1. Historically, the "other outcome" kind of ended after WW2. Someone conveniently forgot the hunt for communists, perhaps? 2. With the advent of electronic communications it became a lot easier to spread a plot over large distances and make it happen way faster.
Just saying that what you mentioned is far from being true.
Then you don't prevent them. That is the cost of living in a free country, and it's an entirely reasonable one, which I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay.
Careful what you wish for. What's happening now is a perceived annoyance which is very, very unlikely to cause you any real harm, while the other outcome might lead to fear of even getting out of your personally secured home because the garbage can outside might blow in your face. But hey, you get to freely talk over the phone with your relatives about how scared you are to go outside.
I feel I must emphasize on this: it's all theory, I don't take any sides, but I can imagine different outcomes.
I feel that I have to put up the disclaimers first:
#1: I'm a theorist. Think of everything below strictly as theory. #2: I don't live in the US - so I see things with foreigner's eyes. If I'm missing something or there's something I misunderstand, then it's not intentional.
With that being said... Obtaining the necessary warrant might prove to be impossible without obtaining communication-based proof beforehand. Today, they see that 555-0101 called some number from Afghanistan 2-3 times a week during the last 6 months, and some of them came from chemical products shops, while others came from hardware stores, electronic pieces stores and the White House (during tourist visit hours) - so there are some flags raised. If they can't do that anymore, they won't know and won't be able to take the appropriate step to prevent something truly horrible from happening. Then everyone will yell that they didn't do their jobs.
I can't say I agree with NSA's current methods, not at all. But at the same time I can't figure a better way to prevent impactful, unlawful acts from happening (from terrorism to major drug smuggling and so on and so forth). In this specific area I kind of agree with him. Is there a better way? And by "better" I don't necessarily mean "let's go full legal and there you have it" - that's probably way worse from an outcome perspective. What if (again, as I said above, theorizing here) the NSA stops collecting that data and within 3 years the amount of bombs going off increases tenfold, while at the same time drug usage increases by millions of souls, meat trafficking gets out of control, etc.? Then it will be widely regarded as being "the worst decision that could possibly be made".
The higher national security, the greater the costs (and sacrifices of personal privacy). It's valid for pretty much every country in the world. A balance must be stricken, but weights on both platters are variable and subjective.
I know that right now everyone and their dog is up in arms about NSA spying on citizens, which shouldn't happen, but at the same time I can't imagine any other way to tell who's the innocent citizen and who's the evil plotter who wants to blow everyone up. My trust isn't with the NSA but at the same time isn't with the Average Joe saying "you should stop it, period", either.
It's less direct. And without discussing the legal or ethical comparisons, hiding it better helps the blue collar. A country which appears to be more honest will get more contracts and there will be more jobs involved, because strictly between the two, a business will pick the one where corruption is less visible.
No, not at all. Western companies always tried to dodge taxes, just as well as Indian goverments always tried to inflate them. It's a game with two losers, in the end, from an image perspective.
I really don't want to get into a sound quality debate, but in 18th century the sound quality was not that great. Nobody knew about dynamic ranges and whatnot, and composers were mostly imagining how their music would sound like. Now, my opinion is that classical music produced today is idealized, inadvertently sliding it away from its original, intended sound. Same goes for Jazz and 30s music, for example, same goes for rock-n-roll and well, pretty much everything produced before the 90s.
Some people strive to get "best quality" but by that (personal opinion here) they don't realize they lose exactly the core of the music. Good music from the past needs imperfection. It's not specific to music; there are color HD versions of Laurel and Hardy, some remasters use various XXI century techniques to remove shaking and blurring inherent to original recordings, and then you end up with artificiality. You gain clarity but lose immersion.
For some, "purity" must equal "cleaned up". To me, it's "the way it was". YMMV.
Cheaper solution: get an USB stick with a LED, write an app which would read files from your memory stick on trigger, enjoy a cheaper AND more useful device which does the same thing.
The engineer designs/builds the stuff. Someone else uses the stuff unethically. Pretty much anything can be weaponized; some things more directly than others, but in the end, whatever you design, think, build, imagine can (and likely will) be used to hurt others, be they human beings or animals.
OK, there are those who work directly in the military industry, but ethics is only involved when you say "there is someone who works there and they should know better". I agree to that, however, if John Doe is an engineer and he's offered a military industry job, then if he turns it down, someone else will take it. There's always going to be someone who takes that job.
Also, the article implies that an engineer should think of all possible implications when working on something, including ethical use of the product. Which brings back the original statement: you can't make sure that the product will only be used in an ethical manner. It's an impossibility. The only assurance would be that no engineer builds anything anymore. And I'm pretty sure that most people would loathe shivering in a cave with only a raw pelt covering their skin. Just sayin'...
I think the discussion is not around whether the activity would be legal or appropriate. It's more around whether the arrest is really the proper way to handle that infraction. It's akin to beheading someone for swearing in public.
