I agree that most people would not be able to fly a car, but getting cars to fly themselves is possible, probably easier in some ways, you don't have those pesky pedestrians to get in your way, you can make all flying cars computer controlled from the start so you remove other stupid motorists from the equation.
That is mere speculation, If so you should see a dip heart attacks right after daylight savings, as the people who would have died don't.You don't know, there is no evidence for that. It maybe that daylight savings also increases your chances of having a heart attack over a lifetime. I have no evidence for my theory either.
I would hope the majority of heart attacks happen to older people, who are more likely to be retired, weekends may not mean much, the impact may even be greater on old people than 25%.
In general I am, they are far to often used to make people feel, superior, just like other jargon. Just because you don't know what ISP means doesn't mean you don't know what an Internet Service Provider is, or does. The purpose of language, for me at least is to communicate, acronyms in general only make it harder.
You could say the US supreme court. It is simple, and clearer to larger set of people.
While I also think women don't actually get paid less in general, when taking into consideration other factors, like hours worked (over lifetime), other rewards such as more emotionally gratifying jobs. Women an men are different we may in general look for different qualities in jobs. Is that such a bad thing?
All the surveys I have seen, seem to be look at the average wage of a male, compare it with females, and say oh no we have wage inequality.
But to play devils advocate it, maybe profitable to pay women less money and still hire more men, because women maybe willing to accept less for some physiological reason. (Women in general may be just be less pushy). You still have to hire people, and there is only a limited supply, it is skilled labor which may mean getting the right person may be more important to your bottom line than paying them a bit less. So out of 100 potential employees you pick the best, say 10% are women, assuming random skill level you hire 10% women. Then you negotiate in sexist manner either, consciously or unconsciously.
The simple fact is wages are not fair, they do not accurately reflect skill/effort put into it. If it did why do fund managers get paid millions when their funds under perform the market (basically you would expect trained monkeys to do better). I doubt they work harder than say a fruit pickers either. You may say they have more risk, but that is not really true either, say they loose all your money, as long as they didn't commit a crime while doing it, the worst that will happen is they will have to get normal paying job like the rest of us. If you want fair you are living in the wrong world.
Frivolous patents, my well be abuses but they are also a direct result of the patient system. The patents are all about controlling, obtaining a monopoly, the more "Ideas" you control the more you benefit.
It is in a companies very nature to maximize profit, as such it will always push the patent system to its limits. Using its vast resources to do so, by lawyers, and bribing, ops I meant lobbying politicians, to change the laws.
I am not completely opposed to a patent system but patents should be very short lived, just enough for you to have a good chance of establishing a market share.
Or perhaps the length of the patent should be based on the effort needed to create it.
If Megacorp wants to crush you, it will, It will put into play its warchest of patents, with its army of lawyers, you will go bankrupt paying legal fees long before you make any money.
Your best hope is remain unnoticed until you are successful enough to compete.
The shareholder produce nothing, the provide capital yes, but actually expend zero effort past that point.
The workers are the ones that actually produce something. It is true that all parts of the system are required to produce something, but paying your employees a living wage should be a priority, if the shareholders can't support themselves off the profits of their shares after that, perhaps they should get off their lazy butts and get a job, where they too would be earn a living wage.
I don't think copyright law actually helps increase, arts literature, and even has a detrimental effect, people who create do so because the want to. Copyright law creates large business that must make money over being creative. It also hinders derivative works, which face it all works are.
There are reputable studies that show paying people more decrease creativity.
I also find it incredibly hard to believe that once an artist is dead, that any monetary intensives offered after the death of the artist will encourage them to spend more time on their work. To those people who say but what to stop people killing the artist, the same thing that stops people over people getting killed for money, societies morals, and murder laws. Anyway once they are dead it would be public domain so not that valuable anyway.
While I agree with you that attribution can remain for ever but copyright, patient should be limited. Attribution is basically don't lie.
