Tim McVeigh had a higher efficiency (183/1 > 3k/19), yet we didn't hear calls for a USA PATRIOT Act after OKC. I wonder why.
Because there was no need for such calls. They passed such a law quietly, with little Congressional debate or public discussion. This 1996 law encountered no opposition and there was little public discussion following it, and it laid the groundwork for many of the abuses of the PATRIOT Act.
No one really cares whether William Jennings Bryan should've won the 1896 election
Speak for yourself, goon! I'd say you're a closet McKinleyite if you're not willing to admit that the most important election of the 19th century was stolen by that blasted benevolent assimilationist! It's obvious the election was stolen using those new-fangled ink pen ballots manufactured by Ye Olde Diebold. At least one citizen understood that you can cast a vote with a piece of cold steel much more effectively than you can with a ballot!
I think such voices are more likely to stay in wikipedia because of the desire to contribute to the historical account of a recent event. Whereas stories on wikinews are likely to expire in terms of relevance too quick to attract the loud POV-wars that take place over wikipedia articles on current events.
That said, I really can't see using wikinews too much with so other news sources out there, including blogs that already allow participation.
Well, OK, fair enough; the story may be fishy but it is clearly documented at this link. But why didn't you link to that book in the first place? My bullshit detector goes off when someone links to a page as proof of a claim and yet the page linked to says NOT A WORD about the claim it was offered as proof of.
Of course, but that's not the point; the point is about being able to monitor all those conversations from a single location. I don't think it's too paranoid to worry that such a system could be abused. There should at the very least be laws regarding the system that specifically prevent this sort of monitoring rather than relying on the lack of speech recognition software to save us.
There is clearly anti-Asian bias on slashdot. There are "In Korea" jokes, "...in Japan!" jokes, and "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" jokes. Soon we will see jokes such as "In Khmer Cambodia, Cold Fusion reports on DOE!" or "Sure, Cold Fusion works.... in Federated Micronesia!" But it is unlikely that we will see "In Sandinista Nicaragua, DOE reports on itself, then loses report!" or "In Slovak Bratislava, only cold people listen to fusion." Why? Because of persistent and quantifiable anti-Asian discrimination on slashdot. I'm appalled, really, and I'm writing my Congressman about it....
True, but that's a red herring distracting from the real surveillance issue that is a potential problem here. This system establishes a network of microphones connected to a central system. Whether or not the machine recognizes speech, what is to stop someone with access to it from turning it into a means of listening to conversations anywhere near a microphone? I could imagine a pretty sophisticated spying station coded for this network that would patch the sound through coming from any microphone near a given location, and could offer the user the ability to hone in on particular sounds -- conversations could certainly be heard. Speech recognition software is irrelevant at that point; most people have the necessary decoding tools built right into their brains.
Can you point to any actual reference to this assassination plot, or to Reagan, or even to the year 1984 on the page you linked? I actually read all of it and there is nothing about any assassination on that page. Nor anywhere in google that I looked. You didn't happen to just, you know, MAKE THAT CRAP UP, did you?
Funny, one of his Harvard Business School professors confirmed the AC's opinion about how much time George spent paying attention in class (and reveals many other very interesting things as well).
Don't blame him; there's just not enough information about these blogs in mainstream media sources -- and in spite of how long the internet has been available, most of us still get most of our information from mainstream sources. I was at a panel about blogging and the war on terrorism at an academic conference and there was one panelist writing about the "dear_raed" blog. He had interesting things to say about it, but he basically seemed to think that Pax was the only Iraqi blogger and that he stopped in 2003. He had never heard of raedinthemiddle, afamilyinbaghdad, healing iraq, or even riverbend. He didn't know there were Iranian blogs either. I was stunned.
Of course, you're right, a simple google search will uncover many of them.
Just to clarify; I never said Campell's sued Warhol; I was making a joke about the nature of the original (since it would be absurd for Warhol to sue Campbell as I suggested), and I agree with your comment.
Nor is it conducive to easy forgery either. It would take a lot of work to put all the splashes and drips in the right places, and even minor mistakes would be easily noticed if compared to a photograph of the original. For the forger to just lop the paint on himself of course will never get it to look identical.
Interesting, and related to the Picasso story I posted above a second (well, at least 20 seconds) ago. There are artworks that question the very notion of "original." Andy Warhol for example - if I put a Campell Soup can in front of the computer how will it know whether it is an original Andy Warhol? And if the computer can determine which can of soup is the original, can Warhol's estate use the computer's conclusions to sue Campbell for making imitation Warhols?