Sorry but If your going to accuse me of not knowing what pay-2-win is, your going to have to share your vast gaming knowledge and insight.
I'll just leave you hanging then:)
Look, I gave short information about many different games, and furthermore I tried to pile them all into a comparative approach. If you expect me to write a novel in a post so that you feel better about it, sorry mate, you're out of luck. But hey, here's your opportunity: go play all the games I mentioned and write comprehensive reviews on them all, I'm sure the OP will thank you for that.
Yeah, well, maybe YOU don't know what pay-to-win is. or maybe we both know... on own terms. Or maybe neither of us really properly define it. I didn't claim I was the holder of the truth, I merely stated my impressions. You, on the other hand, somehow have the impression YOU know it all. Well, so be it. I don't care:)
Drunk driving is also illegal, crossing the red light is also illegal, etc. That's why there are punishments. Reprogramming the chip, fine, and then the dude waltzes back on the road with his chip-reprogrammed car and does the same thing as if it wasn't locked in the first place. Then what?
And then the driver will turn it off for good and never turn it on again. It makes no sense to sell a car with features that will never, ever be used. Instead, it would make sense to mandate participation to (and passing of) a special course for race-style driving, which would prove that the driver is certified to use this type of car. That won't completely stop accidents from happening (and certainly not the famous one which happened two days ago) but would weed out the incompetents, at least.
Note: I have nothing against street-legal race cars. I just think those who drive them should be certified in this area.
Madonna ain't "generic" at all. Furthermore, I perceive her as a trendsetter rather than "one size fits all". On top of that, her songs are recognizable years, maybe decades after being released. In case of a generic band, you struggle to remember who the hell was singing that song not one year after it was released.
Depends on timescale. Generic bands/singers rarely last for long. Do you know of any still strong going fanbase for Spice Girls or Brittney Spears, to name a few? Pink Floyd, on the other hand...
Alternatively, they should put that gizmo which makes a nice underlined thingie on the word, which you can click and then read an interesting article about the word with the thingie and the gizmo on it....I think they're called "hyperlinks", or so I'm told.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't compute. Please review your data, it's wrong.
1. Historically, the "other outcome" kind of ended after WW2. Someone conveniently forgot the hunt for communists, perhaps?
2. With the advent of electronic communications it became a lot easier to spread a plot over large distances and make it happen way faster.
Just saying that what you mentioned is far from being true.
Then you don't prevent them. That is the cost of living in a free country, and it's an entirely reasonable one, which I, for one, am perfectly happy to pay.
Careful what you wish for.
What's happening now is a perceived annoyance which is very, very unlikely to cause you any real harm, while the other outcome might lead to fear of even getting out of your personally secured home because the garbage can outside might blow in your face. But hey, you get to freely talk over the phone with your relatives about how scared you are to go outside.
I feel I must emphasize on this: it's all theory, I don't take any sides, but I can imagine different outcomes.
I feel that I have to put up the disclaimers first:
#1: I'm a theorist. Think of everything below strictly as theory.
#2: I don't live in the US - so I see things with foreigner's eyes. If I'm missing something or there's something I misunderstand, then it's not intentional.
With that being said...
Obtaining the necessary warrant might prove to be impossible without obtaining communication-based proof beforehand. Today, they see that 555-0101 called some number from Afghanistan 2-3 times a week during the last 6 months, and some of them came from chemical products shops, while others came from hardware stores, electronic pieces stores and the White House (during tourist visit hours) - so there are some flags raised. If they can't do that anymore, they won't know and won't be able to take the appropriate step to prevent something truly horrible from happening. Then everyone will yell that they didn't do their jobs.
I can't say I agree with NSA's current methods, not at all. But at the same time I can't figure a better way to prevent impactful, unlawful acts from happening (from terrorism to major drug smuggling and so on and so forth). In this specific area I kind of agree with him. Is there a better way? And by "better" I don't necessarily mean "let's go full legal and there you have it" - that's probably way worse from an outcome perspective. What if (again, as I said above, theorizing here) the NSA stops collecting that data and within 3 years the amount of bombs going off increases tenfold, while at the same time drug usage increases by millions of souls, meat trafficking gets out of control, etc.? Then it will be widely regarded as being "the worst decision that could possibly be made".
The higher national security, the greater the costs (and sacrifices of personal privacy). It's valid for pretty much every country in the world. A balance must be stricken, but weights on both platters are variable and subjective.
I know that right now everyone and their dog is up in arms about NSA spying on citizens, which shouldn't happen, but at the same time I can't imagine any other way to tell who's the innocent citizen and who's the evil plotter who wants to blow everyone up. My trust isn't with the NSA but at the same time isn't with the Average Joe saying "you should stop it, period", either.
Thank you.
Philippines people. Haven't you heard? it's the new "Cloud" buzzword for support.
It's less direct. And without discussing the legal or ethical comparisons, hiding it better helps the blue collar.
