It is a sad, sad day when people think putting up a link to mtv instead of a credible (read: intelligent) report is convincing to anyone.
I read that article, just like I have read articles by established journalists working for established papers, and found Loder's article to be, simply put, in complete misunderstanding of Moore's work.
Leave mtv and fox to entertainment, they (arguably) do it very well. Don't use them to try and prove a point, because you end up looking like a complete fool.
Do me a favor, bagboy. Find one person, just one, who is sick and can't afford the costs of health care, can't be insured because of their ailments, and just look at them, because its because of your reasoning that is keeping them from it. However, they won't be mad at you. They won't threaten you. Most won't even ask for your help like you say they would.
Universal health care isn't about redistributing wealth my good sir. It's about things that should be provided by a government for the people. You are very much entitled to spend your wealth as you see fit, but as a citizen of this country it is your responsibility to that everyone should have the same right you do.
Health care should not a privilege earned by working hard, taking advantage of opportunities, or studying. It is a basic right that the government should provide for its people.
National defense in this country is a joke. An absolute joke. We are an offensive country (take that how you want), but we are actively engaging enemies. But why even start an offensive abroad when the government feels its not its responsibility to protect the citizen's health.
Please tell me how any logical, ethical person can dispute this? Would you not want it the same for you and your family? If your children become uninsured and ill, do you really want to take the responsibility for their bills, because you feel that paying an extra percent on taxes is something which you can't afford. Wake up man, the amount of money you most likely spend on health care each year could cover the costs of socialised health care in this country.
Seriously, take time and evaluate your arguments before presenting them. Maybe have a intelligent discussion and be open to other opinions, and you will be surprised at how much of a daft opinion you actually have. I did.
So by your logic all of those tobacco, alcohol, firearm lobbies are just doing their part and not actually evil. Trying to spin coverage of a practices pretty universal unethical practices is unethical. If you believe the healthcare companies practice is ethical and you feel like you need to defend it, thats great and you are entitled to your opinion, but the majority of the western world disagrees with you, more importantly the majority of ethical intellectuals disagrees with you.
Protect an unethical corporation/system all you would like. Just don't claim to be doing "good".
Google went a long way with their don't be evil slogan, but now that they are public, it is my opinion that it is time to put it to rest, because it just ain't true no more.
I believe you are correct: If they stopped censorship then they would not be allowed to operate in China. Which everyone agrees isn't good for yahoo monetarily. However, their presence is not exactly good for the Chinese people either because the company is opening the Chinese people up to what many in our world see as human rights violations by reporting them to the government.
If I were a citizen I wouldn't want the company acting as government shills. And since I am a stockholder, I am going to act on my personal moral beliefs and not the beliefs of my wallet. If Yahoo's ethics wasn't driven by their revenues, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Board of Directors Statement and Recommendation AGAINST Stockholder Proposal
Yahoo! shares the proponent's commitment to human rights, and as described in more detail in the board's statement in opposition to proposal no. 6 in this proxy statement, the Company's management team has already instituted practices and initiatives that are designed to assess the implications of the Company's activities and policies and to protect and advance essential freedoms, such as freedom of expression and privacy rights.
To further advance thinking and practices around the promotion of free expression and privacy, Yahoo! is actively engaged in a formal dialogue, co-facilitated by Business for Social Responsibility and the Center for Democracy & Technology, that includes industry counterparts, various human rights groups, academic institutions and socially responsible investors. This diverse group aims to produce a set of global principles and operating procedures on freedom of expression and privacy to guide company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with human rights. The group's goals also include creating an implementation, accountability and governance framework, as well as a forum for sharing ideas.
These practices and initiatives have been developed by Yahoo! management based on its thorough and careful consideration of the inherent complexities associated with operating under the laws of multiple foreign countries. The board of directors believes that Yahoo!'s management team, with its day-to-day involvement in the Company's business operations and its detailed understanding of the legislative and regulatory landscape of the countries in which the Company operates, is in the best position to assess these matters and to make informed judgments as to what practices and policies are most likely to promote the interests of the Company and its stockholders and users.
As a student of the one of the mentioned universities, I have already taken it upon myself to write to my chancellor in response to this story.
I charge other students of mentioned universities to do their duty and protect their university and fellow students in the same manner. Universities should not be punished for anonymizing or protecting the privacy of students as long as due diligence is taken to try and stop copyright infringment.
Do your part and write to those in charge, and tell them that they should defend their university and their students from arbitrary threats from the music cartels.
