A company cannot refuse to hire women, black people, or gays. One can't form a club and refuse to allow women in. Hell, you can't even have a simple pass/fail test for capability (ie a fire department) without special 'easy mode' parts for women. So why do we tolerate the hypocrisy?
This is the direction our society has been leaning for a couple centuries, and since it identifies itself as "good," it's hard to oppose it.
What can we say? To identify with the opposite of "good" is to by definition be "evil."
This is why that Nietzsche guy wrote books like Beyond Good and Evil and The Antichrist.
The hive mind, which is based on socialization and not science, wants you to see the world in a Boolean measurement: what We approve of, and what We don't.
This is mind control of the oldest type, namely peer pressure and social coercion. There's no reason to pay attention to because it's unscientific and as history shows us, usually wrong.
However, a lot of people are afraid of those who don't follow the hive mind. They fear these people who are not controlled, 'civilized' and neutered by hive mind morality.
Stay free, stay independent, stay clear: avoid the hive mind.
The value of anonymity is in the ability to express ideas that are not necessarily socially acceptable, but are contributions to our ongoing resolution of social questions.
When Google starts trying to "civilize" the internet by requiring real names, it's forcing us to associate our free speech with our jobs, families and others who may face retaliation if our ideas are not socially acceptable.
Not to be crass about it, but these H1-B workers are the high tech equivalent of the guys who hang out outside your local Home Depot and wait for someone to pick them up for a day job.
Business likes them because they're cheap, coming from countries where the cost of living is much lower and so our salaries here seem magical, and they're also obedient, which means that they do whatever management says and do not criticize it.
It's not about them doing a better job. It's about them being better cogs and, when their usefulness is done at age 40, business can spit them out into society at large and externalize the costs of their living, medical care, etc. to social costs.
This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.
However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.
Especially for kids, but also for people with souls, "it makes money" is not a sufficient justification. Lots of things make money; anal prostitution and being a hired killer also make money.
However, you can usually get traction by pitching it as a skill that is worthy in its own right as it bestows power upon those who yield it. Like learning to play an instrument, it is fun for its own sake and also useful in isolation. It allows you to create things and have a certain type of power.
The point of coding for those who will have the "coder mentality" is that you can fix things, make them do what you need, and accommodate needs outside the generic functions that most people use. It's the same reason you learn to play a guitar, so you can write the songs you like, or learn woodworking, electronics, etc.
I don't think this appeal will ever go wrong, while the sanitized and denatured "but it's a great job!" approach will sound like more manipulative, submissive, obedient and conformist adult-logic to kids.
I think eventually cable operators will be relegated to "last mile" status, and you'll be able to push other providers' services down the same pipe over time, just like you can get DSL from multiple providers over the same copper pair.
That would be a welcome change. Here's a question however... who would pay for any additional cable that needed to be laid, or if it needed to be upgraded (for example to fiber optic cable)? I have no idea how this works, but you seem to, so I'm asking (if you don't mind).
Given their current pricing model, they'd be happy to offer gigabit internet, but not at prices that consumers want to pay. They might offer it for $500 a month, for example, which would fit nicely in with their habit of charging suburban mom and dad $200 a month for internet, cable, two email addresses and a DVR.
All it takes however is one competitor to offer it for under $200 in a city that people recognize the name of, and they'll start changing their tune. Then it's both a proven business model and a threat.
Technically, there's nothing wrong with this. The goal of capitalism is to get paid as much as possible. I don't think this is an argument against capitalism, just that we should probably not have capitalism by itself, but instead rein it in with a cultural or social consensus that "do no evil" is more important than this quarter's earnings.
I don't see these methods as being as effective as profiling programs based on their behavior and then negating them by dangerous behaviors, not by prior encounter.
Lists are too easily subverted, not only by hacks like this, but by misidentification and other errors. As someone who recently had to re-send a large number of emails because an "anti-spam" agency mistakenly categorized my mailhost as a spam attacker, I find the many false categorizations to be as damaging as the original fear.
