I've thus far stayed out of the privacy debate, but this is starting to scare me. Where is our right to oblivion, as Jeffrey Rosen put it (see this article). We call it a right because it represents a fundamental part of the human psyche. Thusly, we can either adapt our system to account for it or face the consequences later when the system breaks down. I have to put in a dissenting vote for this idea.
People are dying over there from gaming addictions. I say it's the right move. I don't see that the alcoholism analogy has any significance. They're two very different addictions with different causes and symptoms.
I haven't heard anything about how these driving systems might behave around each other. They've spent all their time building them up to work in environments with lots of human drivers. What if these systems pick up and there are eventually very few human drivers left?
I find it deeply frustrating when these companies behave like this. You look and just feel helpless. What can you do? They have millions of dollars and probably lots of connections in the legal world. I want to believe that we lowly humans have some kind of liberty against them. Anyone have any thoughts?
This is part of the problem with this issue. People want to be convinced about global warming in one fell swoop. The truth is, it takes patience and intelligence to understand the issue. The reality lies in the data. The data takes time to understand. It takes willingness to understand. It is what shows that recent warming trends are not natural. Just because glaciers which have been there "for thousands of years" have now almost disappeared, that alone doesn't prove that warming is not natural. Those glaciers were naturally not there thousands of years ago, otherwise they wouldn't have been there "for thousands of years".
Skeptics are not going to be convinced until they can learn to have the patience that it takes to cultivate a scientific mind.
What's excellent about this report? He just makes a bunch of claims that aren't clearly supported by the evidence he lays out. How can we know that the only reason the man with the camera was attacked was that he was carrying a camera? Even if someone was there and knows that was actually the cause, there's no way to tell this from the video. Yet this guy is saying "Look, the only reason he's being attacked is because of his camera. Look, see?" See what? The video doesn't support that claim at all.
Please understand that I'm a liberal and I'll be the first to believe that law enforcement officers sometimes get off on using excessive force. But reporters also get off on attention and ratings. This guy seems to belong to that group.
I like the idea behind this: that web programming should become less like the herculean task of juggling several syntactically different languages. But why did they need to use that word "transparent"?? This is one of those silly buzz words that means very little (like cloud this and that) and smacks of sales talk.
This doesn't really surprise me. My last job was as a technical support rep/SQL scripter for a company that specialized in software that interfaced with e-commerce solutions. As you could guess, I spent a good deal of time helping out customers who sold on Amazon. I remember one story a customer told about how they didn't like to give Amazon full information on the products they sold, even though Amazon threatened to remove them as a seller if they didn't. The reason they wouldn't do it is that Amazon had a funny habit of finding out the statistics on the sales of their products and, if they seemed to be making enough profit, they would put up their own listing and try to undercut the customer's prices. What a way to do business, eh?
I worked over the past year for a company as a "contractor". One of the reasons I accepted this position was because I was in difficult times in my life. I needed a job. We've all been there. They said they would make me an employee after 90 days and that taxes would be deducted after that. But, of course, they never got around to it.
They also had such bad business practices, and were so good at making false promises to customers, that it became almost impossible to deliver on the work that was being contracted for us. Work orders were ambiguous and easily disputed which turned potentially paying projects into long, drawn out nightmares which yielded paychecks that couldn't even cover monthly expenses.
Eventually, when they laid me off, they tried to sugar coat it by offering me a "business opportunity" in a new startup they were funding. It was a commission only cold calling position. I'd learned my lesson by then and bowed out. At that point, however, I was living on savings and managed to burn through everything I had planned to pay in taxes, leaving me with $3000 of debt to the government.
American business culture is dropping to new lows. Between the interships and the contract positions, companies want to profit while showing no sense of responsibility to the people that help them get there. It's unfortunate that I had to learn this the hard way, but I don't think that most people ought to. It's time we do something to correct these kinds of criminal practices or they will lead to much bigger problems in the future.
It seems like the last couple times I've read through responses to Ask Slashdot questions, some people choose to answer by saying "You have no right to ask this." or "Your question itself is wrong." C'mon guys. Can we be a bit nicer about these things?
I get a little tired of all this. First of all, could it really have been that stealthy if some guy heard it loud enough to twitter his friends about it? He even complained that it was annoying.
Secondly, how many more excuses are we going to come up with to blow things up? I'm sure they put many civilians at risk by doing that, if they didn't actually kill anyone. I would have a hard time trying to explain that to the family member of someone who might have died as a result.
Thirdly, doesn't it seem likely that this kind of self-importance and paranoia is actually part of what is fueling anti-American sentiment? This seems to me like the exact same kind of everyone-is-a-terrorist mindset that has marked the past ten years. I think we waste so much time looking at everyone sideways that we're eventually going to go cross-eyed and completely lose any legitimate ability for noticing threats.
Please, let's stop giving ourselves so many reasons to lose sleep at night!
For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.
They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.
Are you sure? Maybe the government would have sat on its hands too long if they weren't given an incentive to go forward with their plan. Maybe you should be thanking Assange...
I think the real question here is what are the psychology underpinnings of internet trolling...
