I've certainly had the experience of getting stopped at a checkpoint, and when being found to be doing nothing much wrong, I was directed to stand to one side until someone could check me out more thoroughly. I'm a pretty clean-cut kind of guy, so this was a bit of a culture-shock to me.
Having said that, is there such a big problem with it? There was a time when police had the authority to make on-the-spot judgments about whether people were behaving in a truly criminal manner, or if they had just been a little foolish. The old joke was that you either got the ticket or got the lecture. If you had the humility to take it on the chin, the lecture was usually better.
I appreciate that some cops have gotten off on the power trip, and that's a bad thing, but it also occurs to me that the entire force has been disempowered by the legislature to compensate for it. Is there no better way?
I'm not entirely sure that I agree. It occurs to me that many of the comments in this thread ridicule the RIAA because of the amount of their claim. The amount may indeed be ridiculous, but the claim itself seems to be valid. Limewire facilitated widescale theft - and is now being called to account for it.
It might have been more useful for the govt to set the violation fines to be proportionate to the profits fraudulently gained (by Limewire), but that would have been much harder to calculate, and much easier to rort. They took the easy way out, and the absurdity of the statutory amount they chose is now revealed.
The RIAA is basically jumping through the hoops defined by the legislature. I'm sure they are rubbing their hands with glee at the figure they've calculated, but they will never gain more than the net worth of Limewire plus its insurance coverage.
I think that this case highlights two very salient points. Firstly, the statutory figure defined by the government is ridiculous. But also, the breadth and depth of media theft internationally is vast. I'm sure there is a sexy XKCD graph somewhere showing the cross-over point between reduced prices and increased sales/reduced theft, but I don't think that the RIAA views it that way. Fundamentally, people should not have to alter their behaviour to mitigate the impact of crime. That might be a little too idealistic, but I believe that this problem pervades far more of modern society than we are giving it credit for.
The RIAA are highlighting the gap between our society's idealistic viewpoint, and the commercial reality. In the long run, it might not be good for them as an organisation, but I think it will be very good for society as a whole.
-- "Just because having some is good, it does not necessarily follow that having more is better", Socrates
I think a lot of the improvements in the application of this technology will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
We're still a long way from HalfLife 2 style ManHacks or Minority Report style surveillance spiders.
Still, both those things might be achievable through iterative development of this technology.
It occurs to me that power systems are the issue rather than command and control, so I'm inclined to agree with your comment. This is not a particularly interesting development.
Phew. Of all the responses I've read, I think that this sub-thread is probably the most articulate.
For a very long time, Libya continued the most horrific oppression of its populace, with no sanctions from the UN. With no significant actions to protect these so-called 'human rights'. Quite frankly, the UN didn't give a rat's arse about the Libyan population until now. So, what changed? Egypt happened perhaps? Maybe some people in Libya showed a bit of spine? Why should that make a difference? Note that I have not directly named Gadaffi yet. He is but one man. Oppression of an entire country takes a little more than one man's efforts. He is fully supported by his military. Hundreds of thousands of men.
And anyway, there's plenty of literature that shows that some countries have experienced a higher quality of life, and a more narrow band between rich-and-poor under a dictatorship. Not saying that's the case in Libya. Just saying that this 'throw him out cause he's a dictator tripe is.. well.. tripe.'
So, what did change? The media took an interest. The lowest common denominator of all human morality. And all these folks coming onto/. and getting all rowdy are quoting what? Fox News? The Sun? News Ltd? Or just their next door neighbour's grandma? The dialog in these news articles is offensively biased. Seems the editorial staff are all still in their teens and have no concept that their moral judgments are politically and commercially influenced.
There is no credible intel being provided to the public. No evidence. The UN, largely driven (but not completely) by western interests appears to be manipulating this situation to its own benefit. A strong and powerful resistance overthrowing the government would be a greater wildcard than Gaddafi himself. A weak and crushed resistance 'saved at the last minute' by the noble and heroic UN; well that's fodder for the democratic way of life.
