Separately, we have a saying in India, which is drilled into the brains of BPO trainees. It says; 10=35. The IQ of an average 10-year old Indian kid is about the same as the IQ of the average 35-yr old American. Reading the many infantile responses to this article, I begin to suspect this might not be far from the truth.
Your post is as immature and offensive as many of the posts seen on here and is, additionally, hypocritical to boot.
Yes, well..that's along the lines of what I said when I said "There's going to be a period of pain between the point where there are enough jobs and the point where robots can do enough that people will not have to work."
Society will have to change in countries where people are used to living well as they are not going to allow their families to starve while the few who have the wealth live like kings unless that wealth is shared in some form sufficient to keep people from rebelling and people have enough to buy what they need.
There will be some tipping point that will occur if and when the percentage of non-working poor is high enough that people are ready to change the system although if automation and outsourcing don't raise the non-working rate to such a point then this is a non-issue.
... on this issue and say that I actually don't have a problem with Google doing this.
This is *NOT* because I believe the premise that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, because, in fact, that premise is wholly specious (anyone who claims to genuinely believe that statement is true must be either a liar or else a public nudist).
Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility, and if a person is not prepared to be held personally accountable for the things that they do, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have a hard time recognizing any alleged right that they might have to do it. That's not to say that I don't think that people are entitled to privacy... giving people privacy shows them respect, and I resolutely believe that every human being is entitled to that level of respect. There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity. I don't see how not giving people anonymity in public disrespects them as individuals, so I simply don't see the importance of it.
I'm sure there's not a despotic government in the world that would disagree with you.
...they'd probably wonder why I watch so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
We have taken note of this and you'll be hearing from us shortly.
I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.
It's a change that only legitimate users will have pain from.
Anyone who wants to troll will create bullshit users and continue to post crap whereas people who post under their real name put themselves at risk when they may not wish to just by expressing their own opinions.
Many if not most of the rich are rich not because they've earned it but because they were born into money. Some percentage are running companies that provide to the middle and lower classes, sure, but they themselves provide no benefit - it is the companies and thus the workers in those companies that do the actual work. With exceptions, the value of many if not most CEOs in today's world is very much who they know, not what they do and yet they make ridiculous salaries and get bonuses even when their companies are laying off employees or go belly up and have to be bailed out, in the case of financial institutions for example.
People will always need to buy certain things such as food, shoes and clothing, shelter, medicine for their family and so on...even when they are unemployed such needs continue and will be subsidized to some point by the government.
Also, I am not saying that everyone will be out of work - even with a high unemployment rate of, say, forty percent, there is still sixty percent of the population working and buying. With higher profit margins because of lower manufacturing costs, the rich remain unaffected.
So you are telling me that we are getting back our manufacturing plants, but are not going to see any more jobs or other benefits, just the negatives?
Not at all. The positive is that the rich people who own the companies will make more money.
There should also be some domestic jobs taking care of the robots I would think, though of course nowhere near the number of jobs being phased out.
There's going to be a period of pain between the point where there are enough jobs and the point where robots can do enough that people will not have to work.
Why? As far as I can tell this would be a good thing. If everyone in an army is making decisions then they aren't as likely to engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence. The analogy is to how many have argued that the US has become more warlike as it has lost its draft, so that people favoring war are no longer in any serious risk of being called up. Nothing in the summary seems that negative, and a brief skim of TFA doesn't seem to indicate much actually negative as far as I can tell.
Yes because large groups of people always remain calm and never engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence....well, except for the riots that happen from time to time, here and there of course.
10 years is probably too short, but you're right that copyright laws are broken. I do like 10 years as a good number to work from.
I think copyright should be broken into personal and corporate copyright. Personal copyright is owned by the author. Corporate by a corporation.
Personal copyright should have a maximum 10 year exclusive license limit, after ten years the license should be renegotiated, and perhaps transfered to another publisher. He time limit for personal copyright should be Death or twenty years whichever is longer.
Corporate copyright should be free for 10 years. And then renewed in each country that the corporation wants to enforce it in for $10,000 for then next 10 years, then $100,000 for ten more years and so on. So:
0-10 years free 11-20 years $10,000 per country 21-30 years $100,000 per country 31-40 years $1,000,000 per country...
If a company wants to bankrupt itself to keep a copyright that's fine but it'll quickly become too expensive for companies not to let copyrit lapse.
Breaking digital locks should not be illegal. You blame the lock if it gts broken, safes and locks are rated by how long it takes to break into them. Also you could look at it as a National Security question, if you my cryptography illegal, only crimals will be cryptologists. And then how are you going to secure your communications? Digital locks are a good way to train the next generation of cryptologists, and keep them practiced.
