This. Back when Wikileaks was actually redacting the documents, people praised them to high heaven and criticized anyone claiming that the documents could potentially cause harm. Now, we see that Wikileaks having those documents was in fact dangerous all along, and that there is damn good reason the government doesn't like them being handed to random people on the Internet, and prosecutes people who do. You might even say that this problem was one good reason the US government wanted Wikileaks shut down in the first place, because the potential for Assange to loose control over the raw information was extremely high.
This situation is why classified and secret information doesn't get handed to civilians. They cannot be trusted to keep it secret. And now that this has happened, you can count on governments worldwide being far more careful and restrictive of all information. Good job, Wikileaks! You made the world a worse place in the long term just so you could cry out against "the man" for a few months.
I wouldn't go so far as to assume Assange wanted this all along, although I would agree it isn't impossible. But it was inevitable. Oh, and I don't think it is a coincidence that a few weeks before this happened, Daniel Domscheit-Berg destroyed a bunch of documents. Maybe he realized that Assange couldn't be trusted? Maybe. I don't really know, just a thought.
Yeah, I'm kinda wondering: if those three emails were the worst they found (true, the first two are kinda bad), then the picture painted is really not all that bad. The email you quoted seemed to be a police officer doing his job properly more or less properly (a police officer running a criminal background check for personal reasons would be corruption).
True, there are a lot of emails to go through, but I rather strongly suspect Anon put the very worst at the beginning (makes sense as a tactic), and if that is the worst they have, then, well, try again Anon.
And that's all assuming none of the evidence is faked, because it's not like email isn't the absolute easiest evidence to falsify (and yes, Anon would do that.) But hey, don't let me interrupt the/. police hating parade.
The way they designed it the RAM it can store instructions in addition to data (they specifically state that in TFA), meaning it will be able, when made a little larger, to store programs in RAM. Also, one you can store 2 qubits, it's just a matter of scaling it up, same as regular transistor computers (keep in mind the first RAM was only a few bits too, and the first transistors were just a few per chip.) So I think they really did use the correct term and this is a (moderately) significant step forward.
Ah, but you're missing the big picture. $500 million in solar panels buys a lot of green party votes in 2012. $500 million in research just helps buy a good future for humanity.
The thing is, Apple is essentially already doing exactly that . Car analogy: lets say company A (Motorola) develops a means of fast-charging an electric plug-in and standardizes it under FRAND terms so that anyone can make electric cars that charge everywhere. Company B comes along and patents putting doors, windows, steering wheels, and seat belts on electric cars (despite not being the first one to do it, which Apple wasn't, and yes Apple's patents are in many cases that or more ridiculous.) and sues anyone who tries to make a car with those features. Sure, everyone else can still make electric scooters (basic phones in the analogy) but no one else can make cars (i.e. smartphones). Since the whole point of the FRAND license in the first place was to prevent any company having a monopoly on electric cars, but suddenly company B does (despite not having done the research into the electric system itself), suddenly company A's license is worth much, much less, and B is a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive practices.
That is what Apple is doing: basically saying no one else can build smartphones (or tablets), at least not anything usable or sophisticated. Since that violates the entire point of the FRAND license in the first place, why should Motorola continue to extend those terms to Apple, since they are just enabling exactly what they wanted to prevent in the first place?
Except that, as the linked article states, Apple is claiming they own the entire design of modern smartphones (with patents on the rounded design, touchscreen gestures, and a whole host of other things, pretty much none of which, I should point out, Apple actually invented) in order to push Motorola, Samsung, and others out of the market. Motorola is simply responding by saying "OK, you attack us with patents that are patently BS, you can't use our legitimate patents. Everyone else can, you can't. Because you're being an asshole." This isn't a patent troll: had Apple actually played nice, Motorola would have continued to let them use their FRAND patents. Just as they are letting others keep using them.
FRAND is a community agreement. Apple is basically saying "fuck the community" by taking the IP they want, and suing others them back (the same people whose IP they benefit from using.) It'd be like kids agreeing everyone can use a playground, then having one person demand that not only can he use the whole playground, no one else can use the monkeybars. Because he says so. And because he has lots of lawyers.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, ah, now my stomach hurts. Apple isn't playing nice in patents, and now they're bitching about others not playing nice? You know, I guess maybe Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field must have lasting effects.
Seriously though they'd have a point if Apple wasn't acting like, well, a total and complete legal asshole. Keep in mind these are countersuits to Apple. Apple is basically using Motorola's good will, turning around and stabbing them in the back, and then complaining that Motorola doesn't act nice towards them anymore. Or if getting rid of Apple would be actually anti-competitive, since there are what, at least 5 major smartphone makers?