A country which appears to be more honest will get more contracts and there will be more jobs involved, because strictly between the two, a business will pick the one where corruption is less visible.
what happens if you're logged in but choose to post anonymously? I'm asking because I never tried, nor will I; I'm proud of my often-mocked username.
Unless my math is way off.
...Or unless taxes have already been paid and this is just another bully tactic.
No, not at all. Western companies always tried to dodge taxes, just as well as Indian goverments always tried to inflate them. It's a game with two losers, in the end, from an image perspective.
Does it count as racist if I say I am not surprised by this move from the Indian government?
I really don't want to get into a sound quality debate, but in 18th century the sound quality was not that great. Nobody knew about dynamic ranges and whatnot, and composers were mostly imagining how their music would sound like. Now, my opinion is that classical music produced today is idealized, inadvertently sliding it away from its original, intended sound. Same goes for Jazz and 30s music, for example, same goes for rock-n-roll and well, pretty much everything produced before the 90s.
Some people strive to get "best quality" but by that (personal opinion here) they don't realize they lose exactly the core of the music. Good music from the past needs imperfection. It's not specific to music; there are color HD versions of Laurel and Hardy, some remasters use various XXI century techniques to remove shaking and blurring inherent to original recordings, and then you end up with artificiality. You gain clarity but lose immersion.
For some, "purity" must equal "cleaned up". To me, it's "the way it was". YMMV.
I would if that would have even a tiny possibility of saving my life.
Just as well, I would volunteer for most tests involving cybernetic implants.
People are different and they have different goals. Some are willing to die for democracy, others for stray dogs, others for medicine advances.
Cheaper solution: get an USB stick with a LED, write an app which would read files from your memory stick on trigger, enjoy a cheaper AND more useful device which does the same thing.
The engineer designs/builds the stuff. Someone else uses the stuff unethically.
Pretty much anything can be weaponized; some things more directly than others, but in the end, whatever you design, think, build, imagine can (and likely will) be used to hurt others, be they human beings or animals.
OK, there are those who work directly in the military industry, but ethics is only involved when you say "there is someone who works there and they should know better". I agree to that, however, if John Doe is an engineer and he's offered a military industry job, then if he turns it down, someone else will take it. There's always going to be someone who takes that job.
Also, the article implies that an engineer should think of all possible implications when working on something, including ethical use of the product. Which brings back the original statement: you can't make sure that the product will only be used in an ethical manner. It's an impossibility. The only assurance would be that no engineer builds anything anymore. And I'm pretty sure that most people would loathe shivering in a cave with only a raw pelt covering their skin. Just sayin'...
I think the discussion is not around whether the activity would be legal or appropriate. It's more around whether the arrest is really the proper way to handle that infraction. It's akin to beheading someone for swearing in public.
Sorry but If your going to accuse me of not knowing what pay-2-win is, your going to have to share your vast gaming knowledge and insight.
I'll just leave you hanging then :)
Look, I gave short information about many different games, and furthermore I tried to pile them all into a comparative approach. If you expect me to write a novel in a post so that you feel better about it, sorry mate, you're out of luck. But hey, here's your opportunity: go play all the games I mentioned and write comprehensive reviews on them all, I'm sure the OP will thank you for that.
Yeah, well, maybe YOU don't know what pay-to-win is. or maybe we both know... on own terms. Or maybe neither of us really properly define it. :)
I didn't claim I was the holder of the truth, I merely stated my impressions. You, on the other hand, somehow have the impression YOU know it all.
Well, so be it. I don't care
Drunk driving is also illegal, crossing the red light is also illegal, etc.
That's why there are punishments.
Reprogramming the chip, fine, and then the dude waltzes back on the road with his chip-reprogrammed car and does the same thing as if it wasn't locked in the first place. Then what?
I love it when people write without thinking.
And then the driver will turn it off for good and never turn it on again.
It makes no sense to sell a car with features that will never, ever be used. Instead, it would make sense to mandate participation to (and passing of) a special course for race-style driving, which would prove that the driver is certified to use this type of car.
That won't completely stop accidents from happening (and certainly not the famous one which happened two days ago) but would weed out the incompetents, at least.
Note: I have nothing against street-legal race cars. I just think those who drive them should be certified in this area.
Madonna ain't "generic" at all. Furthermore, I perceive her as a trendsetter rather than "one size fits all". On top of that, her songs are recognizable years, maybe decades after being released. In case of a generic band, you struggle to remember who the hell was singing that song not one year after it was released.
Depends on timescale. Generic bands/singers rarely last for long. Do you know of any still strong going fanbase for Spice Girls or Brittney Spears, to name a few? Pink Floyd, on the other hand...
...Or we could just stop going to Slashdot and find the news ourselves. How about that? Since Slashdot doesn't give us the links anyway...
Alternatively, they should put that gizmo which makes a nice underlined thingie on the word, which you can click and then read an interesting article about the word with the thingie and the gizmo on it. ...I think they're called "hyperlinks", or so I'm told.
A lot easier to commit. less personal.