If what's coming out of Yemen and Egypt is to be believed, and the events in Iran two years ago, that's actually more or less what's happening.
Of course, after clicking 'Like' they go out on ten-thousand-person protest marches through the capitol and get gassed by the police, but there you go.
GP is pretty right on the money; twenty years ago, things were quite different. We scoff at Facebook and Twitter but there have been some interesting, actual events that may have been enabled by social networking, and certainly were enabled by the Internet and cellular phones.
In some parts of the world -- including, if some people on the left and the right are to be believed, in the US -- this is a lot more common than people think, or than most media outlets look into.
Without the Anonymous DDoS, the issue could have been handled by some nice letters and petitions, instead.
While I agree that the DDOS was illegal and arrests and sentencing is justified... are you serious? Since when in recent memory has any petition by mere unincorporated people, or any letters to a corporation by same, resulted in anything? Corps only change their mind only if they think it's almost too late. I have yet to see any such beast mend their ways after a mere letter-writing campaign. If you have some good high-profile examples of a multinational listening to a petition or to peoples' letters and actually changing in some meaningful way, I really would love to hear it; as it is, my faith in corporations is pretty damn low.
Civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws, and getting arrested in order to put a face to the issue. I don't think these kids were protesting that DDOS attacks should be legal. That being said, it was a pretty non-violent protest. I don't think anyone was killed by it.
Actually, I've not noticed him saying that the kids who were arrested shouldn't be punished. He's making the distinction -- and I agree with him -- that there are degrees of severity of a crime. No analogies here, but we have Murder in the Third, Second, and First degrees: each carries a higher punishment than the last. A DDoS attack is certainly against the law, but it would pale in comparison to, say, firebombing Visa's headquarters, or assassinating their board of directors. All three are still crimes, but you're not going to -- or shouldn't -- punish the kids doing the DDoS the same way you would punish the guy putting lead into peoples' heads.
They were protesting what they see as something that's wrong. Bully on them. And they got arrested for it. That's what happens when you protest and you do something illegal. They didn't start flinging Molotov Snapples, though, so they shouldn't be treated like they were.
As an aside, "And deciding not to do business with them is the only right we should exercise in protest." Well, I have to disagree. I feel corporations have far too much immunity for the wrong they commit. Mind you, I'm... ambivalent to their actions in this case. I think they were wrong, but I don't think they were illegal. Still, when corporations do all manner of unethical things, I feel there isn't enough means for people in general to, shall we say, legally influence said corporations to behave in a proper and ethical manner. What those legal means beyond 'voting with your wallet' (which has proven to not have any effect except on the smallest consumer-related businesses) might be would make for an interesting discussion.
Of course all this posturing goes to shit when it comes out that these kids were just doing it for the lulz.
this does bring up an interesting question in the whole debate about corporate personhood. Obviously corporations have a right to some sort of self-defense: protection from libel and slander, and protection from sabotage. And of course protecting their employees. (Despite anti-corporatist bias, most corporations really could do without someone waltzing into the secretarial pool and shooting up the place.) But what are the boundaries that corporations should have in exercising self-defense?
The term 'realtor' is apparently 'srs bzns.' But a little more long-windedly, it's a term that for some reason has enormous protection on it, usually enforced by the NAR. I'm not quite sure why but they seem to be trying to make it about as privileged as 'doctor' or 'engineer.' (That's 'civil engineer,' for which there are some specific certifications you have to qualify for before you can call yourself that.) If you are somehow in real estate, you may not call yourself a 'realtor' unless you are a member of one of the handful of realtor associations or councils. It's really quite amazing when looking at it from the outside.
That being said, I think you have standing because part of 'fair use' is satire... but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, and if you want to fight it, you might want to find a lawyer who'll work pro bono. Check with the EFF, they might be able to provide some lawyers in your jurisdiction who might want to grab this case.
arXiv is NOT peer-reviewed, and anyone can put anything up there. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it lacks the intrinsic rigor of a peer-reviewed journal.) It's the Wikipedia of science papers.