Sure, it's flamebait. I should point out, however, that Narus (according to a different article on CBS, I couldn't read the WSJ article) rejected the Libyan's deal. The primary contributors were Amyses and ZTE, it looks like. One is Chinese (so you really shouldn't be surprised) and the other is French (which is the 'scandalous' part). So flamebait, maybe. Still true. Also, VAStech provided the tools to monitor international calls, so nothing to do with the Internet monitoring.
So yeah, calling out a French company for selling to Libya is perfectly justified even if very flamebaity.
Anonymous is a mob. Like all mobs, they lack restraint or control and will eventually turn on, well, anyone they can. Including their home soil or the people they pretend to defend.
Of course they'll also a mob on the Internet, and lack the power to do anything of real consequence, like burning down a house. The result is that the whole thing is really quite funny, instead of tragic and a horrible crime.
It's pretty complex and no one really agrees. However, I've studied quite a lot of philosophy and from what I remember (this subject came up but wasn't dealt with all that extensively) abstract thought does rely on language, as does logical (organized) thought to some degree. Time would be a decent example. Even without language, we would certainly have some concept of time because it isn't solely an abstract thing, but without language we wouldn't be able to think about it in the abstract or investigate many of its properties. For an example, try imagining space (empty space) without words. It's pretty hard.
However, language is not necessary to thought itself. It is possible to create entire lines of reasoning without proceeding through the "voice in the brain" path, although this process is sometimes called intuition rather than thought (they are not the same). So for instance I might see in an instant that pushing a boulder off a cliff will block the approaching car and give me time to escape (for example), but the process happens so fast language doesn't even enter into it until I reflect on it later or need to talk to someone.
Generally I think it is agreed that some concepts require words to be properly thought out, and that thought can be influenced by language (although that is another rather large debate), but thought itself doesn't require language. Take an abstract syllogism (i.e. every A is B, every B is C, therefore every A is C, aka a "Barbara" syllogism). Thinking of that (the formal syllogism without referring it to some real things) without words seems pretty nearly impossible (I believe it is). I can't even imagine how you would try. Of course it's still a pretty unanswered question how language and thought are exactly related.
That's because as of now it still is in the "theoretically possible but unable to be built." Keep in mind this new technique is for one (1) qubit. You need more (at least 8? Or do quantum computers work that differently from normal ones) to do anything practical. And it only meets the theoretical requirement, once you use ECC. Previously, it wasn't accurate enough that you could count on the ECC to be performed right. Making a quantum computer, even in the lab, is a few years off yet.
Or so I think. I don't really understand quantum computing yet, so I could be wrong.
That's true. Somehow I doubt the whole rock is actually useful. However, be that as it may, doing mining in space successfully could just provide the financial incentive we need to finally start widespread expansion into space. So, much as I may or may not like China, I hope this plan succeeds. Doubt it'll even be tried, though.
Ah but everyone knows this deal will lower prices! AT&T themselves have made economic models that say so! After all the "merger will lessen strains on the company’s wireless network, lower costs and increase quality, AT&T said in the filing." So obviously prices will be lower.
Fear of being "portrayed" as giants bullies is a far different thing than actually being giant bullies. Now while I think the MPAA are giant extortionist bullies, but this cable is less fear of leaking the truth and more simple image management. And the Embassy doesn't really have anything to do with the case, it looks more like they were briefed simply because it's an international case, and what they fear is America looking bad. It's not like the US Embassy is trying to defend their own actions.
The cable doesn't actually seem to contain anything scandalous, it just comfirms that the MPAA is the primary motivator behind the case. IANAL but that doesn't seem like either a surprise or a problem (legally speaking. Of course the MPAA are a bunch of scummy bastards who should be banned from legal filings pretty much period.)
'I think it's safe to say we were pleasantly surprised by the response' to their massively discounted, sold-at-a-huge-loss tablet."
All I have to say is: really? Wow, and to think I was surprised the HP tablet failed... actually, I wasn't but oh well.
On the other hand, the fact that they are doing another manufacturing run indicates that the first was probably profitable even at the reduced price (why the hell else would you make more?), meaning HP probably made up in quantity for the lowered price. Also, maybe tablet makers should consider lowering their prices. Just, you know, a thought.
Ah thank you for pointing this out. See, that makes sense. What the summary says? Not so much. Here I was thinking Jim Zemlin was either a fanatic or an idiot himself. Turns out it's just a very, very bad summary.