I ran across an interesting new book the other day in the book store here in Boulder. It was called "Virtually You" by Elias Aboujaoude and it was talking about the various effects that internet usage and communication has on a person's temperament.
As I'm sure we've all experienced, the lack of clear social barriers and the anonymity of the internet can lead to questionable behavior. I think it's something that will decrease with time, as humanity adjusts to the unprecedented freedom of speech that the internet affords (in many places, at least).
Facebook isn't just about advertising. It has been closely tied in with the Web 2.0/Cloud Computing movement. This has led to the use of web pages as robust applications that can accomplish far more than their first-tech-boom counterparts. People can now, theoretically, accomplish everything they commonly need to do on a computer through the use of a web browser. Facebook, as a familiar fixture of the Web 2.0 world, has played a part and had a hand in this.
I think this could be a good thing for the country. Retail has been moving increasingly more online at the same time the economy has been declining. If the government could leverage that trend and hopefully put the revenue towards the debt, that could help things in the long run. Maybe an idealistic view, but something has to be done about the debt. This could be a way to help.
In my opinion, computing has become much more simple in recent years. Most major operating systems are of good quality and have worked out the major BSOD kinks. Furthermore, advancements in interface design and process flow have made computer use much more intuitive.
From all that, I've found that I actually hoard far fewer files these days. I have one folder that contains my documents (with some subfolders to organize topics, but not more than one layer of subfolders). My music sits in iTunes (yes, I know where it really is). Photos sit in iPhoto (same story). I really don't track that many files all together. I think it could fit all on one 4 GB USB stick.
Since most of the discussion I've seen here is somewhat devoid of facts, I've just taken a few moments to review the first section of the document that details the recent vote of the FCC on Net Neutrality rules.
Section I.1: "Today the Commission takes an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression."
Anyone notice where free expression falls in that list? This should give any American, left or right, something to worry about.
What follows is taken from the "three basic rules" which are said to govern the FCC's philosophy on net neutrality:
Section I.1.iii: "No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic."
The previous two rules of Section I.1 apply in part to both "Fixed" and "mobile" providers. Mobile providers are clearly, glaringly absent from the third rule. The unspoken message is this: "Mobile broadband providers may unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic." Is this an unfair understanding that one might take from Section I.1.iii?
It does not take any party affiliation to feel worry about the implications of even the first few words present in this document.
Slashdot Mirror
I've thus far stayed out of the privacy debate, but this is starting to scare me. Where is our right to oblivion, as Jeffrey Rosen put it (see this article). We call it a right because it represents a fundamental part of the human psyche. Thusly, we can either adapt our system to account for it or face the consequences later when the system breaks down. I have to put in a dissenting vote for this idea.
People are dying over there from gaming addictions. I say it's the right move. I don't see that the alcoholism analogy has any significance. They're two very different addictions with different causes and symptoms.
I haven't heard anything about how these driving systems might behave around each other. They've spent all their time building them up to work in environments with lots of human drivers. What if these systems pick up and there are eventually very few human drivers left?
I find it deeply frustrating when these companies behave like this. You look and just feel helpless. What can you do? They have millions of dollars and probably lots of connections in the legal world. I want to believe that we lowly humans have some kind of liberty against them. Anyone have any thoughts?
This is part of the problem with this issue. People want to be convinced about global warming in one fell swoop. The truth is, it takes patience and intelligence to understand the issue. The reality lies in the data. The data takes time to understand. It takes willingness to understand. It is what shows that recent warming trends are not natural. Just because glaciers which have been there "for thousands of years" have now almost disappeared, that alone doesn't prove that warming is not natural. Those glaciers were naturally not there thousands of years ago, otherwise they wouldn't have been there "for thousands of years".
Skeptics are not going to be convinced until they can learn to have the patience that it takes to cultivate a scientific mind.
What's excellent about this report? He just makes a bunch of claims that aren't clearly supported by the evidence he lays out. How can we know that the only reason the man with the camera was attacked was that he was carrying a camera? Even if someone was there and knows that was actually the cause, there's no way to tell this from the video. Yet this guy is saying "Look, the only reason he's being attacked is because of his camera. Look, see?" See what? The video doesn't support that claim at all.
Please understand that I'm a liberal and I'll be the first to believe that law enforcement officers sometimes get off on using excessive force. But reporters also get off on attention and ratings. This guy seems to belong to that group.
I like the idea behind this: that web programming should become less like the herculean task of juggling several syntactically different languages. But why did they need to use that word "transparent"?? This is one of those silly buzz words that means very little (like cloud this and that) and smacks of sales talk.
This doesn't really surprise me. My last job was as a technical support rep/SQL scripter for a company that specialized in software that interfaced with e-commerce solutions. As you could guess, I spent a good deal of time helping out customers who sold on Amazon. I remember one story a customer told about how they didn't like to give Amazon full information on the products they sold, even though Amazon threatened to remove them as a seller if they didn't. The reason they wouldn't do it is that Amazon had a funny habit of finding out the statistics on the sales of their products and, if they seemed to be making enough profit, they would put up their own listing and try to undercut the customer's prices. What a way to do business, eh?