So the more profitable a product (tangible or not) is, the longer the corporation should be able to lock it in?
AIDS medicines for example?
I have to disagree. Stick with 13 years max, period.
Funnily enough, NZ people don't have to look at the warships (or at least they didn't 10 years ago; this might have changed). NZ at some point declared themselves a "nuclear-free" zone, meaning not only no warheads but no vessels running on nuclear power are welcome there. And since that means the US Navy has to skirt waaaay around NZ to get to their Australian naval bases, it's actually been a major source of diplomatic tension between the two countries. But it also shows that the Kiwis have no qualms about giving America the middle finger, so don't expect them to cooperate with this copyright stuff all too quickly.
That's only because they feel safe believing that many if not most Americans (including one recent president) have absolutely no idea where NZ is or even, in fact, that it exists or if it exists that it is actually a country separate from Australia who would therefore bear the brunt of any retaliatory action.
Buying equipment and/or software from manufacturers/developers that are more or less owned by the country in question, in this case China, you should assume that such equipment is compromised from the get go even if such hasn't been proven, because the possibility and the motivation both strongly exist.
Where security budgets are unlimited, that would be the best approach. But where the budget is limited and even going down, the better approach is to focus on critical hardware (again, what is critical depends on the budget) and the people who install and administer the hardware/software. The most secure hardware still usable by a human being is easily compromised by a person given the right privileges (passwords, etc.). So why not focus on the people given access privileges, and leave that router in the lobby alone until it starts emitting a flood of suspicous data?
An exaggerated analogy. We all know that a large asteroid impacting the Earth is thousands of times more lethal than any known weapon of mass destruction. So why aren't countries alloting the whale's share of their military or homeland security budget toward the elimination of such threat? Because the probability of such fatal impact is low in human or historical terms (even if high in geological or prehistoric terms).
Budgets have to be driven by requirements, not the other way around. I suggest turning it around, then, and looking at it from the perspective that the budget for security (or in this case network equipment from the aspect of security) must depend on the risk and impact analysis. Has it been proven that the holes are there? No. Is the risk there that such holes exist? Yes. Is the impact considerable in the event that the holes exist and are taken advantage of? Yes.
Companies are no longer on a level playing field for security. There is no real separation between business and government in China (for example) and so western business and government agencies that aren't paying enough attention are finding themselves constantly compromised at many levels in no small part due to Chinese military resource and government 'blind eye'.
The other way around - could Iran have proven that their software was infected with Stuxnet? No, probably not. Should they have assumed that it was compromised? Arguably yes. If you get your resources from a real or potential enemy, be it physical or economic war, you have to assume that what you get has holes in it even if you can't prove that they're there.
I understand the point that you're making, but arguably the probability of there being holes in Chinese provided network equipment is probably higher than the probability of a significant asteroid hitting the earth.
This is a PR move by the FBI. It makes them APPEAR to be an actor for justice - it matters of little consequence, except those personally involved.
Quite the opposite actually, as the FBI look like a bunch of idiots because they have to go back and check all of this again.
4 Years - and not ONE criminal indictment perused against the "investment" and reserve Banksters. Surely, the FBI could better spend their time and resources to ensure that the entire country is safe from another criminal fraud, costing tens of Billions, no?
The cellular network has to know where you are to route calls to you. Back when they first came out, someone published an article about using cellular information to locate a person with his cell phone to within 36 feet.
Yes... additionally, last I recall this information is saved for a period of 7 years, which means not only does the phone system know where you are now, but it also knows where you've been. This means that you can be profiled based on the places you go, and thus there's a chance someone can predict where you're going to be at any given time.
I don't suppose you have a reference source for this?
treason/trzn/ Noun: 1) The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. 2) The action of betraying someone or something.
Disclosing classified intelligence can certainly fall under the definition of treason.
In security, you have to make assumptions based on what is possible or likely, not what is proven. You don't have to prove that your first layer of firewalls can be breached - you assume that they might be and you put another layer of security behind it.
With regard to security of information that China would like very much to have access to, such resource location information (oil, minerals, etc) and industrial designs, military and otherwise, you have to assume that they will do what they can to get at such information.
Buying equipment and/or software from manufacturers/developers that are more or less owned by the country in question, in this case China, you should assume that such equipment is compromised from the get go even if such hasn't been proven, because the possibility and the motivation both strongly exist.
Arguably you could still use two different cloud providers after verifying (and continuing to verify over time) that the infrastructure (and connectivity to it) is actually redundant.