Attribution must have practical constraints as well, if it is a significant part of the creation then by all means, give credit. But giving credit for every single thing for ever seems impractical. Would be giving credit to the designer of every screw, wheel, cog etc in a car? The list of attributions would be long and nobody would read it because nobody would care.
If you wrote a song, would you have give credit to every song you ever listened to because it possibly influenced you in writing your song?
Or realize that your vote is not that powerful and wasting it isn't really such big deal in the first place. You wouldn't want to waste your vote because the other party might get in, guess what they will get in maybe not this election, but eventually they will
So vote for a third party if you wish, it will make little or no difference to the election outcome either way.
c) is just accepting the status quo, they want you to think that a vote for someone else is a wasted vote, that how they keep their power.
If there was a third party, the people who run the country would have to start bribing, oops I meant to say making political contributions to them as well, it would be more expensive. Guess what I think they are as bad as each other, and the whole thing is just a show to give the impression that you have a choice.
Nothing will change, if people just keep on doing exactly what they have been doing in the past.
Here you go 1. Track people 2. If they do anything that you don't like arrest, them terrorism is a convenient starting point Really a very small problem. 3. Track any exchange of information, knowledge, can't have the people owning knowledge that is the domain of super rich. Evil pirates you know. 4. Charge people for using, that information 5. Anybody who runs for political office against you have a convenient database of information against them and/or their family. 6. If that fails you know exactly where they are and what their habits are so you an arrange an accident. 5. Profit.
This is all for the good of the country, we don't want those, communist, terrorist, insert current group you don't like here, running the country they will ruin it, its worth sacrificing a bit of freedom.
I am serious about the last part I believe that these agencies truly believe they are doing it for the good of the nation.
Not for me, I would say I am introverted,I am shy, I won't be comfortable talking to someone about anything non pragmatic for about 6 months. Took a online test at http://www.thepowerofintrovert... says I am an introvert, no real surprise.
But I like open offices, I am quite capable completely blocking out the rest of the world if I am busy, just ask my wife. But I like people, it definitely lets me know whats going on, since I won't actually go to the water cooler for a chat. In an office I would not make an effort to go and see someone, for a chat, ever.
Maybe you can't just categorize people into boxes.
Ps, I hate cubicles they are the worst of both worlds, I feel isolated, and surrounded by people, at the same time.
You are right passwords suck, people don't care, you can't make them care, people are bad at choosing them.
Instead of constantly trying to force people choose good passwords, we need a way to make it simple for people to get good access keys. I like challenge response where the actual site doesn't even know your password, that way even if they do get hacked they still can't log in as you. They should 1 way hash your password anyway but you have no guarantee they do.
No more picking/remembering passwords a computer does it for us. Isolated hardware, that requires physical button press, to do a challenge response would be best to avoid viruses, key loggers wouldn't help either.
Open Id is ok but I personally don't want every site knowing my id, you need a of having separate passwords for different sites. A password management systems that generate passwords are ok too, but are still vulnerable to viruses on the users computer.
Ok the hardware could be stolen, but that could be secured by a password if you wished, they would still need to know your login id.
Just because you don't look at the file, doesn't mean it its not there (If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound). The file is stored systematically, just no human looks at it is only a technical detail and probably more to do with efficiency than anything else. The will probably run algorithms run over it to determine which they consider interesting, it would not be feasible for people to examine that much data.
Isn't that what gathering "meta data" is all about.
Hum... no?
Great explanation, the collect information about everybody, about who called who. How can this not be systematically storing files on everyone. Or is it that it isn't a physical file, so its different.
The Stasi hired your neighbors to spy on you. At one point, one in 20 or one in 30 East german citizen (can't remember the exact ratio) was an informant on Stasi payroll. If you have any shred of begining of hint of evidence that the NSA is doing anything remotely close to that, please share it.
As I said it maybe just that just more efficient to monitor all electronic communication, but I am sure they pay informants when they deem it necessary, I will conceded the scale is probably smaller, since they have other means, of watching you.