So the UN charges in on its big white horse. Seizes the moral high ground. Crushes the remaining forces of everything (after all, these rebels are really just terrorists). And then, rebuilds the country in its own likeness. This broken record is getting very dull.
'Everything short of an invasion' is rhetoric. This is a declaration of war. It violates Libya's sovereignty. From here on in, its not a question of who is right and who is wrong. It is a question of who applies more force to subdue whom.
Think about it in the context of what would happen if this civilian uprising were occurring in the Britain. The authorities would use varying levels of force to quell the unrest. At times, these levels would be appropriate. At other times, they would be excessive. The question of whether it would be legal or not would hinge on the actions of individuals in the military or police. Not with the over-arching governmental body.
Lets be really clear about what the UN are doing here. They are stepping in to help overthrow Gadhafi. Regardless of whether you like him or not; regardless of whether you are happy with his rule in Libya, he holds that position of power, and you cannot apply your own constitution to overthrow his. To do so is an act of war.
I think I have yet to read one of these 'useful and creative' opinions on 4Chan. Its drivel. Its all 'Fag this' and 'Nigger that' and 'Fap the other'. 4Chan is little more than a source for new internet memes - which are a textbook example of group-think. Not exactly independent and free-thinking, as m00t's rhetoric suggests.
The only really credible opinions I read these days are signed. Listen to some Geroge Carlin stand up comedy. There's a man who's prepared to put his lawyers where his mouth is.
Whilst I don't like Zuckerberg, and I don't agree with what he's doing, it doesn't give m00t's concept of anonymity any credibility. There is nothing wrong with anonymity. The problem occurs when a mob starts voicing a vitriolic opinion. And that 'Lord of the flies' mentality is what 4Chan promotes. It is dangerous stuff, and it is sociopathic. We tend to sit around and joke that 4Chan is just a bunch of nerdy teenage boys living in their mum's basement - but, what those teenage boys are really doing is reinforcing thought patterns and psychological behaviours that are very destructive to society. When they come out of their basements, god help the society that tries to integrate them.
Power rationing will be insanely complex to manage. Their entire people-transit system is reliant upon electric trains and monorails. It makes sense that their trains are on separate circuits, but I sure don't envy the poor bastard who has to make that power schedule workable.
Whilst there is little to worry about with this flare, it is a great opportunity to remind those folks who are not tech-savvy about backups.
A little bit of media induced madness is just the catalyst to get your customers off their loathsome spotty behinds, and backing up their mission critical data.
For us, it was a timely reminder to check that our offsite backups were current, and that they were being stored in a Faraday cage. They were. Its a nice feeling.
This is the closest thing I've seen to a mature assessment of Wikileaks and Anon so far. 'Our society' (as a member of the western world) exists somewhere between excessive government control and an absence of government. Our government is attempting to drag us towards one end of the scale, and anonymous are attempting to drag us back the other way.
I seriously doubt that Anonymous wants us dragged all the way to anarchy. Even on Fight Club, there was some sense of order. It occurs to me that Anonymous just believes that our society is too far towards the other end of the spectrum.
I don't believe that there is a perfect balance point in the middle. I believe there is a tolerable range, within which the majority of society can function. Anonymous believes that we are outside that range. If Anonymous turns out to be correct, it will receive wider support from society, and government will be forced to improve. In the meantime, the majority of society believes that Anonymous' actions are illegal, and will continue to support government action against them.
I suspect that many Slashdot readers, whilst not being active members of Anonymous, harbour a soft spot for them, and would actually be a little saddened if they were quashed by society's governing bodies. Anonymous serves a useful purpose in society, even if it does so illegally.
Rules 1 and 2 kiddies. If they got caught bragging on Facebook, well, they broke the rules, and they deserve to get caught. Anyway, who uses a real facebook identity these days anyway?
OK. So, we can safely rule out Autism, but keep some perspective people. There ARE some risks associated with vaccines. Some people have alergic reactions to them. Some people die from taking the vaccine.
These risks were communicated to us when our son was vaccinated a few years back.