The Pirate Bay through its unfortunate but iconic name will always be a target. If they'd named it "Generic Torrents," we wouldn't see this.
However, as someone who uses TPB to distribute legal content, I don't want it to go away. It is the most high-profile torrent tracker in the world and that makes it useful for spreading information.
I don't know how much of its content is legal, but I think the roles here are reversed. If someone uploads a torrent of illegal information (child porn, piracy, state secrets, etc) and other someones download it, then those are the people who should be prosecuted.
The recording industry is attacking TPB instead of attacking the someones who are doing the illegal acts, because those someones are mostly the children and college students of middle America. It would be politically unpopular to attack those.
I don't mean to be the dark figure in this conversation, but I think it's inevitable that robots will be used on the battlefield, just like people are going to continue to use cluster bombs, land mines, dum-dum bullets and other horrible devices. The reason is that they're effective.
War is a measurement of who is most effective at holding territory. It is often fought between uneven sides, for example the Iraqi army in their 40-year-old tanks going out against the American Apaches who promptly slaughtered them. Sometimes, there are seeming upsets but often there's an uneven balance behind the scenes there as well.
Robots are going to make it to the battlefield because they are effective not as killing machines, but as defensive machines. They're an improvement over land mines, actually. The reason for this is that you can programmatically define "defense" where offense is going to require more complexity.
Eventually, robots may make it to offensive roles. I think this is more dubious because avoiding friendly fire is difficult, and using transponders just gives the enemy homing beacons. In the meantime, they'll make it to the battlefield, no matter how many teary people sign petitions and throw flowers at them.
Buy nothing. Wait for a need; then research what fits it best.
You've been given an opportunity in disguise here.
Do you really want all that stuff that consumes time? Only one way to tell: wait for yourself to need it, then buy it as you determine those needs based on what you actually use.
A real world analogy: encryption is like a room within a room.
If you were to enter a residence, and find it divided into apartments, you'd probably have to get a warrant for each locked, separately numbered door.
The real question is whether one individual can have multiple rooms within a room. If your phone and computer are encrypted, do they need a warrant for each?
I'm not in favor of ignorance, but sometimes, it's better to live for what time we have and not depress ourselves with the toxic inevitable far-off doom that awaits us.
Not necessarily -- big media productions already get plenty of coverage on the torrent scene, and there'll only be more users keeping torrents alive/healthy longer when people lose today's popular RS/MU/etc.-type sites and get driven back to bittorrent.
That's a good point. Cracking down on piracy may drive pirates to methods of file transmission that are even less detectable. I'm waiting for them to drive us all to darknets, when the internet will be nothing but a stream of encrypted packets with ambiguous destinations. Then what are they gonna do -- outlaw encryption?
There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.
First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.
Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).
Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door. I trust reliability and paradigms that are time-tested.
As a lack of positive reason, I'm not sure what Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 does not. There are improvements; they look really neat. I'd like to play with them, on some computer I'm not using for work when I have lots of spare time to play around with it.
The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.
What if you're having legal troubles? IRS are after you? You have applications for a Betty Ford-like clinique? Tax returns? These are things that you're NOT going to be putting up on Facebook or your blog, but documents you might have to have. T
I agree. However, that sort of information should be guarded under a different principle, which is general privacy laws. No one should have access to that type of personal information unless it's signed over by the informed consumer.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the direction our society has been leaning for a couple centuries, and since it identifies itself as "good," it's hard to oppose it.
What can we say? To identify with the opposite of "good" is to by definition be "evil."
This is why that Nietzsche guy wrote books like Beyond Good and Evil and The Antichrist.
The hive mind, which is based on socialization and not science, wants you to see the world in a Boolean measurement: what We approve of, and what We don't.
This is mind control of the oldest type, namely peer pressure and social coercion. There's no reason to pay attention to because it's unscientific and as history shows us, usually wrong.