Again, do you have any evidence whatsoever? Because it really sounds like speculation.
Neither do you, it is speculation based, the response of the government, when the NSA goes against the constitution, do the get forced to stop, no, the government goes after the whistle blower. I know its not isn't proof, but to me it strongly implies a lot of political influence.
And that they don't systematically create files on their citizens, you know, what the Stasi job was by design.
Isn't that what gathering "meta data" is all about.
Nor to they hire informant among the public.
I would be very surprised if the didn't, the basically force companies like google to hand over information. They hire people to put back doors int encryption algorithms. Why do you think they are are above doing the same with the general public. The only reason I can see, is it maybe less efficient, than monitoring all electronic communication.
And they don't seem to be politically active (or if they are, they are crazy bad at it)
or crazy good at it, so good at it that you don't even know they are doing it, the USA is a democracy, well compared to East Germany, so they have to be a little more subtle about it.
Its about a proportional response, by all means, confront them, call the manager, argue with them (be aware that might disturb someone else in the theater), even throw popcorn. Don't shoot them. Can you see the difference? The former ones cause minor non-permanent inconvenience, for a minor inconvenience.
Everyone in this world is a jerk sometimes, just like you are posting that the best outcome is that someone died because they texted in a movie, and a 3 year old lost their father.
If we killed everybody that was slightly inconsiderate sometimes, there would be nobody left.
The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical.
Um throwing popcorn, is not exactly life threatening unless you have a very sever allergy to one of the ingredients
I get your point that a news report isn't exactly "the facts", but we can only discuss the events based story. Its not like he is going to get convicted because of anything that is said on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
Um put an agent inside iSEC, although we know the NSA would above that. Spying is not their job.
I agree that most people would not be able to fly a car, but getting cars to fly themselves is possible, probably easier in some ways, you don't have those pesky pedestrians to get in your way, you can make all flying cars computer controlled from the start so you remove other stupid motorists from the equation.
That is mere speculation, If so you should see a dip heart attacks right after daylight savings, as the people who would have died don't.You don't know, there is no evidence for that. It maybe that daylight savings also increases your chances of having a heart attack over a lifetime. I have no evidence for my theory either.
I would hope the majority of heart attacks happen to older people, who are more likely to be retired, weekends may not mean much, the impact may even be greater on old people than 25%.
In general I am, they are far to often used to make people feel, superior, just like other jargon. Just because you don't know what ISP means doesn't mean you don't know what an Internet Service Provider is, or does. The purpose of language, for me at least is to communicate, acronyms in general only make it harder.
You could say the US supreme court. It is simple, and clearer to larger set of people.
While I also think women don't actually get paid less in general, when taking into consideration other factors, like hours worked (over lifetime), other rewards such as more emotionally gratifying jobs. Women an men are different we may in general look for different qualities in jobs. Is that such a bad thing?
All the surveys I have seen, seem to be look at the average wage of a male, compare it with females, and say oh no we have wage inequality.
But to play devils advocate it, maybe profitable to pay women less money and still hire more men, because women maybe willing to accept less for some physiological reason. (Women in general may be just be less pushy). You still have to hire people, and there is only a limited supply, it is skilled labor which may mean getting the right person may be more important to your bottom line than paying them a bit less. So out of 100 potential employees you pick the best, say 10% are women, assuming random skill level you hire 10% women. Then you negotiate in sexist manner either, consciously or unconsciously.
The simple fact is wages are not fair, they do not accurately reflect skill/effort put into it. If it did why do fund managers get paid millions when their funds under perform the market (basically you would expect trained monkeys to do better). I doubt they work harder than say a fruit pickers either. You may say they have more risk, but that is not really true either, say they loose all your money, as long as they didn't commit a crime while doing it, the worst that will happen is they will have to get normal paying job like the rest of us. If you want fair you are living in the wrong world.