While arXiv is filled with some neat (and some not-so-neat) ideas for science fiction writers, I'd be reluctant (to put it mildly) to give credence to anything that sounds weird that resides there. Seriously, I know some cool stuff appears there, but we've been through this before. When is/.'s staff going to stop citing arXiv papers as being somehow more plausible than the Dean drive?
Well, I have heard a self-proclaimed libertarian or two say just that, that there should be no government involvement at all in anything. Of course that probably really makes them anarchists rather than libertarians.
The issue I see, though, is that some of the market is tied into health care. In fact healthcare/medicine is a huge industry in the US and therefore a major driver of economic forces. It's difficult to separate healthcare from market action in this case, it seems. If I am misunderstanding your position, though, I apologize, and welcome correction.
1) It's not so much 2012 in general as it is the plot of 2012. Yes, it's a disaster film, but it's predicated on really awful stupendously bad science. (Seriously -- neutrinos being pumped out by the sun overcooking the Earth's core causing increased seismic activity. WTF?
2) Yeah, that was a surprise too. But thinking about it, it was more of philosophical fiction -- what is the basis of belief? What is the basis of science? Can the two come together? Do they always have to be separate. It wasn't about science so much as about the philosophy of science. A good film for that, but maybe not the best film to put on that list.
Once Congress gets done with the Federal budget, the only people in DC who'll be able to afford hookers and blow are the lobbyists. They'll be the ones whom congressmen go to in order to get their fix, and the lobbyists will be all "What does a bitch do to get a fix, Congressman?" And it kind of goes all grindhouse 'sploitation-film bad from there.
Well, there's the rising idea that fifth generation warfare involves "super-empowered individuals" at the head of non-governmental, non-political organizations. The flaw in this, of course, is that SEIs are (almost) always citizens of a nation and subject to the protections and prosecutions -- and abuses -- of the laws of their nation. At this time, all a government has to do to shut down an SEI is sic the federal-level law enforcement on them... though for whatever reason they're having remarkable trouble with Assanage.
I knew someone once -- his politics don't matter so much, but he was very, very strongly authoritarian. Thing was, he didn't have that curious self-deception that so many authoritarians I've know have, thinking he would be one of the people on top. Instead he had no illusions that he would be a follower, and he embraced it. It's a strange sort of mental submission to Legalist thought, but you are entirely right: There are some humans who will embrace being slaves, so long as you make sure not to call it 'slavery.'
In fact there's another curious mindset that many authoritarians have. Some are followers, and some are leaders, and some are enforcers. They will follow and make sure that others follow. And they will gladly accept whatever power is given to them to do that enforcing. This person who was once my friend will be one of the jackbooted, baton-swinging enforcers of the state, as will, it seems, someone whom I was very fond of once. I do not have a vast circle of acquaintances; that at least two of them are ready to be authoritarian enforcers seems to be too many to me. I do not want to give up on freedom, but there are some days when an authoritarian system seems to be inevitable.
Ronald Regan would be called a RINO. His 'workfare' program that he tried to introduce? It's been panned by some current neocons as being too socialist.
Well, it depends on his running-mate. Each one would appeal to a different subset of the population, so he'd have to pick carefully; choosing one over another might seriously alienate large portions of the base. Lord Ravana, Angra Mainyu, Tim LaHaye....
Slashdot Mirror
FTFTFY.
W0men l0ve a b1g un1verse! G3nu1ne v1@gra, C1@li5, f0r y0ur s1ngular1ty!
Make f0r her the best B@ng s1nce the B1g B@ng!
Hasn't it been established, though, that the universe will continue to expand until heat death?
And assume a perfectly spherical mathematician.
But you'd have a beowulf cluster of Mae Link Mak -- oh, forget it.
If what's coming out of Yemen and Egypt is to be believed, and the events in Iran two years ago, that's actually more or less what's happening.