However, a lot of people are afraid of those who don't follow the hive mind. They fear these people who are not controlled, 'civilized' and neutered by hive mind morality.
Stay free, stay independent, stay clear: avoid the hive mind.
The value of anonymity is in the ability to express ideas that are not necessarily socially acceptable, but are contributions to our ongoing resolution of social questions.
When Google starts trying to "civilize" the internet by requiring real names, it's forcing us to associate our free speech with our jobs, families and others who may face retaliation if our ideas are not socially acceptable.
This seems to be part of this software-as-a-subscription trend that's sweeping the OS world.
In general, this means software will be more frequently patched.
I trust that our corporate overlords will find some way to spin it into a cost roughly commensurate to that of car insurance, however...
It's nice to know that KDE/Linux will be an option.
A bullet to the base of the skull won't do it.
Most likely, China just wants control of the OS used on phones within its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Not to be crass about it, but these H1-B workers are the high tech equivalent of the guys who hang out outside your local Home Depot and wait for someone to pick them up for a day job.
Business likes them because they're cheap, coming from countries where the cost of living is much lower and so our salaries here seem magical, and they're also obedient, which means that they do whatever management says and do not criticize it.
It's not about them doing a better job. It's about them being better cogs and, when their usefulness is done at age 40, business can spit them out into society at large and externalize the costs of their living, medical care, etc. to social costs.
This could be really cool if they were able to pack the functions of an iPhone into a stylish looking watch.
However, until they've got the tech that well established, it's going to be a hard sell for most of us: we replaced our watches will cell phones and, in the interest of not carrying duplicate expensive devices, rely on the phone exclusively to tell time.
Especially for kids, but also for people with souls, "it makes money" is not a sufficient justification. Lots of things make money; anal prostitution and being a hired killer also make money.
However, you can usually get traction by pitching it as a skill that is worthy in its own right as it bestows power upon those who yield it. Like learning to play an instrument, it is fun for its own sake and also useful in isolation. It allows you to create things and have a certain type of power.
The point of coding for those who will have the "coder mentality" is that you can fix things, make them do what you need, and accommodate needs outside the generic functions that most people use. It's the same reason you learn to play a guitar, so you can write the songs you like, or learn woodworking, electronics, etc.
I don't think this appeal will ever go wrong, while the sanitized and denatured "but it's a great job!" approach will sound like more manipulative, submissive, obedient and conformist adult-logic to kids.
That would be a welcome change. Here's a question however... who would pay for any additional cable that needed to be laid, or if it needed to be upgraded (for example to fiber optic cable)? I have no idea how this works, but you seem to, so I'm asking (if you don't mind).
Given their current pricing model, they'd be happy to offer gigabit internet, but not at prices that consumers want to pay. They might offer it for $500 a month, for example, which would fit nicely in with their habit of charging suburban mom and dad $200 a month for internet, cable, two email addresses and a DVR.
All it takes however is one competitor to offer it for under $200 in a city that people recognize the name of, and they'll start changing their tune. Then it's both a proven business model and a threat.
Technically, there's nothing wrong with this. The goal of capitalism is to get paid as much as possible. I don't think this is an argument against capitalism, just that we should probably not have capitalism by itself, but instead rein it in with a cultural or social consensus that "do no evil" is more important than this quarter's earnings.
This is true. I should have said "link index."
I don't see these methods as being as effective as profiling programs based on their behavior and then negating them by dangerous behaviors, not by prior encounter.
Lists are too easily subverted, not only by hacks like this, but by misidentification and other errors. As someone who recently had to re-send a large number of emails because an "anti-spam" agency mistakenly categorized my mailhost as a spam attacker, I find the many false categorizations to be as damaging as the original fear.
The Pirate Bay through its unfortunate but iconic name will always be a target. If they'd named it "Generic Torrents," we wouldn't see this.