None of this infrastructure should be on the Internet anyway. Anything that we don't want the rest of the world to have access to shouldn't be online.
And don't give me shit about saving money or convenience because at some point you have to have stop trying to save money and do it right, even if it takes more effort.
The issue with the city/provincial critical services is that they didn't have geographical redundancy due to the cost. Yes the building had redundant power, and networks but it was the whole building that was affected by this. At the end of the day, Shaw did fuck up, but all the essential servers completely fucked up.
Cost should not be an issue when we're talking about life or death critical services that are provided by some level of government. You spend what you have to spend to get the job done right, not more, not less. We're also not talking about a town with a population of 16 but a city with a population of 3,645,257 (in 2011). I am quite sure that they had the means to do this the right way and just chose not to.
Whoever designed this should be smacked in the head. You never have critical services relying on a single location. Should have redundancy at every level, including geographic (ie not in the same flood / fault / fire zone).
"...protecting any users from losing their access."
This had nothing to do with protecting users. This was because the ISPs didn't want to be overwhelmed with support calls and have to deal with X ignorant and pissed off customers who don't know DNSChanger from a hot dog and who will just blame the ISP for any outage.
The sooner capitalism gets destabilized due to increases of productivity resulting in a lack of work to go around for people to earn a living, the quicker we will start investigating and experimenting with how to build a post-scarcity economy. Progress does not apply to technology alone, it works on society as well.
Don't be in too much of a rush because until we have the pre-requisite virtually unlimited power and materials needed for a post-scarcity economy, not to mention the global will to make it happen, we're more likely to end up in another great depression and / or sliding backwards to where only the rich have what they need.
As it is the powers that be in the East think that workers in the West are vastly underworked and overpaid and yet, thanks to the globality of things, we are now competing against them which is bringing out standard of living down just as it's bringing theirs up.
Post-scarcity is a nice dream but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Separately, we have a saying in India, which is drilled into the brains of BPO trainees. It says; 10=35. The IQ of an average 10-year old Indian kid is about the same as the IQ of the average 35-yr old American. Reading the many infantile responses to this article, I begin to suspect this might not be far from the truth.
Your post is as immature and offensive as many of the posts seen on here and is, additionally, hypocritical to boot.
Title: "Unprecedented" vs. Summary "...has not occurred since 1889"
Of course if the title read "Greenland Ice Sheet Melts Again" no one would have read it.
Yes, well..that's along the lines of what I said when I said "There's going to be a period of pain between the point where there are enough jobs and the point where robots can do enough that people will not have to work."
Society will have to change in countries where people are used to living well as they are not going to allow their families to starve while the few who have the wealth live like kings unless that wealth is shared in some form sufficient to keep people from rebelling and people have enough to buy what they need.
There will be some tipping point that will occur if and when the percentage of non-working poor is high enough that people are ready to change the system although if automation and outsourcing don't raise the non-working rate to such a point then this is a non-issue.
This is *NOT* because I believe the premise that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide, because, in fact, that premise is wholly specious (anyone who claims to genuinely believe that statement is true must be either a liar or else a public nudist).
Rather, I don't have a problem with Google doing this simply because I firmly believe in the principle of personal resposibility, and if a person is not prepared to be held personally accountable for the things that they do, then I'm afraid I'm just going to have a hard time recognizing any alleged right that they might have to do it. That's not to say that I don't think that people are entitled to privacy... giving people privacy shows them respect, and I resolutely believe that every human being is entitled to that level of respect. There is, however, a distinct difference between privacy and public anonymity. I don't see how not giving people anonymity in public disrespects them as individuals, so I simply don't see the importance of it.
I'm sure there's not a despotic government in the world that would disagree with you.
...they'd probably wonder why I watch so much Dora the Explorer on my business account. (It's tied to my business cell phone, which I use most often to keep my daughter entertained.)
We have taken note of this and you'll be hearing from us shortly.
John Smith
IRS
I know I should be annoyed at the elimination of anonymous options, and in most any other setting I would be, but youtube? yeah I think I'd like to see this play out. just don't make a universal case out of it google.
It's a change that only legitimate users will have pain from.
Anyone who wants to troll will create bullshit users and continue to post crap whereas people who post under their real name put themselves at risk when they may not wish to just by expressing their own opinions.
Many if not most of the rich are rich not because they've earned it but because they were born into money. Some percentage are running companies that provide to the middle and lower classes, sure, but they themselves provide no benefit - it is the companies and thus the workers in those companies that do the actual work. With exceptions, the value of many if not most CEOs in today's world is very much who they know, not what they do and yet they make ridiculous salaries and get bonuses even when their companies are laying off employees or go belly up and have to be bailed out, in the case of financial institutions for example.
