The corpse of another fond childhood memory to be poked and prodded over - and ultimately ruined - by deluded old men. Much of Monty Python's appeal stemmed from poking fun at the establishment, at ridiculing societal norms. Now they are part of the establishment.
Now there's an institution that doesn't get enough scrutiny, especially the financial news channels. Bloomberg and their ilk aren't so far removed from Fox and Sky (or CNN) in terms of the actual product they deliver, which is sensationalist tripe, delivered by eye candy.
What passes for journalism today is often little more than a series "factoids" carefully chosen to fit a particular narrative - pro bono omnium hominum.
Exactly. Every supervisor I've had for the past decade has known that I read Slashdot on the job.
Slashdot on the job!? You were lucky. I got a stern warning and dressing down in front of my co-workers when I was caught browsing Slashdot. Sometimes it really sucks working for Hustler.
Evan, you stupid stupid fuck. Don't make it worse that in already is. This is an invitation to escalation - because the US security apparatus is run by paranoid, unimaginative, and autocratic morons. Cop at a traffic stop x 100. Most of the technically-minded among us who have to endure air travel have already thought about this sort of shit ad nauseam, and you know what? It would be extremely easy to put something together. Some matches and deodorant/hairspray and you've got a mini-flamethrower. Metal cans can easily be fashioned into a very sharp blade. Glass fragments too. But you had to go ahead and show us all how very clever you are, you stupid, smug fuck.
Everybody can now look forward to two security screenings and the occasional body cavity search, and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.
This guy again? He's like that over-friendly, know-it-all co-worker from your dad's office who would come to your parents' Christmas party and try to show off his worldliness (in spite of his role as a custodial engineer, just so you know) but in the end made you feel uncomfortable and socially awkward even though you were only six.
Of course they will look at the images. The problem arises because of the scale of the system: it can potentially sweep through tens of thousands of faces and do some cross-referencing of names and locations and oh look here it looks like someone who looks like so-and-so was at these places at these times and gee that's pretty compelling evidence because otherwise statistically it would be one hell of a coincidence that they weren't somehow involved in the crime, so likely they are guilty, when in fact it was nothing more than a coincidence. People have been convicted on much less. But, hell, in this society people seem to be OK with sending innocent people to jail as long as we get most of the bad ones (and as long as it isn't them).
You seem to underestimate the mercenary nature of US law enforcement. If they have you in their sights, they can and will use everything they have against you, both within and without a court of law. Just ask Aaron Swartz.
Is that when it comes to their work, they are essentially amoral. The likely use of a technology is secondary to the intellectual challenges posed by a scientific or engineering problem. The main thing is that a problem is "neat". Throw in a little bit of competition to get hearts racing and all managers have to do is sit back and wait for results. Thus we get crossbows, machine guns, nerve gas, nuclear warheads, smart bombs, mortgage-backed securities and surveillance systems. How many of the people who built these clevilish devices ever stopped to ask themselves: should I be doing this?. Maybe quite a few, but it still didn't stop most of them.
Sadly, I think this situation is unavoidable, for you always encounter the argument: "better that we build it before somebody else does". Which I suppose is a valid point: in this world it's either fuck or be fucked, and morality don't enter into it. If only I hadn't been raised on a steady diet of moral platitudes and stories of good triumphing over evil, I could be more at peace with this reality.
The false positive problem is going to become a real nightmare for some unfortunate individuals accused of crimes based on incorrect identification by this system, especially if it gains enough traction in courts of law and enough precedent is established. You could also envision a scenario where certain unsavory types end up gaming the system to frame others for their crimes.
On one hand it's just a tool which can be used for good or ill. Unfortunately for the average citizen, law enforcement has a tendency to use all of the tools at its disposal against you in a court of law.
I don't think Venezuela has quite reached this point. Certainly not "most", certainly not enough. And the revolution, if and when it comes, will not be televised (for there will be no TVs).
Then again, what the hell do I know? I'm basing this assessment on a passing knowledge gleaned from a handful of magazine articles and the movie "Bananas".
The stock is ridiculously priced at 208 times trailing earnings, 48 times 2014 consensus earnings estimates, more than 10 times book value, and 18 times revenue.
Once investors realize that FB is no longer growing - especially that young eyeballs and thumbs have moved elsewhere - they will also realize that it will never live up to its (admittedly unrealistic) future earnings estimates. At which point the stock price will plummet.
That being said, I slightly retract my previous statement: FB won't die out completely, it will merely linger.
Eventually the people in his own country are going to wake up to the consequences of his policy of thuggery and theft.
They will wake up and proceed to blame their nightmares on all the wrong parties. It's not about controlling the economy, it's really about controlling hearts and minds. Look at the Perons in Argentina. Hell, look at Argentina today. When the bank forecloses on a house, the children will usually excoriate the bank as the villain, not the profligate parents who spent way beyond their means. The key here is to ensure your populace remains childlike and uninformed.
That's what this amounts to. And lost revenue. I've lost count of the number of times where I've been out in public and overheard pieces of a song I liked and committed key phrases to memory to google later. Never fails to find the song. (And frankly, sometimes the results are embarrassing. I like that shit?!)
Well, as long as it's legal, I see no ethical dilemmas. And as long as I can make up laws with no oversight I don't see any practical dilemmas either.
The distinguishing mark of a true criminal (and not simply a lawbreaker) is an extralegal mentality: "the law applies to others (and with extreme prejudice), but not to me." To these people the law is often mrely a tool to achieve political ends - though sometimes it is an obstacle - but in and of itself is meaningless. Unfortunately, many of these people end up running for democratic office. And winning.
