I can understand the fascination with "covert" leaks - there might appear to be a certain emotionally sensational quality about it, to the uninvolved and/or uninformed observer. When someone takes the security of a country, a governmental branch, or even a private enterprise as if it was "fair game" to breach the security of which for their own personal political statement, then it becomes dangerous. Considering so far as such statements would ultimately backfire, can we not learn to be more responsible as citizens and as people?
If there's a matter of transparency one wishes for, one really should "talk it out", and talk it out patiently, before so much as attempting to open up, to the public, what is not one's own to open up, in the first place - and furthermore, before endangering anyone whom the information would affect directly and personally. If one talks it out, beforehand, one really might come to recognize one's own naivete, before having us all pay a cost for one's own little wish to make a political statement.
I cannot argue to dreams and wishes, I can only argue to facts. Private information is private information. That, itself, should be fact enough.
The story could be summarized, roughly, as so: Bureaucrats continue a new iteration of an old legacy in developing a further exaggerated sense of state control, in response to a perceived sense of national threat - this time, endeavoring to revoke some of the citizen's newer liberties, in endeavoring to develop (and substitute, therewith) a notion of "State-owned personal privacy" (TM)
(DNRTA)
I'd like to believe that the pragmatic arguments against it will be enough. I'm not familiar with the UK's own governmental charters, so I cannot argue more to the principles of the matter. I'm sure that the Open Rights Group might be able to chime in on the matter, though. Cheers to them.
My being a non-expert, decisively, about computer games, I know that I mostly like story-telling games. I like a compelling narrative in an alternate reality simulation, such that a game represents - for instance, Dragon Age Origins, and Half Life 2. In my opinion, HL2 itself makes the most superbly well crafted and well presented scifi narrative of any scifi game I've ever seen - and I've seen...some few.
DAO, then, I think tops it in the playability-with-narrative field - by far, in contrast to the dragging storyline of Mass Effect.
Thinking of DAO, I like The Witcher 2 in its plot - I think it has a really intriguing plot - but to me, it's awkward in the playability (namely for player actions and player controls), and too heavy-handed on the graphics. (Granted, I'm not trying to impress anyone, when I say this.)
Heck, I even like the story-telling in Ur-Quan Masters - that, along with the planetary lander bits. Those are fun. It's a slow game, I know, and life is just so fast-paced, these days....?
I like Flatout Ultimate Carnage and Burnout: Paradise, also. Those are fun driving games, where crashing doesn't result in injury. In Flatout, it even results in "points."
I don't think FPS games without a notable narrative are so fun, though. That's my own view on the FPS genre. If there's no storyline, I start to ask myself, "Why am I here, playing this alternate reality simulation, again?" I'm more literary, though. Some fewer of us are, these days.
I'm not impressed, sorry. If they would've applied that $30 mil as an investment in the development of privatized human spaceflight - considering the number of highly skilled jobs that must naturally result from such efforts - then I might be impressed. Monied showoffs, on the other hand - not impressive, really not impressive.
While the scientific nature of some methodologies may be debatable, and one would no doubt be able to glean any number of examples of "scientifically unprofessional" conduct (such as, mistaking agenda for hard data) by social scientists practicing in their stated field of expertise, but the scientific validity of social science studies overall is - at worst - debatable.
On a more personal level: I, for one, would honestly welcome if you would like to contribute to the debate as such.Personally, I plan on studying at the university, with a minor in cultural anthropology, some few months from now. Perhaps a simple debate as to the scientific validity of the field could be frankly edifying.
On one hand, I'd like to say: Well that's fine - I mean, who wouldn't think it's fair for the US federal government to engage in behaviors effectively equating to broad-based online stalking.
On the other hand, I'd like to respond: Well, but you know what, how is so far different than what any large-scale web-monitoring houses would do, in the pretense of developing "metrics" for purpose of selling that data to various sales-oriented firms?
For all the situations in which science has been misappropriated by government, in the leveraging of a merely political agenda, the government doesn't get all the credit - though, on their behalf, it could take a small bookcase just to document all the cases of which, those on and off the books.
I think it's refreshing to see an acknowledgement that such conflict occurs - between rational science and overall political whim, presently and historically.
Of course, in just a few minutes, I'm sure we'll all forget we even read this article. Adio, brave new world.
It's looking like the patent courts - in a manner of speaking, as I suppose there is really no single "patent court" - like the courts are becoming a sort of platform for marketing by obscure companies with uncertain patents on file - but not just any obscure companies, obscure companies with lawyers. Well, that's the judiciary's side of things to address.