Prosecutors have enough crime on their hands investigating petty drug offenses and other nonviolent crime, so much so that to add virtual crimes which has no basis for comparison to the real thing, and to do so is insulting even, is ludicrous.
That's the same thing as saying we should investigate every person who plays an FPS because they have the potential for killing, which I would believe to be exactly what someone like Jack Thompson wants.
When the virtual crime becomes real crime, or there are noticable signs of mental illness and an illwill toward other humans, what happens in a virtual world cannot be subjected to real world laws. Because in real life, a victim cannot simply log out.
Don't insult the victims with these stupid casuation links...
Unlikely, given that we are really no where close to even understanding completely everything about our complex brains.
Do we even want to, wouldn't that take away some of the mystery behind humans. Afterall if we can figure ourselves out then doesn't that mean that we aren't really all that complex?
wouldn't that also give us perfect explanations of people's actions making situations predictable violating free will?
afterall if society is ultimately chaotic in terms of our understanding, then wouldn't this be the ultimate control?
You should have assumed that, given that the submitter's name is 'tlockney' which stands for Thomas Lockney.
Afterall isn't first initial followed by last name a standard?
But who's whurley you ask?
Well here's a quick bio about why he is important:
William Hurley is the Chief Architect of Open Source Strategy at BMC Software, Inc. Also known as "whurley", he is responsible for creating BMC's open source agenda and overseeing the company's participation in various free and open source software communities to advance the adoption and integration of BSM solutions. A technology visionary and holder of 11 important patents, whurley brings 16 years of experience in developing groundbreaking technology. He is the Chairman of the Open Management Consortium, a non-profit organization advancing the adoption, development, and integration of open source systems management. Named an IBM Master Inventor, whurley has received numerous awards including an IBM Pervasive Computing Award and Apple Computer Design Award.
Anyway given this impressive resume and of course the fact that he works for a software company definitely gives him the ability to pull figures from his ass and present them as fact.
While I agree with your point, these points are more or less choices made during the design of a program or platform and are made either depending on the project or the company. I believe the article is referring to not only these standard design choices, but also the fact that there are literally infinite numbers of configurations using open source software which go beyond simple design choices, and which most firms want some kind of standard over.
AFAIK, managers don't want to have to spend the time making sure the environment is properly setup when that time could be used to make important design decisions.
Honestly now, am I the only one who see's that the DoD is vulnerable to attacks from outside the net, as a good thing?
This provides the best oversight by the civilians, not purely agents of a government.
This would limit the size and capability of our government and put it as similar to individual power.
The other hand is what happens if a script kiddie takes control where a civil oversight member cannot. Who would you rather your information be held by, the government or some 15 year old?
Trieste departed San Diego on October 5, 1959 on the way to Guam by the freighter Santa Maria to participate in Project Nekton -- a series of very deep dives in the Mariana Trench.
On January 23, 1960, Trieste reached the ocean floor in the Challenger Deep (the deepest southern part of the Mariana Trench), carrying Jacques Piccard (son of Auguste) and Lieutenant Don Walsh, USN. This was the first time a vessel, manned or unmanned, had reached the deepest point in the Earth's oceans. The onboard systems indicated a depth of 11 521 m (37,800 ft), although this was later revised to 10 916 m (35,813 ft), and more accurate measurements made in 1995 have found the Challenger Deep to be slightly shallower, at 10 911 m (35,798 ft).
The descent took 4 hours and 48 minutes before reaching the ocean floor.[1] After passing 9,000 meters one of the outer plexiglas window panes shattered, shaking the entire vessel.[2] The two men spent barely twenty minutes at the ocean floor, eating chocolate bars to keep their strength. The temperature in the cabin was a mere 7C at the time. While on the bottom at maximum depth, Piccard and Walsh (unexpectedly) regained the ability to communicate with the surface ship, USS Wandank II ATA-204, using a sonar/hydrophone voice communications system. [1]. At a speed of almost a mile per second (about five times the speed of sound in air), it took about 7 seconds for a voice message to travel from the craft to the surface ship, and another 7 seconds for answers to return.
While on the bottom, Piccard and Walsh observed small soles and flounders swimming away, proving that certain vertebrate life can withstand all existing extremes of pressure in earth's oceans. They noted that the floor of the Challenger Deep consisted of "diatomaceous ooze".
