I do not presume that all lies are reprehensible. But intentionally misleading someone is a lie. Some times, however, staying silent isn't a real option, and speaking honestly would be injurious (to someone, perhaps yourself).
OTOH, false and defamatory statements *are* always reprehensible, even if the entity you are commenting about is excessively vile. And true statements can never be defamatory, except to a lawyer or a judge.
That's not Occam's razor, that's "Cui Bono?". Occam's razor says to not multiply entities excessively. But the problem isn't multiplying entities here, it's that there are already too many visible entities to reach a single conclusion. We know that the US govt. exists, that Sony exists, that lots of hacker collectives exist, that...etc. We don't know which are significant. We *do* know that all of the above are quite willing to lie when it suits their interests.
Pick a collection of known facts and make a hypothesis that you can't invalidate. Occam's razor won't help you pare things down, because the known facts support too many plausible stories. And NONE of them are testable. So don't believe your own story, or anyone else's. Realize that the story you choose to accept in this instance says more about you than about what happened, and don't believe it. You can't always know what actually happened. There are too many liars and too many suspects.
Will they be prosecuted? Perhaps they got indemnity first.
The story I build around this has the Sony episode as a bit part in something centered around South Korea's nuclear piles. And Obama *was* talking to some diplomats from China right before this started, and China is N.Korea's Internet supplier.
I *know* that my version is just a story. But I also realize that that's all everyone's version is, except those with inside information. Most of the latter aren't talking, and the ones that are have a reputation for lying.
Yes/No. When you can build stronger materials under computer control, then computers allow you to build smaller/lighter airplanes.
OTOH, it isn't the computer itself that facilitates the improvement, its the computer as a part of an improved process, that couldn't be improved (that way) without the computer.
So. Currently 3D printers are toys. Did you ever even see the Sinclair computer? (I forget its model.) It was a toy. But that didn't make it totally useless, and other computers were not only much more useful, they became both more useful and smaller and cheaper over time.
P.S.: There *do* exist 3D printers that aren't toys. They also aren't cheap, and the ones I've information on aren't small. But different models can print in Titanium, Aluminium, Concrete, etc. I don't know whether they all require hand finishing, I expect so. OTOH, this is early days yet.
Do you know how long the laser was called "The development looking for a use?" It was over a decade. Of course, the original lasers were big, expensive, and difficult to use. They required specially polished rubies, cryonic conditions, and they only worked on microwaves. They were also called masers, but that word has dropped out of existence, so now we have uv lasers, ir lasers, green lasers, and for all I know X-ray lasers.
I doubt that CNC machines will ever drop out of use. I expect that they'll continue to become easier to use. But they won't be used for small runs for much longer. Already Car companies use expensive 3D printers to print their design prototypes, and I'm sure there are many uses I haven't heard of.
Whether North Korea was the sponsor or not, the hack doesn't appear to have originated there. Last I heard someone was pointing a finger at Thailand as the locale, but not at anything official. Speculation was that someone had been hired to do the job. Believe it if you want to, I don't really. I don't think anyone has enough evidence to come to ANY reasonable decision.
Well, just spinning a story here, but as I understand it North Korea threatened to sabotage South Korea's nuclear power plants. Around that time Obama stopped to have some conversation with some Chinese diplomats....perhaps about Korean relations? And soon thereafter North Korea got blamed quite publicly for a hack that may have been detected a bit before it was made public. Now North Korea's internet connections are sabotaged to keep them from intruding into South Korea's power plants, with China standing mum and not protesting, but the story about why this is going on has to do with this silly movie.
OK, it's just a story. But AFAIKT it is consistent with everything that happened.
FWIW, I believe that North Korea made some threats about sabotaging South Korea's Nuclear piles. That, to me, is a more credible reason for taking down their internet....if that's what happened. (That their internet went down is apparently true. That it was taken down externally I have heard no acceptable proof of.)
Do you even have any evidence that the folks who sent the threats were the same people as the ones who copied the files? Any good reason to believe it? Certainly it's a possibility, but I'd like some acceptable evidence before I start believing it. The unsupported word of someone in a position of authority isn't something that I consider acceptable evidence.
I'm willing to accept that North Korea *MIGHT* do such a thing and then not admit it. But the path from possibility to belief is not, for me, swift and certain.
There are a lot of things that I don't believe I have evidence to decide. This is one of them.