Of course, after clicking 'Like' they go out on ten-thousand-person protest marches through the capitol and get gassed by the police, but there you go.
GP is pretty right on the money; twenty years ago, things were quite different. We scoff at Facebook and Twitter but there have been some interesting, actual events that may have been enabled by social networking, and certainly were enabled by the Internet and cellular phones.
In some parts of the world -- including, if some people on the left and the right are to be believed, in the US -- this is a lot more common than people think, or than most media outlets look into.
While I agree that the DDOS was illegal and arrests and sentencing is justified... are you serious? Since when in recent memory has any petition by mere unincorporated people, or any letters to a corporation by same, resulted in anything? Corps only change their mind only if they think it's almost too late. I have yet to see any such beast mend their ways after a mere letter-writing campaign. If you have some good high-profile examples of a multinational listening to a petition or to peoples' letters and actually changing in some meaningful way, I really would love to hear it; as it is, my faith in corporations is pretty damn low.
Civil disobedience is disobeying unjust laws, and getting arrested in order to put a face to the issue. I don't think these kids were protesting that DDOS attacks should be legal. That being said, it was a pretty non-violent protest. I don't think anyone was killed by it.
Indeed. 15 out of (apparently) an estimated 500. I wonder how much effort -- in terms of man-hours -- was exerted to get this 3%.
Actually, I've not noticed him saying that the kids who were arrested shouldn't be punished. He's making the distinction -- and I agree with him -- that there are degrees of severity of a crime. No analogies here, but we have Murder in the Third, Second, and First degrees: each carries a higher punishment than the last. A DDoS attack is certainly against the law, but it would pale in comparison to, say, firebombing Visa's headquarters, or assassinating their board of directors. All three are still crimes, but you're not going to -- or shouldn't -- punish the kids doing the DDoS the same way you would punish the guy putting lead into peoples' heads.
They were protesting what they see as something that's wrong. Bully on them. And they got arrested for it. That's what happens when you protest and you do something illegal. They didn't start flinging Molotov Snapples, though, so they shouldn't be treated like they were.
As an aside, "And deciding not to do business with them is the only right we should exercise in protest." Well, I have to disagree. I feel corporations have far too much immunity for the wrong they commit. Mind you, I'm... ambivalent to their actions in this case. I think they were wrong, but I don't think they were illegal. Still, when corporations do all manner of unethical things, I feel there isn't enough means for people in general to, shall we say, legally influence said corporations to behave in a proper and ethical manner. What those legal means beyond 'voting with your wallet' (which has proven to not have any effect except on the smallest consumer-related businesses) might be would make for an interesting discussion.
Of course all this posturing goes to shit when it comes out that these kids were just doing it for the lulz.
this does bring up an interesting question in the whole debate about corporate personhood. Obviously corporations have a right to some sort of self-defense: protection from libel and slander, and protection from sabotage. And of course protecting their employees. (Despite anti-corporatist bias, most corporations really could do without someone waltzing into the secretarial pool and shooting up the place.) But what are the boundaries that corporations should have in exercising self-defense?
The term 'realtor' is apparently 'srs bzns.' But a little more long-windedly, it's a term that for some reason has enormous protection on it, usually enforced by the NAR. I'm not quite sure why but they seem to be trying to make it about as privileged as 'doctor' or 'engineer.' (That's 'civil engineer,' for which there are some specific certifications you have to qualify for before you can call yourself that.) If you are somehow in real estate, you may not call yourself a 'realtor' unless you are a member of one of the handful of realtor associations or councils. It's really quite amazing when looking at it from the outside.
That being said, I think you have standing because part of 'fair use' is satire... but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, and if you want to fight it, you might want to find a lawyer who'll work pro bono. Check with the EFF, they might be able to provide some lawyers in your jurisdiction who might want to grab this case.
arXiv is NOT peer-reviewed, and anyone can put anything up there. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it lacks the intrinsic rigor of a peer-reviewed journal.) It's the Wikipedia of science papers.