After leaving the bottom, they undertook their ascent, which required 3 hours, 15 minutes. Since then, no manned craft has ever returned to the Challenger Deep. A Japanese robotic craft Kaiko reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep in 1995. This craft was lost at sea in 2003, leaving no craft in existence capable of reaching these most extreme ocean depths (which, however, represent an extremely tiny fraction of the ocean's bottom area).
4) That's not to say that such a practice isn't sleazy. Frankly, I find this violates googles "do no evil" slogan. This is evil. If I as a small time developer were to introduce one of these types of products and I need to advertise, Google's ads will show up higher ranked and my product will get fewer viewers. In terms of large companies, this isn't as big a deal, because MS and yahoo can turn around and do the same thing with their engines. But when the big boys step on the small boys, I cry unfair.
This is for sponsered ads, not general page results... google has every right to advertise it's own products ahead of yours, and there is nothing immoral or evil about it. You do not like it, don't use their ad services.
here's an analogy:
say you create a small time AM radio station. Do you think it makes sense that you should be able to advertise your station's programming on other stations?
saying that software is 100% bug free, or not exploitable is a complete fallacy.
all software has bugs in it, there is no such thing as a completely secure application.
the point of open source software is the more eyes you have looking at code, the easier it is to find and patch these bugs...
the problem with closed source software is that the bugs aren't easily as found, and certainly not easy to patch, especially since only few have access to the source. So while the bugs exist, they go unfound, generally found first by some obscure hacker who may or may not have the best intentions.
To answer the articles question you have to point out the shortcomings of all programs, and that for ever malicious hacker scanning source code to determine flaws in any given open source project, there will most likely be any number more of benevolent people trying to stop him.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a sad, sad day when people think putting up a link to mtv instead of a credible (read: intelligent) report is convincing to anyone.
I read that article, just like I have read articles by established journalists working for established papers, and found Loder's article to be, simply put, in complete misunderstanding of Moore's work.
Leave mtv and fox to entertainment, they (arguably) do it very well. Don't use them to try and prove a point, because you end up looking like a complete fool.
Do me a favor, bagboy. Find one person, just one, who is sick and can't afford the costs of health care, can't be insured because of their ailments, and just look at them, because its because of your reasoning that is keeping them from it. However, they won't be mad at you. They won't threaten you. Most won't even ask for your help like you say they would.
Universal health care isn't about redistributing wealth my good sir. It's about things that should be provided by a government for the people. You are very much entitled to spend your wealth as you see fit, but as a citizen of this country it is your responsibility to that everyone should have the same right you do.
Health care should not a privilege earned by working hard, taking advantage of opportunities, or studying. It is a basic right that the government should provide for its people.
National defense in this country is a joke. An absolute joke. We are an offensive country (take that how you want), but we are actively engaging enemies. But why even start an offensive abroad when the government feels its not its responsibility to protect the citizen's health.
Please tell me how any logical, ethical person can dispute this? Would you not want it the same for you and your family? If your children become uninsured and ill, do you really want to take the responsibility for their bills, because you feel that paying an extra percent on taxes is something which you can't afford. Wake up man, the amount of money you most likely spend on health care each year could cover the costs of socialised health care in this country.
Seriously, take time and evaluate your arguments before presenting them. Maybe have a intelligent discussion and be open to other opinions, and you will be surprised at how much of a daft opinion you actually have. I did.
So by your logic all of those tobacco, alcohol, firearm lobbies are just doing their part and not actually evil. Trying to spin coverage of a practices pretty universal unethical practices is unethical. If you believe the healthcare companies practice is ethical and you feel like you need to defend it, thats great and you are entitled to your opinion, but the majority of the western world disagrees with you, more importantly the majority of ethical intellectuals disagrees with you.
Protect an unethical corporation/system all you would like. Just don't claim to be doing "good".
Google went a long way with their don't be evil slogan, but now that they are public, it is my opinion that it is time to put it to rest, because it just ain't true no more.
They would, but they cheated their way through Business Ethics on the backs of the engineering majors.
I believe you are correct: If they stopped censorship then they would not be allowed to operate in China. Which everyone agrees isn't good for yahoo monetarily. However, their presence is not exactly good for the Chinese people either because the company is opening the Chinese people up to what many in our world see as human rights violations by reporting them to the government.