So, basically, if the copyright holder complains, the file will be removed. But, if Rapidshare et al. are any instance, it'll promptly be reuploaded under a different name. Encrypted and password locked so the RIAA won't know it's there unless they manually go out and search all the sites linking to it. Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced. Perfectly legally, of course.
Google does ranking so popular sites (i.e. those most people would be searching for) appear first. How would they do that without making us "work for them?" "We" (I use that word loosely) are the people who make those sites popular in the first place. Using them to rank sites is pretty smart. Otherwise you end up with tons of random blogs that repost or link to the site you want... wait, we already do get that. Hopefully this helps though.
This will, of course, cause massive outcry, but I suspect it will end up being an improvement. Although since there are very few things you really need the menu for in a GUI file manager, I'm not sure I see the point. I honestly don't remember the last time I used the Explorer file manager menu, it was probably just to see hidden files. Everything else is done with the mouse and left/right clicks.
Actually looking at the screen shot, the main problem might end up being wasted screen space for the ribbon. 7 managed to stay out of the way pretty well, and I honestly think an absolute minimalist approach is best for file managers (unless you let me code scripts for file management...). Like I say, besides the file tree little to nothing else is needed in a file manager with two button mice and keyboard shortcuts.
You're quite right, it doesn't really have anything to do with environmentalism. But it's pushed for by the environmentalists and in the same laws and is *supposed* to be to protect the environment. Whether the people saying so are idiots or not, it's still going to give environmentalism a bad name(sustainable foresting is environmentalism, and it's good. Confiscating guitars because they aren't made of sustainable wood? Bad).
And some of the points in the article (such as those dealing with ivory) have to deal with wildlife protection, but the confiscation of the wood doesn't. And wildlife protection is environmentalism anyways (just less about global warming and more about preservation of existing species. The first also helps the second.) Point is, even so it is ridiculous to fine someone for owning antique ivory piano keys because their paperwork is out of order.
But in the old privacy system, you would be notified of the tag, and could remove it. Now, however, you won't be notified, and you can't see the tag, meaning you also can't remove it. It'll be there forever. So this is very very bad. Oh yeah, and according to TFA you can tag absolutely anyone, not just friends. Hopefully it gets bad enough that people simply stop taking Facebook as credible. And maybe man will be on Mars in 5 years. Hey, one can hope, right?
Slashdot Mirror
This. Back when Wikileaks was actually redacting the documents, people praised them to high heaven and criticized anyone claiming that the documents could potentially cause harm. Now, we see that Wikileaks having those documents was in fact dangerous all along, and that there is damn good reason the government doesn't like them being handed to random people on the Internet, and prosecutes people who do. You might even say that this problem was one good reason the US government wanted Wikileaks shut down in the first place, because the potential for Assange to loose control over the raw information was extremely high.
This situation is why classified and secret information doesn't get handed to civilians. They cannot be trusted to keep it secret. And now that this has happened, you can count on governments worldwide being far more careful and restrictive of all information. Good job, Wikileaks! You made the world a worse place in the long term just so you could cry out against "the man" for a few months.
I wouldn't go so far as to assume Assange wanted this all along, although I would agree it isn't impossible. But it was inevitable. Oh, and I don't think it is a coincidence that a few weeks before this happened, Daniel Domscheit-Berg destroyed a bunch of documents. Maybe he realized that Assange couldn't be trusted? Maybe. I don't really know, just a thought.
Yeah, I'm kinda wondering: if those three emails were the worst they found (true, the first two are kinda bad), then the picture painted is really not all that bad. The email you quoted seemed to be a police officer doing his job properly more or less properly (a police officer running a criminal background check for personal reasons would be corruption).
True, there are a lot of emails to go through, but I rather strongly suspect Anon put the very worst at the beginning (makes sense as a tactic), and if that is the worst they have, then, well, try again Anon.
And that's all assuming none of the evidence is faked, because it's not like email isn't the absolute easiest evidence to falsify (and yes, Anon would do that.) But hey, don't let me interrupt the /. police hating parade.
The way they designed it the RAM it can store instructions in addition to data (they specifically state that in TFA), meaning it will be able, when made a little larger, to store programs in RAM. Also, one you can store 2 qubits, it's just a matter of scaling it up, same as regular transistor computers (keep in mind the first RAM was only a few bits too, and the first transistors were just a few per chip.) So I think they really did use the correct term and this is a (moderately) significant step forward.
Ah, but you're missing the big picture. $500 million in solar panels buys a lot of green party votes in 2012. $500 million in research just helps buy a good future for humanity.