Frivolous patents, my well be abuses but they are also a direct result of the patient system. The patents are all about controlling, obtaining a monopoly, the more "Ideas" you control the more you benefit.
It is in a companies very nature to maximize profit, as such it will always push the patent system to its limits. Using its vast resources to do so, by lawyers, and bribing, ops I meant lobbying politicians, to change the laws.
I am not completely opposed to a patent system but patents should be very short lived, just enough for you to have a good chance of establishing a market share.
Or perhaps the length of the patent should be based on the effort needed to create it.
because that's not how it works in real life.
If Megacorp wants to crush you, it will, It will put into play its warchest of patents, with its army of lawyers, you will go bankrupt paying legal fees long before you make any money.
Your best hope is remain unnoticed until you are successful enough to compete.
sort of like the government printing "real" money. except you are also wasting paper, and ink.
The shareholder produce nothing, the provide capital yes, but actually expend zero effort past that point.
The workers are the ones that actually produce something. It is true that all parts of the system are required to produce something, but paying your employees a living wage should be a priority, if the shareholders can't support themselves off the profits of their shares after that, perhaps they should get off their lazy butts and get a job, where they too would be earn a living wage.
Yes I know a lot of shareholders actually work.
I don't think copyright law actually helps increase, arts literature, and even has a detrimental effect, people who create do so because the want to. Copyright law creates large business that must make money over being creative. It also hinders derivative works, which face it all works are.
There are reputable studies that show paying people more decrease creativity.
I also find it incredibly hard to believe that once an artist is dead, that any monetary intensives offered after the death of the artist will encourage them to spend more time on their work. To those people who say but what to stop people killing the artist, the same thing that stops people over people getting killed for money, societies morals, and murder laws. Anyway once they are dead it would be public domain so not that valuable anyway.
While I agree with you that attribution can remain for ever but copyright, patient should be limited. Attribution is basically don't lie.
Attribution must have practical constraints as well, if it is a significant part of the creation then by all means, give credit. But giving credit for every single thing for ever seems impractical. Would be giving credit to the designer of every screw, wheel, cog etc in a car? The list of attributions would be long and nobody would read it because nobody would care.
If you wrote a song, would you have give credit to every song you ever listened to because it possibly influenced you in writing your song?
Or, the spooks will kill him and blame some nut job.
Or realize that your vote is not that powerful and wasting it isn't really such big deal in the first place. You wouldn't want to waste your vote because the other party might get in, guess what they will get in maybe not this election, but eventually they will
So vote for a third party if you wish, it will make little or no difference to the election outcome either way.
c) is just accepting the status quo, they want you to think that a vote for someone else is a wasted vote, that how they keep their power.
If there was a third party, the people who run the country would have to start bribing, oops I meant to say making political contributions to them as well, it would be more expensive. Guess what I think they are as bad as each other, and the whole thing is just a show to give the impression that you have a choice.
Nothing will change, if people just keep on doing exactly what they have been doing in the past.
Here you go
1. Track people
2. If they do anything that you don't like arrest, them terrorism is a convenient starting point Really a very small problem.
3. Track any exchange of information, knowledge, can't have the people owning knowledge that is the domain of super rich. Evil pirates you know.
4. Charge people for using, that information
5. Anybody who runs for political office against you have a convenient database of information against them and/or their family.
6. If that fails you know exactly where they are and what their habits are so you an arrange an accident.
5. Profit.
This is all for the good of the country, we don't want those, communist, terrorist, insert current group you don't like here, running the country they will ruin it, its worth sacrificing a bit of freedom.
I am serious about the last part I believe that these agencies truly believe they are doing it for the good of the nation.
Not for me, I would say I am introverted,I am shy, I won't be comfortable talking to someone about anything non pragmatic for about 6 months.
Took a online test at http://www.thepowerofintrovert... says I am an introvert, no real surprise.