If I were a citizen I wouldn't want the company acting as government shills. And since I am a stockholder, I am going to act on my personal moral beliefs and not the beliefs of my wallet. If Yahoo's ethics wasn't driven by their revenues, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Board of Directors Statement and Recommendation AGAINST Stockholder Proposal
Yahoo! shares the proponent's commitment to human rights, and as described in more detail in the board's statement in opposition to proposal no. 6 in this proxy statement, the Company's management team has already instituted practices and initiatives that are designed to assess the implications of the Company's activities and policies and to protect and advance essential freedoms, such as freedom of expression and privacy rights.
To further advance thinking and practices around the promotion of free expression and privacy, Yahoo! is actively engaged in a formal dialogue, co-facilitated by Business for Social Responsibility and the Center for Democracy & Technology, that includes industry counterparts, various human rights groups, academic institutions and socially responsible investors. This diverse group aims to produce a set of global principles and operating procedures on freedom of expression and privacy to guide company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with human rights. The group's goals also include creating an implementation, accountability and governance framework, as well as a forum for sharing ideas.
These practices and initiatives have been developed by Yahoo! management based on its thorough and careful consideration of the inherent complexities associated with operating under the laws of multiple foreign countries. The board of directors believes that Yahoo!'s management team, with its day-to-day involvement in the Company's business operations and its detailed understanding of the legislative and regulatory landscape of the countries in which the Company operates, is in the best position to assess these matters and to make informed judgments as to what practices and policies are most likely to promote the interests of the Company and its stockholders and users.
Or you could install an electrical outlet into the floor... just a thought.
and i doubt much would happen if you spilled something, unless it seeped in through cracks...
I believe that is the same line of reasoning that caused their genocide...
As a student of the one of the mentioned universities, I have already taken it upon myself to write to my chancellor in response to this story.
I charge other students of mentioned universities to do their duty and protect their university and fellow students in the same manner. Universities should not be punished for anonymizing or protecting the privacy of students as long as due diligence is taken to try and stop copyright infringment.
Do your part and write to those in charge, and tell them that they should defend their university and their students from arbitrary threats from the music cartels.
Investigate a virtual rape? Are you kidding me?
Prosecutors have enough crime on their hands investigating petty drug offenses and other nonviolent crime, so much so that to add virtual crimes which has no basis for comparison to the real thing, and to do so is insulting even, is ludicrous.
That's the same thing as saying we should investigate every person who plays an FPS because they have the potential for killing, which I would believe to be exactly what someone like Jack Thompson wants.
When the virtual crime becomes real crime, or there are noticable signs of mental illness and an illwill toward other humans, what happens in a virtual world cannot be subjected to real world laws. Because in real life, a victim cannot simply log out.
Don't insult the victims with these stupid casuation links...
Unlikely, given that we are really no where close to even understanding completely everything about our complex brains.
Do we even want to, wouldn't that take away some of the mystery behind humans. Afterall if we can figure ourselves out then doesn't that mean that we aren't really all that complex?
wouldn't that also give us perfect explanations of people's actions making situations predictable violating free will?
afterall if society is ultimately chaotic in terms of our understanding, then wouldn't this be the ultimate control?
That amount of oxygen is just under the amount needed to create a stable atmosphere for human life on the sun.
I guess there's always Mercury.
http://wiki.neurostechnology.com/index.php/Neuros_ OSD
The ethernet port is only 10/100, and I highly doubt that it is upgradable via firmware.
You should have assumed that, given that the submitter's name is 'tlockney' which stands for Thomas Lockney.
Afterall isn't first initial followed by last name a standard?
But who's whurley you ask?
Well here's a quick bio about why he is important:
William Hurley is the Chief Architect of Open Source Strategy at BMC Software, Inc. Also known as "whurley", he is responsible for creating BMC's open source agenda and overseeing the company's participation in various free and open source software communities to advance the adoption and integration of BSM solutions. A technology visionary and holder of 11 important patents, whurley brings 16 years of experience in developing groundbreaking technology. He is the Chairman of the Open Management Consortium, a non-profit organization advancing the adoption, development, and integration of open source systems management. Named an IBM Master Inventor, whurley has received numerous awards including an IBM Pervasive Computing Award and Apple Computer Design Award.
Anyway given this impressive resume and of course the fact that he works for a software company definitely gives him the ability to pull figures from his ass and present them as fact.
Troll on, whurley.
While I agree with your point, these points are more or less choices made during the design of a program or platform and are made either depending on the project or the company. I believe the article is referring to not only these standard design choices, but also the fact that there are literally infinite numbers of configurations using open source software which go beyond simple design choices, and which most firms want some kind of standard over.