The thing is, Apple is essentially already doing exactly that . Car analogy: lets say company A (Motorola) develops a means of fast-charging an electric plug-in and standardizes it under FRAND terms so that anyone can make electric cars that charge everywhere. Company B comes along and patents putting doors, windows, steering wheels, and seat belts on electric cars (despite not being the first one to do it, which Apple wasn't, and yes Apple's patents are in many cases that or more ridiculous.) and sues anyone who tries to make a car with those features. Sure, everyone else can still make electric scooters (basic phones in the analogy) but no one else can make cars (i.e. smartphones). Since the whole point of the FRAND license in the first place was to prevent any company having a monopoly on electric cars, but suddenly company B does (despite not having done the research into the electric system itself), suddenly company A's license is worth much, much less, and B is a monopoly engaging in anti-competitive practices.
That is what Apple is doing: basically saying no one else can build smartphones (or tablets), at least not anything usable or sophisticated. Since that violates the entire point of the FRAND license in the first place, why should Motorola continue to extend those terms to Apple, since they are just enabling exactly what they wanted to prevent in the first place?
FRAND is a community agreement. Apple is basically saying "fuck the community" by taking the IP they want, and suing others them back (the same people whose IP they benefit from using.) It'd be like kids agreeing everyone can use a playground, then having one person demand that not only can he use the whole playground, no one else can use the monkeybars. Because he says so. And because he has lots of lawyers.
We could have had the next iPad killer by now if they weren't wasting time and money on lawsuits!
And how would that be good for Apple?
HAHAHAHAHAHA, ah, now my stomach hurts. Apple isn't playing nice in patents, and now they're bitching about others not playing nice? You know, I guess maybe Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field must have lasting effects.
Seriously though they'd have a point if Apple wasn't acting like, well, a total and complete legal asshole. Keep in mind these are countersuits to Apple. Apple is basically using Motorola's good will, turning around and stabbing them in the back, and then complaining that Motorola doesn't act nice towards them anymore. Or if getting rid of Apple would be actually anti-competitive, since there are what, at least 5 major smartphone makers?
Sure, it's flamebait. I should point out, however, that Narus (according to a different article on CBS, I couldn't read the WSJ article) rejected the Libyan's deal. The primary contributors were Amyses and ZTE, it looks like. One is Chinese (so you really shouldn't be surprised) and the other is French (which is the 'scandalous' part). So flamebait, maybe. Still true. Also, VAStech provided the tools to monitor international calls, so nothing to do with the Internet monitoring.
So yeah, calling out a French company for selling to Libya is perfectly justified even if very flamebaity.
Anonymous is a mob. Like all mobs, they lack restraint or control and will eventually turn on, well, anyone they can. Including their home soil or the people they pretend to defend.
Of course they'll also a mob on the Internet, and lack the power to do anything of real consequence, like burning down a house. The result is that the whole thing is really quite funny, instead of tragic and a horrible crime.
It's pretty complex and no one really agrees. However, I've studied quite a lot of philosophy and from what I remember (this subject came up but wasn't dealt with all that extensively) abstract thought does rely on language, as does logical (organized) thought to some degree. Time would be a decent example. Even without language, we would certainly have some concept of time because it isn't solely an abstract thing, but without language we wouldn't be able to think about it in the abstract or investigate many of its properties. For an example, try imagining space (empty space) without words. It's pretty hard.
However, language is not necessary to thought itself. It is possible to create entire lines of reasoning without proceeding through the "voice in the brain" path, although this process is sometimes called intuition rather than thought (they are not the same). So for instance I might see in an instant that pushing a boulder off a cliff will block the approaching car and give me time to escape (for example), but the process happens so fast language doesn't even enter into it until I reflect on it later or need to talk to someone.
Generally I think it is agreed that some concepts require words to be properly thought out, and that thought can be influenced by language (although that is another rather large debate), but thought itself doesn't require language. Take an abstract syllogism (i.e. every A is B, every B is C, therefore every A is C, aka a "Barbara" syllogism). Thinking of that (the formal syllogism without referring it to some real things) without words seems pretty nearly impossible (I believe it is). I can't even imagine how you would try. Of course it's still a pretty unanswered question how language and thought are exactly related.
That's because as of now it still is in the "theoretically possible but unable to be built." Keep in mind this new technique is for one (1) qubit. You need more (at least 8? Or do quantum computers work that differently from normal ones) to do anything practical. And it only meets the theoretical requirement, once you use ECC. Previously, it wasn't accurate enough that you could count on the ECC to be performed right. Making a quantum computer, even in the lab, is a few years off yet.
Or so I think. I don't really understand quantum computing yet, so I could be wrong.