I'm sure that you think you have a point, but I haven't a clue as to what it is. Even as a troll this is sub-par. If you're trying to be serious you really need to think more about how to present your argument.
You are, I think, responding to the claim that you aren't noticing that many small changes can yield an important difference. What you intend your response to mean I find opaque.
Right. That, after all was the purpose of copyright. To give people a *LIMITED* monopoly. When it expired, then everyone would inherit the work as a common good.
I would argue that 17 years is too long. 5 years with one (fairly expensive) renewal would be better, though the ideal number does differ between fields of endeavor. I could also go with a 3 year first copyright, a renewal for, say, $100. And an nth renewal for $100^n. (You could consider the original publication to be the 0th renewal if you want, and charge a $1 registration fee needed if you intend to apply for any renewals.)
That was because the rules were only applied in favor of white males. As written, however, they work quite well where the population is thinly distributed and the communications are slow. They aren't perfect, but I can't think of anything better.
As things are, however, those rules would not work and could not be made to work. They should, however, have been properly ammended rather than being ignored.
(Well, OK, the Seattle police have some decent arguments, but they also appear to have a shady history which causes one to doubt that the arguments raised are their real reasons. Still, they *are* decent arguments. I'm not sure what the resolution should be, but I am sure it should involve continual taping to an archival store that cannot be edited...which is an impossible ideal, but get as close to it as possible.)
Well, not the only ones, but certainly some of the most important ones. I wish I could believe that they would fairly see the evidence, but there are so many games played with what evidence juries are allowed to see that I'll be a bit dubious until it starts happening.
Well if he'd had his camera going, this would be made clearly obvious. So why are the police against camera? (To be fair, many of them aren't. But I'm talking about the ones that are. Which to me means they've got something to hide, if nothing more than a feeling that their privacy is being invaded, and where they were dominant, now they are supervised.)
Unfortunately there have been enough instances where the police are obviously lying and at fault that I prefer objective evidence that doesn't require that I theorize to fill in the pieces. E.g., there are power stains on someone's hands, but how do you know that he got them when you think he did? A reasonable hypothesis is that he got them struggling to take the officer's gun, but it this actually what happened? And if he was 150 feet away when he was shot, was he fleeing? A camera would remove uncertainties...provided it was secured against tampering. (Yeah, OK, nothing's certain. It could reduce uncertainties quite significantly.)
And why is anyone against having a camera to prevent this kind of uncertainty?
How could you possibly get an answer to that question that you could trust? It's a reasonable question, and my guess would be quite a small percentage. But I can't think of a single way of getting the information that I would trust. I *would* wager a small sum that you could show it would be to the officer's benefit to blame someone else even if he knew he was at fault.
You are correct about "the rule", the problem is that one instance of vile behavior can totally cancel out over a hundred instances of good behavior. Depending on how bad it is it can cancel out over a thousand. And while there is a definite limit as to how good a cop can be, the limit as to how bad he can be is extremely high. And they don't effectively "self police". Even the "good cop" tends to feel that he must protect the bad cop, no matter what he is guilty of. And tends to act to protect him.
OTOH, in many parts of the community, there is much more expectation of encountering a bad cop than a "good cop". And this is justified by what gets reported by believable sources. (That you believe other sources is almost irrelevant.) And there is, unfortunately, a certain amount of evidence to show that the perception of those who don't trust the police is correct. This ranges from their armed intrusion into the wrong house, and shooting the residents to the less violent, but much more frequent action which have created the "crime description" of "driving while brown or black". Please note that it doesn't seem to matter what the race of the officer is, so I tend to consider this abuse a "crime of power" rather than "racial intolerance", but I admit to being uncertain about the reasons.
I'm sure that happens too. But given the punishment that is applied to the one against whom the claim is made, I'm not going to believe that happens very often. It exposes you to retribution, and you don't get any result (except PR).
That's a good point, but you're missing the point that HTTP is not and never has been secure. It wasn't designed to be secure. If your software doesn't check what's received and validate it, then you software has a bad bug.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had mod points, I'd rate that funny, even though it cannot be proven false.
Also, most of us, including Obama, don't live in a forest or jungle.
That said, I mainly consider the statement defamatory to monkeys. People are the ones who are loose with words.
If you do it on purpose, yes.
I do not presume that all lies are reprehensible. But intentionally misleading someone is a lie. Some times, however, staying silent isn't a real option, and speaking honestly would be injurious (to someone, perhaps yourself).