Practically speaking, though, Shakespeare wrote those first - or, as far as we can tell, his name is on 'em, and my point is that they were written by someone who put those words together in some manner that - more than making sense - is rather eloquent. I suppose that I fail to see the scientific contribution of the achievement.
Now, if they'd chosen Harry Potter, well I'm sure that would have been quite an achievement in marketing. Shakespeare is so old-hat, it's as if the English language evolved from nowhere...
I'm going to endeavor to make a comment to this matter, without picking up any agenda about it.
Conservation of any natural or manufactured resource makes simple sense, as does a behavior of taking an approach in which we ensure the sustainability of our own economic mechanisms, also ensuring the sustainability of available natural and manufactured resources and our industrial and individual reliance on the same.
Granted, to say that without trying to appeal to any common agenda, it might seem as though it was to waste my breath. I don't suppose rationality needs an agenda, though, for its tenets to be proved, now and in the long run.
I'd like to suggest that all patents are inherently weak, until proved in court. Imagine though one may, about the weight of a patent outside of an actual court case, and regardless of how much the thought of a company's ownership of patents may be forwarded as part of an agenda towards stockholders, but practically speaking, a patent has no practical use except as leverage in any legal proceedings for protecting a supposed invention allegedly addressed by the patent.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were, or at least in the legal system's pudding.
I'm sure it's all a part of a very complex non-linear algorithm, no doubt developed by the infallible Bill Gates over a scone and a cup of Earl Grey, as he meditated about the profitability of a butterfly in China. Or, it's all they've got. Maybe both!
There's a book, titled Divide or Conqueror, by Diana McLain Smith, in which Smith discusses the disagreements between Steve Jobs and John Sculley, back in the 1980's, at Apple. Judging by the discussion Smith presents, in that book, I suppose it could be said that the disagreement was over whether or not Jobs would be allowed to lead. The proof would appear to be in the proverbial pudding, as to that.
Leadership is a tricky thing to do (quite generally speaking, at that). My opinion is that Steve Jobs had not only the vision and the motivation, but also some terrifically useful ideas with regards to the domain of expertise of the business he lead - namely the Apple company, and by indirection, some broader part of the tech industry, as well.
To voice a more acrimonious opinion: IMO, Jobs teh shytte, and Bill Gates is teh poz3r. Well, people make myths and heroes however we will, anyway. Cheers, and a virtiaul +5 on your comment
I'm afraid that the previous presidential administration did not allow for such cultural discourse about the matter as it must naturally merit, given the specialized concerns on all sides of the arguments, with regards to stem cell research. Hopefully this administration will find an opportunity to begin a culturally, socially beneficial discussion about the matters, though it must ultimately be a matter decided by the people.
Good question. I guess that one would reasonably expect that the cel-phone owner having legal, though sensitive information on a mobile phone or other mobile device, that the one would password-protect that information, and/or would otherwise secure it so as to safeguard the interests of anyone who may be negatively affected if that information was released or otherwise viewed beyond its natural context. I wouldn't imagine the decision sets a precedent in regards to that.
I'm afraid that the SCOTUS might innately disagree - as would be their natural place to, in addressing unconstitutional legislation, amiright?
Nannystate, onwards! Until we are *all* the prisoners to the Nanny's great whim! Share that obsessive-compulsive behaviorism, people, that's just what the sovereign nation needs - not!
/ While listening to the Thomas Jefferson Hour. It may have affected my choice of vernacular.
/oblig reference to a book by T.H. White (and not)/
Well, seriously, the only reason I can guess for why the Zune is still on the market is because Microsoft has a large budget for keeping it there. There are plenty of arguments about the methods and approach of the Apple company, but in all their Apple-ness, the iPod/iPhone/iPad platform really is the trump onto anything similar.
I'm not one to suspect Microsoft of developing innovative designs, ever, so (I"ll admit), I haven't even bothered to take a look at the Zune platform (or the article, heh). To my own ears, it has the ring of a flash in the pan, simply enough.
Me, I'd be too preoccupied with the burning question, "I wonder how the Ren and Stimpy show would look, on that big screen?" too much to actually get the job done...
As far as data modeling for comp sec work, so that one wouldn't need a huge screen to get a useful view on a huge data set - well, digressing, I guess that's stuff mostly to show off to the boss, too...?
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand the fascination with "covert" leaks - there might appear to be a certain emotionally sensational quality about it, to the uninvolved and/or uninformed observer. When someone takes the security of a country, a governmental branch, or even a private enterprise as if it was "fair game" to breach the security of which for their own personal political statement, then it becomes dangerous. Considering so far as such statements would ultimately backfire, can we not learn to be more responsible as citizens and as people?