That's true. Somehow I doubt the whole rock is actually useful. However, be that as it may, doing mining in space successfully could just provide the financial incentive we need to finally start widespread expansion into space. So, much as I may or may not like China, I hope this plan succeeds. Doubt it'll even be tried, though.
25 trillion dollars? What the hell is it made of, pure Unobtanium?
Ah but everyone knows this deal will lower prices! AT&T themselves have made economic models that say so! After all the "merger will lessen strains on the company’s wireless network, lower costs and increase quality, AT&T said in the filing." So obviously prices will be lower.
For AT&T.
Fear of being "portrayed" as giants bullies is a far different thing than actually being giant bullies. Now while I think the MPAA are giant extortionist bullies, but this cable is less fear of leaking the truth and more simple image management. And the Embassy doesn't really have anything to do with the case, it looks more like they were briefed simply because it's an international case, and what they fear is America looking bad. It's not like the US Embassy is trying to defend their own actions.
The cable doesn't actually seem to contain anything scandalous, it just comfirms that the MPAA is the primary motivator behind the case. IANAL but that doesn't seem like either a surprise or a problem (legally speaking. Of course the MPAA are a bunch of scummy bastards who should be banned from legal filings pretty much period.)
Yeah, pics or it didn't happen :)
'I think it's safe to say we were pleasantly surprised by the response' to their massively discounted, sold-at-a-huge-loss tablet."
All I have to say is: really? Wow, and to think I was surprised the HP tablet failed... actually, I wasn't but oh well.
On the other hand, the fact that they are doing another manufacturing run indicates that the first was probably profitable even at the reduced price (why the hell else would you make more?), meaning HP probably made up in quantity for the lowered price. Also, maybe tablet makers should consider lowering their prices. Just, you know, a thought.
Ah thank you for pointing this out. See, that makes sense. What the summary says? Not so much. Here I was thinking Jim Zemlin was either a fanatic or an idiot himself. Turns out it's just a very, very bad summary.
So, basically, if the copyright holder complains, the file will be removed. But, if Rapidshare et al. are any instance, it'll promptly be reuploaded under a different name. Encrypted and password locked so the RIAA won't know it's there unless they manually go out and search all the sites linking to it. Or, in other words, it's just as "legitimate" (I honestly think it is legitimate) as TPB is, just with better ass-coverage, more work required on the part of the copyright cartels, and less chance of downloaders being traced. Perfectly legally, of course.
Google does ranking so popular sites (i.e. those most people would be searching for) appear first. How would they do that without making us "work for them?" "We" (I use that word loosely) are the people who make those sites popular in the first place. Using them to rank sites is pretty smart. Otherwise you end up with tons of random blogs that repost or link to the site you want... wait, we already do get that. Hopefully this helps though.
This will, of course, cause massive outcry, but I suspect it will end up being an improvement. Although since there are very few things you really need the menu for in a GUI file manager, I'm not sure I see the point. I honestly don't remember the last time I used the Explorer file manager menu, it was probably just to see hidden files. Everything else is done with the mouse and left/right clicks.
Actually looking at the screen shot, the main problem might end up being wasted screen space for the ribbon. 7 managed to stay out of the way pretty well, and I honestly think an absolute minimalist approach is best for file managers (unless you let me code scripts for file management...). Like I say, besides the file tree little to nothing else is needed in a file manager with two button mice and keyboard shortcuts.
You're quite right, it doesn't really have anything to do with environmentalism. But it's pushed for by the environmentalists and in the same laws and is *supposed* to be to protect the environment. Whether the people saying so are idiots or not, it's still going to give environmentalism a bad name(sustainable foresting is environmentalism, and it's good. Confiscating guitars because they aren't made of sustainable wood? Bad).
And some of the points in the article (such as those dealing with ivory) have to deal with wildlife protection, but the confiscation of the wood doesn't. And wildlife protection is environmentalism anyways (just less about global warming and more about preservation of existing species. The first also helps the second.) Point is, even so it is ridiculous to fine someone for owning antique ivory piano keys because their paperwork is out of order.
But in the old privacy system, you would be notified of the tag, and could remove it. Now, however, you won't be notified, and you can't see the tag, meaning you also can't remove it. It'll be there forever. So this is very very bad. Oh yeah, and according to TFA you can tag absolutely anyone, not just friends. Hopefully it gets bad enough that people simply stop taking Facebook as credible. And maybe man will be on Mars in 5 years. Hey, one can hope, right?
Members of celebrities families are greedy free-riding bastards who hang on their relatives coattails. In other news, rodent attacks man. More at 11.