Ironically, in a world where 99% of the population is vaccinated, the risk of a vaccine-related-complication is higher than the risk of the disease. In a world where 50% of the population is NOT vaccinated, the risk of the disease is far worse. I'd like to see a study that demonstrates where the cross-over point is.
In the meantime, we had our son vaccinated because we did not want him to suffer vaccine-related-discrimination at school.
Its all about market forces. Supply and demand. And you are the commodity.
He wants to pay less for you. You want him to pay more. He wants you to increase supply. What is the level of demand for your skills?
If you have skills that are in high demand, you can ask for more money, and you can restrict your supply (eg work less hours). If you have skills that are a-dime-a-dozen, then you have little power in this situation.
Arrogant IT nobs will tell you to quit without even asking for your market-situation. You need to consider your situation carefully. And start ignoring the teenagers who think you have the god-given right to be an executive 12 months into the job.
You may be right to leave and command a higher wage elsewhere. You might need to work some longer hours to build your skills/experience.
Think carefully. The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Our company transmits in the order of 20,000 SMS messages per day, on behalf of our customers. The reliability from the telecommunications companies is approximately 93%. Yes, you read that right. Forget about five-nines reliability. These guys don't even get two nines.
And when we challenged them about it, they said 'Read the contract buddy. We categorically do not guarantee to deliver ANY sms message ever, and we categorically do not agree to tell you which ones were delivered or not.'
I don't see that Google has anything to worry about here.
Slashdot Mirror
Obligatory: Don't you mean they're midichlorians?
I've certainly had the experience of getting stopped at a checkpoint, and when being found to be doing nothing much wrong, I was directed to stand to one side until someone could check me out more thoroughly. I'm a pretty clean-cut kind of guy, so this was a bit of a culture-shock to me.
Having said that, is there such a big problem with it? There was a time when police had the authority to make on-the-spot judgments about whether people were behaving in a truly criminal manner, or if they had just been a little foolish. The old joke was that you either got the ticket or got the lecture. If you had the humility to take it on the chin, the lecture was usually better.
I appreciate that some cops have gotten off on the power trip, and that's a bad thing, but it also occurs to me that the entire force has been disempowered by the legislature to compensate for it. Is there no better way?
I'm not entirely sure that I agree. It occurs to me that many of the comments in this thread ridicule the RIAA because of the amount of their claim. The amount may indeed be ridiculous, but the claim itself seems to be valid. Limewire facilitated widescale theft - and is now being called to account for it.
It might have been more useful for the govt to set the violation fines to be proportionate to the profits fraudulently gained (by Limewire), but that would have been much harder to calculate, and much easier to rort. They took the easy way out, and the absurdity of the statutory amount they chose is now revealed.
The RIAA is basically jumping through the hoops defined by the legislature. I'm sure they are rubbing their hands with glee at the figure they've calculated, but they will never gain more than the net worth of Limewire plus its insurance coverage.
I think that this case highlights two very salient points. Firstly, the statutory figure defined by the government is ridiculous. But also, the breadth and depth of media theft internationally is vast. I'm sure there is a sexy XKCD graph somewhere showing the cross-over point between reduced prices and increased sales/reduced theft, but I don't think that the RIAA views it that way. Fundamentally, people should not have to alter their behaviour to mitigate the impact of crime. That might be a little too idealistic, but I believe that this problem pervades far more of modern society than we are giving it credit for.
The RIAA are highlighting the gap between our society's idealistic viewpoint, and the commercial reality. In the long run, it might not be good for them as an organisation, but I think it will be very good for society as a whole.
-- "Just because having some is good, it does not necessarily follow that having more is better", Socrates
Don't they mean "The last proxy they were able to tracert to was in Iran"?
I think a lot of the improvements in the application of this technology will be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
We're still a long way from HalfLife 2 style ManHacks or Minority Report style surveillance spiders.
Still, both those things might be achievable through iterative development of this technology.
It occurs to me that power systems are the issue rather than command and control, so I'm inclined to agree with your comment. This is not a particularly interesting development.