AFAIK, managers don't want to have to spend the time making sure the environment is properly setup when that time could be used to make important design decisions.
he's the one taking responsibility for it, as well as providing the proof. Who can be certain? I was just referring to direct quotes from the guy.
the hacker claims not to be doing this to gain access to credit card information, but rather to bring valve into bad light.
at least thats what he says here: http://emp.damage-web.net/viewtopic.php?p=62590
I can't see how that is likely, as tears, black mascara, and a bad taste in music doesn't equate to business savvy.
The day I want some 13 year old emo kid brigade to guide me with their "wisdom" will be a cold day in hell.
Honestly now, am I the only one who see's that the DoD is vulnerable to attacks from outside the net, as a good thing?
This provides the best oversight by the civilians, not purely agents of a government.
This would limit the size and capability of our government and put it as similar to individual power.
The other hand is what happens if a script kiddie takes control where a civil oversight member cannot. Who would you rather your information be held by, the government or some 15 year old?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
Trieste departed San Diego on October 5, 1959 on the way to Guam by the freighter Santa Maria to participate in Project Nekton -- a series of very deep dives in the Mariana Trench.
On January 23, 1960, Trieste reached the ocean floor in the Challenger Deep (the deepest southern part of the Mariana Trench), carrying Jacques Piccard (son of Auguste) and Lieutenant Don Walsh, USN. This was the first time a vessel, manned or unmanned, had reached the deepest point in the Earth's oceans. The onboard systems indicated a depth of 11 521 m (37,800 ft), although this was later revised to 10 916 m (35,813 ft), and more accurate measurements made in 1995 have found the Challenger Deep to be slightly shallower, at 10 911 m (35,798 ft).
The descent took 4 hours and 48 minutes before reaching the ocean floor.[1] After passing 9,000 meters one of the outer plexiglas window panes shattered, shaking the entire vessel.[2] The two men spent barely twenty minutes at the ocean floor, eating chocolate bars to keep their strength. The temperature in the cabin was a mere 7C at the time. While on the bottom at maximum depth, Piccard and Walsh (unexpectedly) regained the ability to communicate with the surface ship, USS Wandank II ATA-204, using a sonar/hydrophone voice communications system. [1]. At a speed of almost a mile per second (about five times the speed of sound in air), it took about 7 seconds for a voice message to travel from the craft to the surface ship, and another 7 seconds for answers to return.
While on the bottom, Piccard and Walsh observed small soles and flounders swimming away, proving that certain vertebrate life can withstand all existing extremes of pressure in earth's oceans. They noted that the floor of the Challenger Deep consisted of "diatomaceous ooze".
After leaving the bottom, they undertook their ascent, which required 3 hours, 15 minutes. Since then, no manned craft has ever returned to the Challenger Deep. A Japanese robotic craft Kaiko reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep in 1995. This craft was lost at sea in 2003, leaving no craft in existence capable of reaching these most extreme ocean depths (which, however, represent an extremely tiny fraction of the ocean's bottom area).
hmm, i guess they were full of shit.
4) That's not to say that such a practice isn't sleazy. Frankly, I find this violates googles "do no evil" slogan. This is evil. If I as a small time developer were to introduce one of these types of products and I need to advertise, Google's ads will show up higher ranked and my product will get fewer viewers. In terms of large companies, this isn't as big a deal, because MS and yahoo can turn around and do the same thing with their engines. But when the big boys step on the small boys, I cry unfair.
This is for sponsered ads, not general page results... google has every right to advertise it's own products ahead of yours, and there is nothing immoral or evil about it. You do not like it, don't use their ad services.
here's an analogy:
say you create a small time AM radio station. Do you think it makes sense that you should be able to advertise your station's programming on other stations?
fuck no.
saying that software is 100% bug free, or not exploitable is a complete fallacy.
all software has bugs in it, there is no such thing as a completely secure application.
the point of open source software is the more eyes you have looking at code, the easier it is to find and patch these bugs...
the problem with closed source software is that the bugs aren't easily as found, and certainly not easy to patch, especially since only few have access to the source. So while the bugs exist, they go unfound, generally found first by some obscure hacker who may or may not have the best intentions.
To answer the articles question you have to point out the shortcomings of all programs, and that for ever malicious hacker scanning source code to determine flaws in any given open source project, there will most likely be any number more of benevolent people trying to stop him.
women voting?!?!
thats preposterous!
A fascinating, if somewhat slow-loading, page
Fascinating that he was able to use Voyager 1 to host his site...