OTOH, false and defamatory statements *are* always reprehensible, even if the entity you are commenting about is excessively vile. And true statements can never be defamatory, except to a lawyer or a judge.
That's not Occam's razor, that's "Cui Bono?". Occam's razor says to not multiply entities excessively. But the problem isn't multiplying entities here, it's that there are already too many visible entities to reach a single conclusion. We know that the US govt. exists, that Sony exists, that lots of hacker collectives exist, that...etc. We don't know which are significant. We *do* know that all of the above are quite willing to lie when it suits their interests.
Pick a collection of known facts and make a hypothesis that you can't invalidate. Occam's razor won't help you pare things down, because the known facts support too many plausible stories. And NONE of them are testable. So don't believe your own story, or anyone else's. Realize that the story you choose to accept in this instance says more about you than about what happened, and don't believe it. You can't always know what actually happened. There are too many liars and too many suspects.
Will they be prosecuted? Perhaps they got indemnity first.
The story I build around this has the Sony episode as a bit part in something centered around South Korea's nuclear piles. And Obama *was* talking to some diplomats from China right before this started, and China is N.Korea's Internet supplier.
I *know* that my version is just a story. But I also realize that that's all everyone's version is, except those with inside information. Most of the latter aren't talking, and the ones that are have a reputation for lying.
Yes/No. When you can build stronger materials under computer control, then computers allow you to build smaller/lighter airplanes.
OTOH, it isn't the computer itself that facilitates the improvement, its the computer as a part of an improved process, that couldn't be improved (that way) without the computer.
So. Currently 3D printers are toys. Did you ever even see the Sinclair computer? (I forget its model.) It was a toy. But that didn't make it totally useless, and other computers were not only much more useful, they became both more useful and smaller and cheaper over time.
P.S.: There *do* exist 3D printers that aren't toys. They also aren't cheap, and the ones I've information on aren't small. But different models can print in Titanium, Aluminium, Concrete, etc. I don't know whether they all require hand finishing, I expect so. OTOH, this is early days yet.
Do you know how long the laser was called "The development looking for a use?" It was over a decade. Of course, the original lasers were big, expensive, and difficult to use. They required specially polished rubies, cryonic conditions, and they only worked on microwaves. They were also called masers, but that word has dropped out of existence, so now we have uv lasers, ir lasers, green lasers, and for all I know X-ray lasers.
I doubt that CNC machines will ever drop out of use. I expect that they'll continue to become easier to use. But they won't be used for small runs for much longer. Already Car companies use expensive 3D printers to print their design prototypes, and I'm sure there are many uses I haven't heard of.
Whether North Korea was the sponsor or not, the hack doesn't appear to have originated there. Last I heard someone was pointing a finger at Thailand as the locale, but not at anything official. Speculation was that someone had been hired to do the job. Believe it if you want to, I don't really. I don't think anyone has enough evidence to come to ANY reasonable decision.
Well, just spinning a story here, but as I understand it North Korea threatened to sabotage South Korea's nuclear power plants. Around that time Obama stopped to have some conversation with some Chinese diplomats....perhaps about Korean relations? And soon thereafter North Korea got blamed quite publicly for a hack that may have been detected a bit before it was made public. Now North Korea's internet connections are sabotaged to keep them from intruding into South Korea's power plants, with China standing mum and not protesting, but the story about why this is going on has to do with this silly movie.
OK, it's just a story. But AFAIKT it is consistent with everything that happened.
FWIW, I believe that North Korea made some threats about sabotaging South Korea's Nuclear piles. That, to me, is a more credible reason for taking down their internet....if that's what happened. (That their internet went down is apparently true. That it was taken down externally I have heard no acceptable proof of.)
Do you even have any evidence that the folks who sent the threats were the same people as the ones who copied the files? Any good reason to believe it? Certainly it's a possibility, but I'd like some acceptable evidence before I start believing it. The unsupported word of someone in a position of authority isn't something that I consider acceptable evidence.
I'm willing to accept that North Korea *MIGHT* do such a thing and then not admit it. But the path from possibility to belief is not, for me, swift and certain.
There are a lot of things that I don't believe I have evidence to decide. This is one of them.
I'm sure that you think you have a point, but I haven't a clue as to what it is. Even as a troll this is sub-par. If you're trying to be serious you really need to think more about how to present your argument.