But I like open offices, I am quite capable completely blocking out the rest of the world if I am busy, just ask my wife. But I like people, it definitely lets me know whats going on, since I won't actually go to the water cooler for a chat. In an office I would not make an effort to go and see someone, for a chat, ever.
Maybe you can't just categorize people into boxes.
Ps, I hate cubicles they are the worst of both worlds, I feel isolated, and surrounded by people, at the same time.
You are right passwords suck, people don't care, you can't make them care, people are bad at choosing them.
Instead of constantly trying to force people choose good passwords, we need a way to make it simple for people to get good access keys. I like challenge response where the actual site doesn't even know your password, that way even if they do get hacked they still can't log in as you. They should 1 way hash your password anyway but you have no guarantee they do.
No more picking/remembering passwords a computer does it for us. Isolated hardware, that requires physical button press, to do a challenge response would be best to avoid viruses, key loggers wouldn't help either.
Open Id is ok but I personally don't want every site knowing my id, you need a of having separate passwords for different sites. A password management systems that generate passwords are ok too, but are still vulnerable to viruses on the users computer.
Ok the hardware could be stolen, but that could be secured by a password if you wished, they would still need to know your login id.
Indeed. I keep waiting for retina scan or DNA analysis, but it hasn't happened, yet.
and when a hacker get hold of those good, luck changing them.
Just because you don't look at the file, doesn't mean it its not there (If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound). The file is stored systematically, just no human looks at it is only a technical detail and probably more to do with efficiency than anything else. The will probably run algorithms run over it to determine which they consider interesting, it would not be feasible for people to examine that much data.
Isn't that what gathering "meta data" is all about.
Hum... no?
Great explanation, the collect information about everybody, about who called who. How can this not be systematically storing files on everyone. Or is it that it isn't a physical file, so its different.
The Stasi hired your neighbors to spy on you. At one point, one in 20 or one in 30 East german citizen (can't remember the exact ratio) was an informant on Stasi payroll. If you have any shred of begining of hint of evidence that the NSA is doing anything remotely close to that, please share it.
As I said it maybe just that just more efficient to monitor all electronic communication, but I am sure they pay informants when they deem it necessary, I will conceded the scale is probably smaller, since they have other means, of watching you.
Again, do you have any evidence whatsoever? Because it really sounds like speculation.
Neither do you, it is speculation based, the response of the government, when the NSA goes against the constitution, do the get forced to stop, no, the government goes after the whistle blower. I know its not isn't proof, but to me it strongly implies a lot of political influence.
And that they don't systematically create files on their citizens, you know, what the Stasi job was by design.
Isn't that what gathering "meta data" is all about.
Nor to they hire informant among the public.
I would be very surprised if the didn't, the basically force companies like google to hand over information. They hire people to put back doors int encryption algorithms. Why do you think they are are above doing the same with the general public. The only reason I can see, is it maybe less efficient, than monitoring all electronic communication.
And they don't seem to be politically active (or if they are, they are crazy bad at it)
or crazy good at it, so good at it that you don't even know they are doing it, the USA is a democracy, well compared to East Germany, so they have to be a little more subtle about it.
Its about a proportional response, by all means, confront them, call the manager, argue with them (be aware that might disturb someone else in the theater), even throw popcorn. Don't shoot them. Can you see the difference? The former ones cause minor non-permanent inconvenience, for a minor inconvenience.
What are you on?
Ok I assume you trying to get a reaction, I hope.
Everyone in this world is a jerk sometimes, just like you are posting that the best outcome is that someone died because they texted in a movie, and a 3 year old lost their father.
If we killed everybody that was slightly inconsiderate sometimes, there would be nobody left.
he wasn't police, he was ex police.
The fact is, there was an argument and it got physical.
Um throwing popcorn, is not exactly life threatening unless you have a very sever allergy to one of the ingredients
I get your point that a news report isn't exactly "the facts", but we can only discuss the events based story. Its not like he is going to get convicted because of anything that is said on slashdot.