I'm not happy when people dig into forums and start scrubbing bits out of them; it means that if I want to keep an accurate history of things I can look at, I need to save a copy, and if I'm having an internet argument with someone I need to stash a copy of everything they say on my website (or at least ready to go up there) to preserve coherency.
For people who I think might try to disappear, or for people who frequently delete or censor their blogposts/discussion posts, I already do this, but it's a pain in the butt. I don't want it to be more common.
It's healthier for society to accept that people change than to let everyone reenact 1984 every time they get nervous.
It's pretty amusing watching people freak out over these things and call them nude-o-scopes and similar. Just like with gun-control laws, I don't care a lot about the underlying issue, but it's so tempting to take a stance just because the NRA folk are so bloody nuts.
Anything that raises the hassle level to untracably do illegal/harmful activity will probably either catch or deter a reasonable chunk of the would-be criminals. We live with knowing that the locks we use in our homes could be picked, and if someone *really* wanted to take the time and the risk or spend the money, they could probably get in in various ways, just like we never achieve 100% safety from other crimes. That doesn't mean our safety measures are worthless though.
So cute when people get full of themselves and take on a title like that. Sometimes the depression is when that lofty self-perception is a kite that gets snagged in one of the trees of reality.
I suspect it's also that a lot of us became computer types after neglecting human ties to some degree, and once we get old enough we either come back and learn to deal with people, or we become increasingly lonely and unbalanced as we age. Sometimes both.
The definition I was using shows up first on that list. You may be very disappointed I am not using one of the other definitions provided there, but your URL undermines your argument.
I'm quite aware what it means. I was a volunteer moderator for a moderately large MMORPG, and spent considerable time using tooks to boot the thousands of bots that were continually swarming onto the system.
I'd probably draw a distinction between when money changes hands relating to TOS-violations, and otherwise. There need to be tools to fight botters, for example.
That's a legal principle, and a good one. Whenever cases like these hit the courts, I believe the videotaper should win. However, I don't think we need to talk about "jackboots" or "fascism" because some doctors and police don't know the law. We can *understand* their not understanding HIPAA from the luxury of our homes outside of a high stress situation, even if we expect the legal system to correct the mess and hopefully lead to police/doctors getting it right in the future.
Pretending for a moment that I had a pro-gun-control position (which I don't; I really don't care to make much of an opinion on the issue), buyback plans would not violate any interpretation of the second amendment I've ever heard of. You may be right to worry about the funding of such purchase, although it presumably would have to be balanced against the economic cost of shootings (provided fewer guns actually result in fewer people being shot); those costs vary from direct medical costs to the large investments society puts into each individual (all the food someone eats, education, and so on). If it actually would be a net benefit to have a buyback program, it presumably would be a benefit to do so now (same costs I mentioned above).
I have no idea how the politics would work out though. It might not be as simple as getting dems in power, because a fair number of dems are not anti-gun.
I didn't say it was okay. I said it's an easy mistake to make and that it's understandable that the mistake was made. You might want to read comments more carefully before you reply.
I'm amused that the poster uses the phrase "completely fails to see any possible technical problems with this". It's an article about a possibility. Of course it's not going to get into possible problems with implementation details that don't exist yet. Bad editorialisation sucks (and slashdot is chock-full of radical individualists who provide a lot of that), but here the editor doesn't even finish his/her idea. If you want to express that technolibertarian rage, try harder:)
For one thing, it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to laugh at you when we have some idea of where you're going with that.
If you're used to dealing with HIPAA (and as someone who has done human subjects research, I have), it's easy to not understand the borders of that; HIPAA training describes a set of norms for dealing with your subjects/patients, but it isn't legal advice per se. Someone in the heat of the moment who has never had to think about if HIPAA extends to other people might easily make the wrong call on the law.
People will learn how to handle this better in the future. There's no sense getting riled up about this. It's a simple mistake that anyone could make.
I don't have much of an opinion on the technology itself, but I'm generally happy to see most of the people angry about this being angry. Either the religious freaks who talk about "numbers of the beast" or the "I have parent issues so any authority is something I'll speak against as a pavlovian response"? Yeah. Good to see them lose.
I'd be happy to talk with sane, reasoned people who don't generally have a problem with authority and reasonable tracking but who might have legitimate concerns about the specifics of this, but those people are rare, and the more stupid arguments from either of the groups above, the harder it is for me to want to take the issue seriously. Kind of like with gun control; I don't really care one way or other on the issue, but I'd love to see people like Alex Jones shake their tiny fists at the sky as they lose.
One of the nice things about the Wacom tablets (typing this while looking into a 21" Wacom Cintiq) is that the stylus doesn't require any power. A quick glance at the patent application above has me seeing "power source" in the pen. I'm not that enthused.
I realise my Cintiq is damned expensive so the criticism above might not apply fully, but I don't feel I'm losing out on accuracy with my non-"Active Stylus" device.
There is a very loud and very small group of geeks that really care about anonymity. It's not everyone, and it's not even all the older geeks; there are plenty of us old-timers who don't have these cyberpunk yearnings and prefer networks that use real names (or just don't care). It's unfortunate that this anonymity bunch has come to be thought of as representative of geekdom.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not happy when people dig into forums and start scrubbing bits out of them; it means that if I want to keep an accurate history of things I can look at, I need to save a copy, and if I'm having an internet argument with someone I need to stash a copy of everything they say on my website (or at least ready to go up there) to preserve coherency.
For people who I think might try to disappear, or for people who frequently delete or censor their blogposts/discussion posts, I already do this, but it's a pain in the butt. I don't want it to be more common.