However, as someone who uses TPB to distribute legal content, I don't want it to go away. It is the most high-profile torrent tracker in the world and that makes it useful for spreading information.
I don't know how much of its content is legal, but I think the roles here are reversed. If someone uploads a torrent of illegal information (child porn, piracy, state secrets, etc) and other someones download it, then those are the people who should be prosecuted.
The recording industry is attacking TPB instead of attacking the someones who are doing the illegal acts, because those someones are mostly the children and college students of middle America. It would be politically unpopular to attack those.
I don't mean to be the dark figure in this conversation, but I think it's inevitable that robots will be used on the battlefield, just like people are going to continue to use cluster bombs, land mines, dum-dum bullets and other horrible devices. The reason is that they're effective.
War is a measurement of who is most effective at holding territory. It is often fought between uneven sides, for example the Iraqi army in their 40-year-old tanks going out against the American Apaches who promptly slaughtered them. Sometimes, there are seeming upsets but often there's an uneven balance behind the scenes there as well.
Robots are going to make it to the battlefield because they are effective not as killing machines, but as defensive machines. They're an improvement over land mines, actually. The reason for this is that you can programmatically define "defense" where offense is going to require more complexity.
Already South Korean is deploying robotic machine gun-equipped sentries on its border. Why put a human out there to die from sniper fire when you can have armored robots watching the whole border?
Eventually, robots may make it to offensive roles. I think this is more dubious because avoiding friendly fire is difficult, and using transponders just gives the enemy homing beacons. In the meantime, they'll make it to the battlefield, no matter how many teary people sign petitions and throw flowers at them.
Buy nothing. Wait for a need; then research what fits it best.
You've been given an opportunity in disguise here.
Do you really want all that stuff that consumes time? Only one way to tell: wait for yourself to need it, then buy it as you determine those needs based on what you actually use.
A real world analogy: encryption is like a room within a room.
If you were to enter a residence, and find it divided into apartments, you'd probably have to get a warrant for each locked, separately numbered door.
The real question is whether one individual can have multiple rooms within a room. If your phone and computer are encrypted, do they need a warrant for each?
By collecting user data, the benevolent state of Ubuntu is able to keep track of what you might need.
I notice you searching for blow-up dolls and discount alcohol, citizen. Would you like the number of a qualified therapist?
I don't wanna know.
I'm not in favor of ignorance, but sometimes, it's better to live for what time we have and not depress ourselves with the toxic inevitable far-off doom that awaits us.
Let us enjoy our lives free from meta-mortality.
That's a good point. Cracking down on piracy may drive pirates to methods of file transmission that are even less detectable. I'm waiting for them to drive us all to darknets, when the internet will be nothing but a stream of encrypted packets with ambiguous destinations. Then what are they gonna do -- outlaw encryption?
Thank you for elaborating.
There's a number of reasons for not switching from Windows 7.
First, it's the operating system most of us always wanted. It gets closer to a perfected version of Windows XP. It does everything we need with the software and the interface paradigms we've known for 20 years.
Second, I don't trust any new product until it has been on the market for 18 months in order to get the bugs out. Developers know why, and the reason isn't developers (generally).
Finally, I distrust trends. They blow through, take your money, and blow out the other door. I trust reliability and paradigms that are time-tested.
As a lack of positive reason, I'm not sure what Windows 8 offers that Windows 7 does not. There are improvements; they look really neat. I'd like to play with them, on some computer I'm not using for work when I have lots of spare time to play around with it.
The computer is a tool for me. I use it to achieve other ends. Thus I'm not that fascinated with the OS and want it to "just work." Windows 7 does that, or an adequate job of it at least, on a wide variety of hardware.
You could use an iPad!
I agree. However, that sort of information should be guarded under a different principle, which is general privacy laws. No one should have access to that type of personal information unless it's signed over by the informed consumer.
It seems to me obvious that this should be the case; Google has for most people replaced those annoying phone books.
The only caveat is that they should make sure they lock down the machine well...