If there's a matter of transparency one wishes for, one really should "talk it out", and talk it out patiently, before so much as attempting to open up, to the public, what is not one's own to open up, in the first place - and furthermore, before endangering anyone whom the information would affect directly and personally. If one talks it out, beforehand, one really might come to recognize one's own naivete, before having us all pay a cost for one's own little wish to make a political statement.
I cannot argue to dreams and wishes, I can only argue to facts. Private information is private information. That, itself, should be fact enough.
The story could be summarized, roughly, as so: Bureaucrats continue a new iteration of an old legacy in developing a further exaggerated sense of state control, in response to a perceived sense of national threat - this time, endeavoring to revoke some of the citizen's newer liberties, in endeavoring to develop (and substitute, therewith) a notion of "State-owned personal privacy" (TM)
(DNRTA)
I'd like to believe that the pragmatic arguments against it will be enough. I'm not familiar with the UK's own governmental charters, so I cannot argue more to the principles of the matter. I'm sure that the Open Rights Group might be able to chime in on the matter, though. Cheers to them.
My being a non-expert, decisively, about computer games, I know that I mostly like story-telling games. I like a compelling narrative in an alternate reality simulation, such that a game represents - for instance, Dragon Age Origins, and Half Life 2. In my opinion, HL2 itself makes the most superbly well crafted and well presented scifi narrative of any scifi game I've ever seen - and I've seen ...some few.
DAO, then, I think tops it in the playability-with-narrative field - by far, in contrast to the dragging storyline of Mass Effect.
Thinking of DAO, I like The Witcher 2 in its plot - I think it has a really intriguing plot - but to me, it's awkward in the playability (namely for player actions and player controls), and too heavy-handed on the graphics. (Granted, I'm not trying to impress anyone, when I say this.)
Heck, I even like the story-telling in Ur-Quan Masters - that, along with the planetary lander bits. Those are fun. It's a slow game, I know, and life is just so fast-paced, these days....?
I like Flatout Ultimate Carnage and Burnout: Paradise, also. Those are fun driving games, where crashing doesn't result in injury. In Flatout, it even results in "points."
I don't think FPS games without a notable narrative are so fun, though. That's my own view on the FPS genre. If there's no storyline, I start to ask myself, "Why am I here, playing this alternate reality simulation, again?" I'm more literary, though. Some fewer of us are, these days.
I'm not impressed, sorry. If they would've applied that $30 mil as an investment in the development of privatized human spaceflight - considering the number of highly skilled jobs that must naturally result from such efforts - then I might be impressed. Monied showoffs, on the other hand - not impressive, really not impressive.
{Insert oblig. Borg reference, mutated for originality}
----
All Your Bots Are Belong To Bob - Anon.
While the scientific nature of some methodologies may be debatable, and one would no doubt be able to glean any number of examples of "scientifically unprofessional" conduct (such as, mistaking agenda for hard data) by social scientists practicing in their stated field of expertise, but the scientific validity of social science studies overall is - at worst - debatable.
On a more personal level: I, for one, would honestly welcome if you would like to contribute to the debate as such.Personally, I plan on studying at the university, with a minor in cultural anthropology, some few months from now. Perhaps a simple debate as to the scientific validity of the field could be frankly edifying.
Cheers.
On one hand, I'd like to say: Well that's fine - I mean, who wouldn't think it's fair for the US federal government to engage in behaviors effectively equating to broad-based online stalking.
On the other hand, I'd like to respond: Well, but you know what, how is so far different than what any large-scale web-monitoring houses would do, in the pretense of developing "metrics" for purpose of selling that data to various sales-oriented firms?
----
Peace sells, but who's buying?
- Megadeth
For all the situations in which science has been misappropriated by government, in the leveraging of a merely political agenda, the government doesn't get all the credit - though, on their behalf, it could take a small bookcase just to document all the cases of which, those on and off the books.
I think it's refreshing to see an acknowledgement that such conflict occurs - between rational science and overall political whim, presently and historically.
Of course, in just a few minutes, I'm sure we'll all forget we even read this article. Adio, brave new world.
...news at 4:11
"Now back to you, Bob"
It's looking like the patent courts - in a manner of speaking, as I suppose there is really no single "patent court" - like the courts are becoming a sort of platform for marketing by obscure companies with uncertain patents on file - but not just any obscure companies, obscure companies with lawyers. Well, that's the judiciary's side of things to address.
In other words: Yawn. Next news item?
...and Daddy Warbucks got some dough - in a manner of speaking, as it were, etc und so weiter.