These are the freedoms we are bringing to Libya
Phew. Of all the responses I've read, I think that this sub-thread is probably the most articulate.
/. and getting all rowdy are quoting what? Fox News? The Sun? News Ltd? Or just their next door neighbour's grandma? The dialog in these news articles is offensively biased. Seems the editorial staff are all still in their teens and have no concept that their moral judgments are politically and commercially influenced.
For a very long time, Libya continued the most horrific oppression of its populace, with no sanctions from the UN. With no significant actions to protect these so-called 'human rights'. Quite frankly, the UN didn't give a rat's arse about the Libyan population until now. So, what changed? Egypt happened perhaps? Maybe some people in Libya showed a bit of spine? Why should that make a difference? Note that I have not directly named Gadaffi yet. He is but one man. Oppression of an entire country takes a little more than one man's efforts. He is fully supported by his military. Hundreds of thousands of men.
And anyway, there's plenty of literature that shows that some countries have experienced a higher quality of life, and a more narrow band between rich-and-poor under a dictatorship. Not saying that's the case in Libya. Just saying that this 'throw him out cause he's a dictator tripe is.. well.. tripe.'
So, what did change? The media took an interest. The lowest common denominator of all human morality. And all these folks coming onto
There is no credible intel being provided to the public. No evidence. The UN, largely driven (but not completely) by western interests appears to be manipulating this situation to its own benefit. A strong and powerful resistance overthrowing the government would be a greater wildcard than Gaddafi himself. A weak and crushed resistance 'saved at the last minute' by the noble and heroic UN; well that's fodder for the democratic way of life.
So the UN charges in on its big white horse. Seizes the moral high ground. Crushes the remaining forces of everything (after all, these rebels are really just terrorists). And then, rebuilds the country in its own likeness. This broken record is getting very dull.
'Everything short of an invasion' is rhetoric. This is a declaration of war. It violates Libya's sovereignty. From here on in, its not a question of who is right and who is wrong. It is a question of who applies more force to subdue whom.
Think about it in the context of what would happen if this civilian uprising were occurring in the Britain. The authorities would use varying levels of force to quell the unrest. At times, these levels would be appropriate. At other times, they would be excessive. The question of whether it would be legal or not would hinge on the actions of individuals in the military or police. Not with the over-arching governmental body.
Lets be really clear about what the UN are doing here. They are stepping in to help overthrow Gadhafi. Regardless of whether you like him or not; regardless of whether you are happy with his rule in Libya, he holds that position of power, and you cannot apply your own constitution to overthrow his. To do so is an act of war.
There are days when I hate being a westerner.
I think I have yet to read one of these 'useful and creative' opinions on 4Chan. Its drivel. Its all 'Fag this' and 'Nigger that' and 'Fap the other'. 4Chan is little more than a source for new internet memes - which are a textbook example of group-think. Not exactly independent and free-thinking, as m00t's rhetoric suggests.
The only really credible opinions I read these days are signed. Listen to some Geroge Carlin stand up comedy. There's a man who's prepared to put his lawyers where his mouth is.
Whilst I don't like Zuckerberg, and I don't agree with what he's doing, it doesn't give m00t's concept of anonymity any credibility. There is nothing wrong with anonymity. The problem occurs when a mob starts voicing a vitriolic opinion. And that 'Lord of the flies' mentality is what 4Chan promotes. It is dangerous stuff, and it is sociopathic. We tend to sit around and joke that 4Chan is just a bunch of nerdy teenage boys living in their mum's basement - but, what those teenage boys are really doing is reinforcing thought patterns and psychological behaviours that are very destructive to society. When they come out of their basements, god help the society that tries to integrate them.
Americans wouldn't get it.
Power rationing will be insanely complex to manage. Their entire people-transit system is reliant upon electric trains and monorails. It makes sense that their trains are on separate circuits, but I sure don't envy the poor bastard who has to make that power schedule workable.
They're not pointed at Russia. And anyway, you need to have something for Skynet to launch back at you next year.