This is the only comment anyone needs to read regarding this article.
America needs to learn to co-operate.
I worked over the past year for a company as a "contractor". One of the reasons I accepted this position was because I was in difficult times in my life. I needed a job. We've all been there. They said they would make me an employee after 90 days and that taxes would be deducted after that. But, of course, they never got around to it.
They also had such bad business practices, and were so good at making false promises to customers, that it became almost impossible to deliver on the work that was being contracted for us. Work orders were ambiguous and easily disputed which turned potentially paying projects into long, drawn out nightmares which yielded paychecks that couldn't even cover monthly expenses.
Eventually, when they laid me off, they tried to sugar coat it by offering me a "business opportunity" in a new startup they were funding. It was a commission only cold calling position. I'd learned my lesson by then and bowed out. At that point, however, I was living on savings and managed to burn through everything I had planned to pay in taxes, leaving me with $3000 of debt to the government.
American business culture is dropping to new lows. Between the interships and the contract positions, companies want to profit while showing no sense of responsibility to the people that help them get there. It's unfortunate that I had to learn this the hard way, but I don't think that most people ought to. It's time we do something to correct these kinds of criminal practices or they will lead to much bigger problems in the future.
It seems like the last couple times I've read through responses to Ask Slashdot questions, some people choose to answer by saying "You have no right to ask this." or "Your question itself is wrong." C'mon guys. Can we be a bit nicer about these things?
I took one look at that smug expression on his face and decided to read no further.
It's always great to see people undertaking personal projects like this and putting something really nice together!
Aren't we getting tired of hearing about "the future" yet?
I get a little tired of all this. First of all, could it really have been that stealthy if some guy heard it loud enough to twitter his friends about it? He even complained that it was annoying.
Secondly, how many more excuses are we going to come up with to blow things up? I'm sure they put many civilians at risk by doing that, if they didn't actually kill anyone. I would have a hard time trying to explain that to the family member of someone who might have died as a result.
Thirdly, doesn't it seem likely that this kind of self-importance and paranoia is actually part of what is fueling anti-American sentiment? This seems to me like the exact same kind of everyone-is-a-terrorist mindset that has marked the past ten years. I think we waste so much time looking at everyone sideways that we're eventually going to go cross-eyed and completely lose any legitimate ability for noticing threats.
Please, let's stop giving ourselves so many reasons to lose sleep at night!
For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.
They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.
Are you sure? Maybe the government would have sat on its hands too long if they weren't given an incentive to go forward with their plan. Maybe you should be thanking Assange...
I think the real question here is what are the psychology underpinnings of internet trolling...
I ran across an interesting new book the other day in the book store here in Boulder. It was called "Virtually You" by Elias Aboujaoude and it was talking about the various effects that internet usage and communication has on a person's temperament.
As I'm sure we've all experienced, the lack of clear social barriers and the anonymity of the internet can lead to questionable behavior. I think it's something that will decrease with time, as humanity adjusts to the unprecedented freedom of speech that the internet affords (in many places, at least).
Facebook isn't just about advertising. It has been closely tied in with the Web 2.0/Cloud Computing movement. This has led to the use of web pages as robust applications that can accomplish far more than their first-tech-boom counterparts. People can now, theoretically, accomplish everything they commonly need to do on a computer through the use of a web browser. Facebook, as a familiar fixture of the Web 2.0 world, has played a part and had a hand in this.
True. In the digital age, what is genuine?
I think this could be a good thing for the country. Retail has been moving increasingly more online at the same time the economy has been declining. If the government could leverage that trend and hopefully put the revenue towards the debt, that could help things in the long run. Maybe an idealistic view, but something has to be done about the debt. This could be a way to help.
That's rich...
In my opinion, computing has become much more simple in recent years. Most major operating systems are of good quality and have worked out the major BSOD kinks. Furthermore, advancements in interface design and process flow have made computer use much more intuitive.
From all that, I've found that I actually hoard far fewer files these days. I have one folder that contains my documents (with some subfolders to organize topics, but not more than one layer of subfolders). My music sits in iTunes (yes, I know where it really is). Photos sit in iPhoto (same story). I really don't track that many files all together. I think it could fit all on one 4 GB USB stick.
Has anyone else had this experience lately?
Since most of the discussion I've seen here is somewhat devoid of facts, I've just taken a few moments to review the first section of the document that details the recent vote of the FCC on Net Neutrality rules.
I encourage anyone to read through at least this first section from the following link:
FCC Report and Order on Net Neutrality
It is troubling from the outset.
Section I.1: "Today the Commission takes an important step to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression."
Anyone notice where free expression falls in that list? This should give any American, left or right, something to worry about.
What follows is taken from the "three basic rules" which are said to govern the FCC's philosophy on net neutrality:
Section I.1.iii: "No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic."
The previous two rules of Section I.1 apply in part to both "Fixed" and "mobile" providers. Mobile providers are clearly, glaringly absent from the third rule. The unspoken message is this: "Mobile broadband providers may unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic." Is this an unfair understanding that one might take from Section I.1.iii?
It does not take any party affiliation to feel worry about the implications of even the first few words present in this document.