....wait for it .... Smynet! (Someone typoed)
Practically speaking, though, Shakespeare wrote those first - or, as far as we can tell, his name is on 'em, and my point is that they were written by someone who put those words together in some manner that - more than making sense - is rather eloquent. I suppose that I fail to see the scientific contribution of the achievement.
Now, if they'd chosen Harry Potter, well I'm sure that would have been quite an achievement in marketing. Shakespeare is so old-hat, it's as if the English language evolved from nowhere...
I'm going to endeavor to make a comment to this matter, without picking up any agenda about it.
Conservation of any natural or manufactured resource makes simple sense, as does a behavior of taking an approach in which we ensure the sustainability of our own economic mechanisms, also ensuring the sustainability of available natural and manufactured resources and our industrial and individual reliance on the same.
Granted, to say that without trying to appeal to any common agenda, it might seem as though it was to waste my breath. I don't suppose rationality needs an agenda, though, for its tenets to be proved, now and in the long run.
I'd like to suggest that all patents are inherently weak, until proved in court. Imagine though one may, about the weight of a patent outside of an actual court case, and regardless of how much the thought of a company's ownership of patents may be forwarded as part of an agenda towards stockholders, but practically speaking, a patent has no practical use except as leverage in any legal proceedings for protecting a supposed invention allegedly addressed by the patent.
The proof is in the pudding, as it were, or at least in the legal system's pudding.
I'm sure it's all a part of a very complex non-linear algorithm, no doubt developed by the infallible Bill Gates over a scone and a cup of Earl Grey, as he meditated about the profitability of a butterfly in China. Or, it's all they've got. Maybe both!
Cheers.
The force is even stronger with 'im nows ><
RIP, Steve Jobs - so long, and thanks for all the considerate design
There's a book, titled Divide or Conqueror, by Diana McLain Smith, in which Smith discusses the disagreements between Steve Jobs and John Sculley, back in the 1980's, at Apple. Judging by the discussion Smith presents, in that book, I suppose it could be said that the disagreement was over whether or not Jobs would be allowed to lead. The proof would appear to be in the proverbial pudding, as to that.
Leadership is a tricky thing to do (quite generally speaking, at that). My opinion is that Steve Jobs had not only the vision and the motivation, but also some terrifically useful ideas with regards to the domain of expertise of the business he lead - namely the Apple company, and by indirection, some broader part of the tech industry, as well.
To voice a more acrimonious opinion: IMO, Jobs teh shytte, and Bill Gates is teh poz3r. Well, people make myths and heroes however we will, anyway. Cheers, and a virtiaul +5 on your comment
I'm afraid that the previous presidential administration did not allow for such cultural discourse about the matter as it must naturally merit, given the specialized concerns on all sides of the arguments, with regards to stem cell research. Hopefully this administration will find an opportunity to begin a culturally, socially beneficial discussion about the matters, though it must ultimately be a matter decided by the people.
Good question. I guess that one would reasonably expect that the cel-phone owner having legal, though sensitive information on a mobile phone or other mobile device, that the one would password-protect that information, and/or would otherwise secure it so as to safeguard the interests of anyone who may be negatively affected if that information was released or otherwise viewed beyond its natural context. I wouldn't imagine the decision sets a precedent in regards to that.
Dead Kennedys for Emperor. That is all.
[o/t] Man, when's that magic mod hat arrive in the mail, already? >><<
I'm afraid that the SCOTUS might innately disagree - as would be their natural place to, in addressing unconstitutional legislation, amiright?
Nannystate, onwards! Until we are *all* the prisoners to the Nanny's great whim! Share that obsessive-compulsive behaviorism, people, that's just what the sovereign nation needs - not!
/ While listening to the Thomas Jefferson Hour. It may have affected my choice of vernacular.
/oblig reference to a book by T.H. White (and not)/
Well, seriously, the only reason I can guess for why the Zune is still on the market is because Microsoft has a large budget for keeping it there. There are plenty of arguments about the methods and approach of the Apple company, but in all their Apple-ness, the iPod/iPhone/iPad platform really is the trump onto anything similar.
I'm not one to suspect Microsoft of developing innovative designs, ever, so (I"ll admit), I haven't even bothered to take a look at the Zune platform (or the article, heh). To my own ears, it has the ring of a flash in the pan, simply enough.
Nice level-headed point of view, there.
Me, I'd be too preoccupied with the burning question, "I wonder how the Ren and Stimpy show would look, on that big screen?" too much to actually get the job done...
As far as data modeling for comp sec work, so that one wouldn't need a huge screen to get a useful view on a huge data set - well, digressing, I guess that's stuff mostly to show off to the boss, too...?