Whilst there is little to worry about with this flare, it is a great opportunity to remind those folks who are not tech-savvy about backups.
A little bit of media induced madness is just the catalyst to get your customers off their loathsome spotty behinds, and backing up their mission critical data.
For us, it was a timely reminder to check that our offsite backups were current, and that they were being stored in a Faraday cage. They were. Its a nice feeling.
Dear Google,
Do it at the server end.
Sincerely,
The rest of the world
Sounds kinda feudal to me...
I told them to 'F'ing hire a screamer' not 'F'up Hiroshima'. Jeeeee-sus!!!
This is the closest thing I've seen to a mature assessment of Wikileaks and Anon so far. 'Our society' (as a member of the western world) exists somewhere between excessive government control and an absence of government. Our government is attempting to drag us towards one end of the scale, and anonymous are attempting to drag us back the other way.
I seriously doubt that Anonymous wants us dragged all the way to anarchy. Even on Fight Club, there was some sense of order. It occurs to me that Anonymous just believes that our society is too far towards the other end of the spectrum.
I don't believe that there is a perfect balance point in the middle. I believe there is a tolerable range, within which the majority of society can function. Anonymous believes that we are outside that range. If Anonymous turns out to be correct, it will receive wider support from society, and government will be forced to improve. In the meantime, the majority of society believes that Anonymous' actions are illegal, and will continue to support government action against them.
I suspect that many Slashdot readers, whilst not being active members of Anonymous, harbour a soft spot for them, and would actually be a little saddened if they were quashed by society's governing bodies. Anonymous serves a useful purpose in society, even if it does so illegally.
And only 246 hops to reach Slashdot... response times blow out to 30 seconds instead of sub-second response times. I don't think so...
Rules 1 and 2 kiddies. If they got caught bragging on Facebook, well, they broke the rules, and they deserve to get caught. Anyway, who uses a real facebook identity these days anyway?
OK. So, we can safely rule out Autism, but keep some perspective people. There ARE some risks associated with vaccines. Some people have alergic reactions to them. Some people die from taking the vaccine.
These risks were communicated to us when our son was vaccinated a few years back.
Ironically, in a world where 99% of the population is vaccinated, the risk of a vaccine-related-complication is higher than the risk of the disease. In a world where 50% of the population is NOT vaccinated, the risk of the disease is far worse. I'd like to see a study that demonstrates where the cross-over point is.
In the meantime, we had our son vaccinated because we did not want him to suffer vaccine-related-discrimination at school.
usually precedes an invasion. Commander, prepare the militia.
The nice thing about Standards is that there are so many to choose from.
The problem with crazy people is that you can't exactly convince them that they are crazy. After all... they're crazy.
But that's not the bad news. The real bad news is that evolution is conspiring against us.
Intelligent people breed less than dumb people. The morons are overwhelming us with numbers.
So, arguably, the cosmological constant favours idiots - because that is what we have an abundance of.
Its all about market forces. Supply and demand. And you are the commodity.
He wants to pay less for you. You want him to pay more. He wants you to increase supply. What is the level of demand for your skills?
If you have skills that are in high demand, you can ask for more money, and you can restrict your supply (eg work less hours). If you have skills that are a-dime-a-dozen, then you have little power in this situation.
Arrogant IT nobs will tell you to quit without even asking for your market-situation. You need to consider your situation carefully. And start ignoring the teenagers who think you have the god-given right to be an executive 12 months into the job.
You may be right to leave and command a higher wage elsewhere. You might need to work some longer hours to build your skills/experience.
Think carefully. The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Our company transmits in the order of 20,000 SMS messages per day, on behalf of our customers. The reliability from the telecommunications companies is approximately 93%. Yes, you read that right. Forget about five-nines reliability. These guys don't even get two nines.
And when we challenged them about it, they said 'Read the contract buddy. We categorically do not guarantee to deliver ANY sms message ever, and we categorically do not agree to tell you which ones were delivered or not.'
I don't see that Google has anything to worry about here.