It's healthier for society to accept that people change than to let everyone reenact 1984 every time they get nervous.
It's pretty amusing watching people freak out over these things and call them nude-o-scopes and similar. Just like with gun-control laws, I don't care a lot about the underlying issue, but it's so tempting to take a stance just because the NRA folk are so bloody nuts.
Are you trying to say this is Harvard's "fault"? Surely I'm misunderstanding somehow.
To me, this is just a happy filtering out of some students who needed a lesson in humility and ethics. No fault to Harvard or the professor.
Anything that raises the hassle level to untracably do illegal/harmful activity will probably either catch or deter a reasonable chunk of the would-be criminals. We live with knowing that the locks we use in our homes could be picked, and if someone *really* wanted to take the time and the risk or spend the money, they could probably get in in various ways, just like we never achieve 100% safety from other crimes. That doesn't mean our safety measures are worthless though.
Masking ad hominem with a "sounds like" doesn't make it any less so. I am quite aware of what clinical depression is, for more than one reason.
Ad Hominem doesn't work that well when you don't know the person you're speaking with.
So cute when people get full of themselves and take on a title like that. Sometimes the depression is when that lofty self-perception is a kite that gets snagged in one of the trees of reality.
I suspect it's also that a lot of us became computer types after neglecting human ties to some degree, and once we get old enough we either come back and learn to deal with people, or we become increasingly lonely and unbalanced as we age. Sometimes both.
I'm impressed that the author (probably) thought of such a great title for the topic.
The definition I was using shows up first on that list. You may be very disappointed I am not using one of the other definitions provided there, but your URL undermines your argument.
And by tooks I mean tools. Sorry. It's late at night :)
I'm quite aware what it means. I was a volunteer moderator for a moderately large MMORPG, and spent considerable time using tooks to boot the thousands of bots that were continually swarming onto the system.
I'd probably draw a distinction between when money changes hands relating to TOS-violations, and otherwise. There need to be tools to fight botters, for example.
That's a legal principle, and a good one. Whenever cases like these hit the courts, I believe the videotaper should win. However, I don't think we need to talk about "jackboots" or "fascism" because some doctors and police don't know the law. We can *understand* their not understanding HIPAA from the luxury of our homes outside of a high stress situation, even if we expect the legal system to correct the mess and hopefully lead to police/doctors getting it right in the future.
Pretending for a moment that I had a pro-gun-control position (which I don't; I really don't care to make much of an opinion on the issue), buyback plans would not violate any interpretation of the second amendment I've ever heard of. You may be right to worry about the funding of such purchase, although it presumably would have to be balanced against the economic cost of shootings (provided fewer guns actually result in fewer people being shot); those costs vary from direct medical costs to the large investments society puts into each individual (all the food someone eats, education, and so on). If it actually would be a net benefit to have a buyback program, it presumably would be a benefit to do so now (same costs I mentioned above).
I have no idea how the politics would work out though. It might not be as simple as getting dems in power, because a fair number of dems are not anti-gun.
You don't get to tell me what I mean. As I said it was a mistake, but an understandable one.
The identity of subjects is regulated. For all the people on whom I did neuropsych research, I am bound not to release even their names.
I didn't say it was okay. I said it's an easy mistake to make and that it's understandable that the mistake was made. You might want to read comments more carefully before you reply.
I'm amused that the poster uses the phrase "completely fails to see any possible technical problems with this". It's an article about a possibility. Of course it's not going to get into possible problems with implementation details that don't exist yet. Bad editorialisation sucks (and slashdot is chock-full of radical individualists who provide a lot of that), but here the editor doesn't even finish his/her idea. If you want to express that technolibertarian rage, try harder :)
For one thing, it makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to laugh at you when we have some idea of where you're going with that.
If you're used to dealing with HIPAA (and as someone who has done human subjects research, I have), it's easy to not understand the borders of that; HIPAA training describes a set of norms for dealing with your subjects/patients, but it isn't legal advice per se. Someone in the heat of the moment who has never had to think about if HIPAA extends to other people might easily make the wrong call on the law.
People will learn how to handle this better in the future. There's no sense getting riled up about this. It's a simple mistake that anyone could make.
I don't have much of an opinion on the technology itself, but I'm generally happy to see most of the people angry about this being angry. Either the religious freaks who talk about "numbers of the beast" or the "I have parent issues so any authority is something I'll speak against as a pavlovian response"? Yeah. Good to see them lose.
I'd be happy to talk with sane, reasoned people who don't generally have a problem with authority and reasonable tracking but who might have legitimate concerns about the specifics of this, but those people are rare, and the more stupid arguments from either of the groups above, the harder it is for me to want to take the issue seriously. Kind of like with gun control; I don't really care one way or other on the issue, but I'd love to see people like Alex Jones shake their tiny fists at the sky as they lose.
One of the nice things about the Wacom tablets (typing this while looking into a 21" Wacom Cintiq) is that the stylus doesn't require any power. A quick glance at the patent application above has me seeing "power source" in the pen. I'm not that enthused.
I realise my Cintiq is damned expensive so the criticism above might not apply fully, but I don't feel I'm losing out on accuracy with my non-"Active Stylus" device.
Haha... +1
There is a very loud and very small group of geeks that really care about anonymity. It's not everyone, and it's not even all the older geeks; there are plenty of us old-timers who don't have these cyberpunk yearnings and prefer networks that use real names (or just don't care). It's unfortunate that this anonymity bunch has come to be thought of as representative of geekdom.
So unless you have leading questions, you reject the polls? Nice.
Cute skit, but we're talking a Gallup poll here.