You are, I think, responding to the claim that you aren't noticing that many small changes can yield an important difference. What you intend your response to mean I find opaque.
What's a bomb? Seriously. An explosive device remotely explodable can be used in mining, or as a weapon. The exact same device.
Just refuse to allow anyone to be named Gatling.
(Well, I know that's not exactly a Gatling gun, but it's pretty close.)
Right. That, after all was the purpose of copyright. To give people a *LIMITED* monopoly. When it expired, then everyone would inherit the work as a common good.
I would argue that 17 years is too long. 5 years with one (fairly expensive) renewal would be better, though the ideal number does differ between fields of endeavor. I could also go with a 3 year first copyright, a renewal for, say, $100. And an nth renewal for $100^n. (You could consider the original publication to be the 0th renewal if you want, and charge a $1 registration fee needed if you intend to apply for any renewals.)
That was because the rules were only applied in favor of white males. As written, however, they work quite well where the population is thinly distributed and the communications are slow. They aren't perfect, but I can't think of anything better.
As things are, however, those rules would not work and could not be made to work. They should, however, have been properly ammended rather than being ignored.
Sounds like a win-win, so why is anyone opposed?
(Well, OK, the Seattle police have some decent arguments, but they also appear to have a shady history which causes one to doubt that the arguments raised are their real reasons. Still, they *are* decent arguments. I'm not sure what the resolution should be, but I am sure it should involve continual taping to an archival store that cannot be edited...which is an impossible ideal, but get as close to it as possible.)
Well, not the only ones, but certainly some of the most important ones. I wish I could believe that they would fairly see the evidence, but there are so many games played with what evidence juries are allowed to see that I'll be a bit dubious until it starts happening.
Well if he'd had his camera going, this would be made clearly obvious. So why are the police against camera? (To be fair, many of them aren't. But I'm talking about the ones that are. Which to me means they've got something to hide, if nothing more than a feeling that their privacy is being invaded, and where they were dominant, now they are supervised.)
Unfortunately there have been enough instances where the police are obviously lying and at fault that I prefer objective evidence that doesn't require that I theorize to fill in the pieces. E.g., there are power stains on someone's hands, but how do you know that he got them when you think he did? A reasonable hypothesis is that he got them struggling to take the officer's gun, but it this actually what happened? And if he was 150 feet away when he was shot, was he fleeing? A camera would remove uncertainties...provided it was secured against tampering. (Yeah, OK, nothing's certain. It could reduce uncertainties quite significantly.)
And why is anyone against having a camera to prevent this kind of uncertainty?
How could you possibly get an answer to that question that you could trust? It's a reasonable question, and my guess would be quite a small percentage. But I can't think of a single way of getting the information that I would trust. I *would* wager a small sum that you could show it would be to the officer's benefit to blame someone else even if he knew he was at fault.
You are correct about "the rule", the problem is that one instance of vile behavior can totally cancel out over a hundred instances of good behavior. Depending on how bad it is it can cancel out over a thousand. And while there is a definite limit as to how good a cop can be, the limit as to how bad he can be is extremely high. And they don't effectively "self police". Even the "good cop" tends to feel that he must protect the bad cop, no matter what he is guilty of. And tends to act to protect him.
OTOH, in many parts of the community, there is much more expectation of encountering a bad cop than a "good cop". And this is justified by what gets reported by believable sources. (That you believe other sources is almost irrelevant.) And there is, unfortunately, a certain amount of evidence to show that the perception of those who don't trust the police is correct. This ranges from their armed intrusion into the wrong house, and shooting the residents to the less violent, but much more frequent action which have created the "crime description" of "driving while brown or black". Please note that it doesn't seem to matter what the race of the officer is, so I tend to consider this abuse a "crime of power" rather than "racial intolerance", but I admit to being uncertain about the reasons.
I'm sure that happens too. But given the punishment that is applied to the one against whom the claim is made, I'm not going to believe that happens very often. It exposes you to retribution, and you don't get any result (except PR).
Yes. And do you know what people call those who send important information over insecure links? Fools.
That's a good point, but you're missing the point that HTTP is not and never has been secure. It wasn't designed to be secure. If your software doesn't check what's received and validate it, then you software has a bad bug.
In this case because China provides N.Korea's internet connection, and it would be a bad mistake to get them mad.