While arXiv is filled with some neat (and some not-so-neat) ideas for science fiction writers, I'd be reluctant (to put it mildly) to give credence to anything that sounds weird that resides there. Seriously, I know some cool stuff appears there, but we've been through this before. When is /.'s staff going to stop citing arXiv papers as being somehow more plausible than the Dean drive?
Well, I have heard a self-proclaimed libertarian or two say just that, that there should be no government involvement at all in anything. Of course that probably really makes them anarchists rather than libertarians.
The issue I see, though, is that some of the market is tied into health care. In fact healthcare/medicine is a huge industry in the US and therefore a major driver of economic forces. It's difficult to separate healthcare from market action in this case, it seems. If I am misunderstanding your position, though, I apologize, and welcome correction.
And their shoggoth welcome-wagons.
Ghost of the Grand Banks for me. It was at that point that I think the grand old master was... well... not doing well, sadly.
1) It's not so much 2012 in general as it is the plot of 2012. Yes, it's a disaster film, but it's predicated on really awful stupendously bad science. (Seriously -- neutrinos being pumped out by the sun overcooking the Earth's core causing increased seismic activity. WTF?
2) Yeah, that was a surprise too. But thinking about it, it was more of philosophical fiction -- what is the basis of belief? What is the basis of science? Can the two come together? Do they always have to be separate. It wasn't about science so much as about the philosophy of science. A good film for that, but maybe not the best film to put on that list.
Once Congress gets done with the Federal budget, the only people in DC who'll be able to afford hookers and blow are the lobbyists. They'll be the ones whom congressmen go to in order to get their fix, and the lobbyists will be all "What does a bitch do to get a fix, Congressman?" And it kind of goes all grindhouse 'sploitation-film bad from there.
Okay, that? That looks damn awesome! I'm surprised nobody ever tried to do an MMO like that before.
I'm going to keep an eye on it. Thanks for sharing that link, this looks like it could be fun!
Not Sauron. Ming/Voldemort in 2012. Why settle for the lesser of two evils when you can have two evils, extra cheese?
Well, there's the rising idea that fifth generation warfare involves "super-empowered individuals" at the head of non-governmental, non-political organizations. The flaw in this, of course, is that SEIs are (almost) always citizens of a nation and subject to the protections and prosecutions -- and abuses -- of the laws of their nation. At this time, all a government has to do to shut down an SEI is sic the federal-level law enforcement on them... though for whatever reason they're having remarkable trouble with Assanage.
I knew someone once -- his politics don't matter so much, but he was very, very strongly authoritarian. Thing was, he didn't have that curious self-deception that so many authoritarians I've know have, thinking he would be one of the people on top. Instead he had no illusions that he would be a follower, and he embraced it. It's a strange sort of mental submission to Legalist thought, but you are entirely right: There are some humans who will embrace being slaves, so long as you make sure not to call it 'slavery.'
In fact there's another curious mindset that many authoritarians have. Some are followers, and some are leaders, and some are enforcers. They will follow and make sure that others follow. And they will gladly accept whatever power is given to them to do that enforcing. This person who was once my friend will be one of the jackbooted, baton-swinging enforcers of the state, as will, it seems, someone whom I was very fond of once. I do not have a vast circle of acquaintances; that at least two of them are ready to be authoritarian enforcers seems to be too many to me. I do not want to give up on freedom, but there are some days when an authoritarian system seems to be inevitable.
Ronald Regan would be called a RINO. His 'workfare' program that he tried to introduce? It's been panned by some current neocons as being too socialist.
Reagan. Too socialist. *brain'splode*
Well, it depends on his running-mate. Each one would appeal to a different subset of the population, so he'd have to pick carefully; choosing one over another might seriously alienate large portions of the base. Lord Ravana, Angra Mainyu, Tim LaHaye....