People will always need to buy certain things such as food, shoes and clothing, shelter, medicine for their family and so on...even when they are unemployed such needs continue and will be subsidized to some point by the government.
Also, I am not saying that everyone will be out of work - even with a high unemployment rate of, say, forty percent, there is still sixty percent of the population working and buying. With higher profit margins because of lower manufacturing costs, the rich remain unaffected.
So you are telling me that we are getting back our manufacturing plants, but are not going to see any more jobs or other benefits, just the negatives?
Not at all. The positive is that the rich people who own the companies will make more money.
There should also be some domestic jobs taking care of the robots I would think, though of course nowhere near the number of jobs being phased out.
There's going to be a period of pain between the point where there are enough jobs and the point where robots can do enough that people will not have to work.
Let's hope resistance isn't futile.
Why? As far as I can tell this would be a good thing. If everyone in an army is making decisions then they aren't as likely to engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence. The analogy is to how many have argued that the US has become more warlike as it has lost its draft, so that people favoring war are no longer in any serious risk of being called up. Nothing in the summary seems that negative, and a brief skim of TFA doesn't seem to indicate much actually negative as far as I can tell.
Yes because large groups of people always remain calm and never engage in risky behavior or unnecessary violence....well, except for the riots that happen from time to time, here and there of course.
10 years is probably too short, but you're right that copyright laws are broken. I do like 10 years as a good number to work from.
I think copyright should be broken into personal and corporate copyright. Personal copyright is owned by the author. Corporate by a corporation.
Personal copyright should have a maximum 10 year exclusive license limit, after ten years the license should be renegotiated, and perhaps transfered to another publisher. He time limit for personal copyright should be Death or twenty years whichever is longer.
Corporate copyright should be free for 10 years. And then renewed in each country that the corporation wants to enforce it in for $10,000 for then next 10 years, then $100,000 for ten more years and so on. So:
0-10 years free ...
11-20 years $10,000 per country
21-30 years $100,000 per country
31-40 years $1,000,000 per country
If a company wants to bankrupt itself to keep a copyright that's fine but it'll quickly become too expensive for companies not to let copyrit lapse.
Breaking digital locks should not be illegal. You blame the lock if it gts broken, safes and locks are rated by how long it takes to break into them. Also you could look at it as a National Security question, if you my cryptography illegal, only crimals will be cryptologists. And then how are you going to secure your communications? Digital locks are a good way to train the next generation of cryptologists, and keep them practiced.
So the more profitable a product (tangible or not) is, the longer the corporation should be able to lock it in?
AIDS medicines for example?
I have to disagree. Stick with 13 years max, period.
Funnily enough, NZ people don't have to look at the warships (or at least they didn't 10 years ago; this might have changed). NZ at some point declared themselves a "nuclear-free" zone, meaning not only no warheads but no vessels running on nuclear power are welcome there. And since that means the US Navy has to skirt waaaay around NZ to get to their Australian naval bases, it's actually been a major source of diplomatic tension between the two countries. But it also shows that the Kiwis have no qualms about giving America the middle finger, so don't expect them to cooperate with this copyright stuff all too quickly.
That's only because they feel safe believing that many if not most Americans (including one recent president) have absolutely no idea where NZ is or even, in fact, that it exists or if it exists that it is actually a country separate from Australia who would therefore bear the brunt of any retaliatory action.
Microsoft files about 464,676 DMCA take downs last month, larger then any other copyright owner.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/
You do realize that google, who you are referencing, isn't an objective party when it comes to Microsoft right?
Not saying it's necessarily wrong...just that it might not be accurate either.
A new product - Skype Chat Roulette!
It's not a bug...it's a feature...
Where security budgets are unlimited, that would be the best approach. But where the budget is limited and even going down, the better approach is to focus on critical hardware (again, what is critical depends on the budget) and the people who install and administer the hardware/software. The most secure hardware still usable by a human being is easily compromised by a person given the right privileges (passwords, etc.). So why not focus on the people given access privileges, and leave that router in the lobby alone until it starts emitting a flood of suspicous data?
An exaggerated analogy. We all know that a large asteroid impacting the Earth is thousands of times more lethal than any known weapon of mass destruction. So why aren't countries alloting the whale's share of their military or homeland security budget toward the elimination of such threat? Because the probability of such fatal impact is low in human or historical terms (even if high in geological or prehistoric terms).