Slashdot Mirror
The important question is, if you mix some of this stuff with LSD and put it in a squirtgun and go around squirting people, will they hallucinate?
Because there was no need for such calls. They passed such a law quietly, with little Congressional debate or public discussion. This 1996 law encountered no opposition and there was little public discussion following it, and it laid the groundwork for many of the abuses of the PATRIOT Act.
Apple will do what they did with the SuperDrive.... just use the old name for the new thing and hope nobody notices....
is in the use of duct tape to hold everything together. It may be hard to heat, but at least it is terrorist-proof!
Yeah, all you need is a crappy video camera that you can't hold still and three people to pretend to be lost in the woods.
Oh yeah, and a crapload of hype....
Yeah, but do you really think that staging a fake Mars-landing is going to be free?
So he messed with air traffic. That's nothing. I heard about a kid who started a nuclear war with fewer than 100 red balloons.
Speak for yourself, goon! I'd say you're a closet McKinleyite if you're not willing to admit that the most important election of the 19th century was stolen by that blasted benevolent assimilationist! It's obvious the election was stolen using those new-fangled ink pen ballots manufactured by Ye Olde Diebold. At least one citizen understood that you can cast a vote with a piece of cold steel much more effectively than you can with a ballot!
That said, I really can't see using wikinews too much with so other news sources out there, including blogs that already allow participation.
for "Not So Fast, Wanker!"
Well, OK, fair enough; the story may be fishy but it is clearly documented at this link. But why didn't you link to that book in the first place? My bullshit detector goes off when someone links to a page as proof of a claim and yet the page linked to says NOT A WORD about the claim it was offered as proof of.
Of course, but that's not the point; the point is about being able to monitor all those conversations from a single location. I don't think it's too paranoid to worry that such a system could be abused. There should at the very least be laws regarding the system that specifically prevent this sort of monitoring rather than relying on the lack of speech recognition software to save us.
There is clearly anti-Asian bias on slashdot. There are "In Korea" jokes, "...in Japan!" jokes, and "IN SOVIET RUSSIA" jokes. Soon we will see jokes such as "In Khmer Cambodia, Cold Fusion reports on DOE!" or "Sure, Cold Fusion works.... in Federated Micronesia!" But it is unlikely that we will see "In Sandinista Nicaragua, DOE reports on itself, then loses report!" or "In Slovak Bratislava, only cold people listen to fusion." Why? Because of persistent and quantifiable anti-Asian discrimination on slashdot. I'm appalled, really, and I'm writing my Congressman about it....
True, but that's a red herring distracting from the real surveillance issue that is a potential problem here. This system establishes a network of microphones connected to a central system. Whether or not the machine recognizes speech, what is to stop someone with access to it from turning it into a means of listening to conversations anywhere near a microphone? I could imagine a pretty sophisticated spying station coded for this network that would patch the sound through coming from any microphone near a given location, and could offer the user the ability to hone in on particular sounds -- conversations could certainly be heard. Speech recognition software is irrelevant at that point; most people have the necessary decoding tools built right into their brains.
Can you name anyone with more expertise on the topic?
Can you point to any actual reference to this assassination plot, or to Reagan, or even to the year 1984 on the page you linked? I actually read all of it and there is nothing about any assassination on that page. Nor anywhere in google that I looked. You didn't happen to just, you know, MAKE THAT CRAP UP, did you?
In Korea, only the elderly use proxies.
Funny, one of his Harvard Business School professors confirmed the AC's opinion about how much time George spent paying attention in class (and reveals many other very interesting things as well).
Yes there are. He forgot the middle step:
(Apologies to GWB)
Of course, you're right, a simple google search will uncover many of them.
Haven't you heard? The terrorists want WMV!!
Just to clarify; I never said Campell's sued Warhol; I was making a joke about the nature of the original (since it would be absurd for Warhol to sue Campbell as I suggested), and I agree with your comment.
Nor is it conducive to easy forgery either. It would take a lot of work to put all the splashes and drips in the right places, and even minor mistakes would be easily noticed if compared to a photograph of the original. For the forger to just lop the paint on himself of course will never get it to look identical.
Interesting, and related to the Picasso story I posted above a second (well, at least 20 seconds) ago. There are artworks that question the very notion of "original." Andy Warhol for example - if I put a Campell Soup can in front of the computer how will it know whether it is an original Andy Warhol? And if the computer can determine which can of soup is the original, can Warhol's estate use the computer's conclusions to sue Campbell for making imitation Warhols?