional methods of the Egyptians living there for thousands of years are no longer valid?
I mean, do you really think there are any solutions for fighting an energy flux of 1 kW/sq.m on a quite large open space and create a temperature gradient against a 44C?
Assuming an area 100 x 100 m, that means an energy influx of 10 MW - if only 50% needs to be eliminated it means constantly extracting 5 MW - with a "cooling technique" of a 30% efficiency, you need a 15 MW installed power - that's the power of 3 heavy diesel electric locomotives.
No, the only practical ideas are: 1. hats 2. water spray bottles 3. awnings 4. cold drinks 5. big fucking fans with water-misters when the above aren't enough
Of course they are.
Do you really want a freezing chamber in the tent? Otherwise, you perform the computation based on the (power x efficiency) that you need.
Peltiers suck up energy. The area of PV panels needed would be impractical. The only use I can see for peltiers in this situation would be to cool down drinking water.
Yes, but ... the shade the PV-es generate ;) !