Budgets have to be driven by requirements, not the other way around. I suggest turning it around, then, and looking at it from the perspective that the budget for security (or in this case network equipment from the aspect of security) must depend on the risk and impact analysis. Has it been proven that the holes are there? No. Is the risk there that such holes exist? Yes. Is the impact considerable in the event that the holes exist and are taken advantage of? Yes.
Companies are no longer on a level playing field for security. There is no real separation between business and government in China (for example) and so western business and government agencies that aren't paying enough attention are finding themselves constantly compromised at many levels in no small part due to Chinese military resource and government 'blind eye'.
The other way around - could Iran have proven that their software was infected with Stuxnet? No, probably not. Should they have assumed that it was compromised? Arguably yes. If you get your resources from a real or potential enemy, be it physical or economic war, you have to assume that what you get has holes in it even if you can't prove that they're there.
I understand the point that you're making, but arguably the probability of there being holes in Chinese provided network equipment is probably higher than the probability of a significant asteroid hitting the earth.
An interesting table - good info, thanks -
This is a PR move by the FBI. It makes them APPEAR to be an actor for justice - it matters of little consequence, except those personally involved.
Quite the opposite actually, as the FBI look like a bunch of idiots because they have to go back and check all of this again.
4 Years - and not ONE criminal indictment perused against the "investment" and reserve Banksters. Surely, the FBI could better spend their time and resources to ensure that the entire country is safe from another criminal fraud, costing tens of Billions, no?
They don't have to be mutually exclusive actions.
The cellular network has to know where you are to route calls to you. Back when they first came out, someone published an article about using cellular information to locate a person with his cell phone to within 36 feet.
Yes... additionally, last I recall this information is saved for a period of 7 years, which means not only does the phone system know where you are now, but it also knows where you've been. This means that you can be profiled based on the places you go, and thus there's a chance someone can predict where you're going to be at any given time.
I don't suppose you have a reference source for this?
treason/trzn/
Noun:
1) The crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
2) The action of betraying someone or something.
Disclosing classified intelligence can certainly fall under the definition of treason.
In security, you have to make assumptions based on what is possible or likely, not what is proven. You don't have to prove that your first layer of firewalls can be breached - you assume that they might be and you put another layer of security behind it.
With regard to security of information that China would like very much to have access to, such resource location information (oil, minerals, etc) and industrial designs, military and otherwise, you have to assume that they will do what they can to get at such information.
Buying equipment and/or software from manufacturers/developers that are more or less owned by the country in question, in this case China, you should assume that such equipment is compromised from the get go even if such hasn't been proven, because the possibility and the motivation both strongly exist.
Arguably you could still use two different cloud providers after verifying (and continuing to verify over time) that the infrastructure (and connectivity to it) is actually redundant.
None of this infrastructure should be on the Internet anyway. Anything that we don't want the rest of the world to have access to shouldn't be online.
And don't give me shit about saving money or convenience because at some point you have to have stop trying to save money and do it right, even if it takes more effort.
The issue with the city/provincial critical services is that they didn't have geographical redundancy due to the cost. Yes the building had redundant power, and networks but it was the whole building that was affected by this. At the end of the day, Shaw did fuck up, but all the essential servers completely fucked up.
Cost should not be an issue when we're talking about life or death critical services that are provided by some level of government. You spend what you have to spend to get the job done right, not more, not less. We're also not talking about a town with a population of 16 but a city with a population of 3,645,257 (in 2011). I am quite sure that they had the means to do this the right way and just chose not to.
Whoever designed this should be smacked in the head. You never have critical services relying on a single location. Should have redundancy at every level, including geographic (ie not in the same flood / fault / fire zone).
"...protecting any users from losing their access."
This had nothing to do with protecting users. This was because the ISPs didn't want to be overwhelmed with support calls and have to deal with X ignorant and pissed off customers who don't know DNSChanger from a hot dog and who will just blame the ISP for any outage.
The sooner capitalism gets destabilized due to increases of productivity resulting in a lack of work to go around for people to earn a living, the quicker we will start investigating and experimenting with how to build a post-scarcity economy. Progress does not apply to technology alone, it works on society as well.
Don't be in too much of a rush because until we have the pre-requisite virtually unlimited power and materials needed for a post-scarcity economy, not to mention the global will to make it happen, we're more likely to end up in another great depression and / or sliding backwards to where only the rich have what they need.
As it is the powers that be in the East think that workers in the West are vastly underworked and overpaid and yet, thanks to the globality of things, we are now competing against them which is bringing out standard of living down just as it's bringing theirs up.
Post-scarcity is a nice dream but it isn't going to happen in our lifetimes, if ever.