Slashdot Mirror
The corpse of another fond childhood memory to be poked and prodded over - and ultimately ruined - by deluded old men. Much of Monty Python's appeal stemmed from poking fun at the establishment, at ridiculing societal norms. Now they are part of the establishment.
Now there's an institution that doesn't get enough scrutiny, especially the financial news channels. Bloomberg and their ilk aren't so far removed from Fox and Sky (or CNN) in terms of the actual product they deliver, which is sensationalist tripe, delivered by eye candy.
What passes for journalism today is often little more than a series "factoids" carefully chosen to fit a particular narrative - pro bono omnium hominum.
OK, guys, no cruisers within 20 minutes from here - let's hit them.
Do you live in Nebraska?
Exactly. Every supervisor I've had for the past decade has known that I read Slashdot on the job.
Slashdot on the job!? You were lucky. I got a stern warning and dressing down in front of my co-workers when I was caught browsing Slashdot. Sometimes it really sucks working for Hustler.
It's not political correctness when it's an obscene understatement made for comic effect, but in your case...
WHOOOSH!
( o_o)
"Well it looks like..."
( o_o)-> ~O-O
"the sky..."
(~O_O)
"was the limit."
YYYYYYEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Evan, you stupid stupid fuck. Don't make it worse that in already is. This is an invitation to escalation - because the US security apparatus is run by paranoid, unimaginative, and autocratic morons. Cop at a traffic stop x 100. Most of the technically-minded among us who have to endure air travel have already thought about this sort of shit ad nauseam, and you know what? It would be extremely easy to put something together. Some matches and deodorant/hairspray and you've got a mini-flamethrower. Metal cans can easily be fashioned into a very sharp blade. Glass fragments too. But you had to go ahead and show us all how very clever you are, you stupid, smug fuck.
Everybody can now look forward to two security screenings and the occasional body cavity search, and we'll have assholes like Evan to thank for it.
Stephen Wolfram is the George Lucas of scientific computing.
First a new kind of SCIENCE, now a new kind of PROGRAMMING.
Can't wait for a new kind of LOVE.
Chance has been working pretty hard lately, and from what I hear he is very thorough.
This guy again? He's like that over-friendly, know-it-all co-worker from your dad's office who would come to your parents' Christmas party and try to show off his worldliness (in spite of his role as a custodial engineer, just so you know) but in the end made you feel uncomfortable and socially awkward even though you were only six.
Of course they will look at the images. The problem arises because of the scale of the system: it can potentially sweep through tens of thousands of faces and do some cross-referencing of names and locations and oh look here it looks like someone who looks like so-and-so was at these places at these times and gee that's pretty compelling evidence because otherwise statistically it would be one hell of a coincidence that they weren't somehow involved in the crime, so likely they are guilty, when in fact it was nothing more than a coincidence. People have been convicted on much less. But, hell, in this society people seem to be OK with sending innocent people to jail as long as we get most of the bad ones (and as long as it isn't them).
You seem to underestimate the mercenary nature of US law enforcement. If they have you in their sights, they can and will use everything they have against you, both within and without a court of law. Just ask Aaron Swartz.
Is that when it comes to their work, they are essentially amoral. The likely use of a technology is secondary to the intellectual challenges posed by a scientific or engineering problem. The main thing is that a problem is "neat". Throw in a little bit of competition to get hearts racing and all managers have to do is sit back and wait for results. Thus we get crossbows, machine guns, nerve gas, nuclear warheads, smart bombs, mortgage-backed securities and surveillance systems. How many of the people who built these clevilish devices ever stopped to ask themselves: should I be doing this?. Maybe quite a few, but it still didn't stop most of them.
Sadly, I think this situation is unavoidable, for you always encounter the argument: "better that we build it before somebody else does". Which I suppose is a valid point: in this world it's either fuck or be fucked, and morality don't enter into it. If only I hadn't been raised on a steady diet of moral platitudes and stories of good triumphing over evil, I could be more at peace with this reality.
The false positive problem is going to become a real nightmare for some unfortunate individuals accused of crimes based on incorrect identification by this system, especially if it gains enough traction in courts of law and enough precedent is established. You could also envision a scenario where certain unsavory types end up gaming the system to frame others for their crimes.
On one hand it's just a tool which can be used for good or ill. Unfortunately for the average citizen, law enforcement has a tendency to use all of the tools at its disposal against you in a court of law.
I don't think Venezuela has quite reached this point. Certainly not "most", certainly not enough. And the revolution, if and when it comes, will not be televised (for there will be no TVs).
Then again, what the hell do I know? I'm basing this assessment on a passing knowledge gleaned from a handful of magazine articles and the movie "Bananas".
The problem that Facebook faces is that much of its current stock price critically hinges on the belief that it is a "growth" stock. Look at some of the numbers ( http://www.thestreet.com/story/12043406/1/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-facebook.html ):
The stock is ridiculously priced at 208 times trailing earnings, 48 times 2014 consensus earnings estimates, more than 10 times book value, and 18 times revenue.
Once investors realize that FB is no longer growing - especially that young eyeballs and thumbs have moved elsewhere - they will also realize that it will never live up to its (admittedly unrealistic) future earnings estimates. At which point the stock price will plummet.
That being said, I slightly retract my previous statement: FB won't die out completely, it will merely linger.
As go the teenagers, so goes the industry.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/nov/10/teenagers-messenger-apps-facebook-exodus
With all this social networking shit, perception is key: once FB is no longer consider cool or the "in-thing", it's fucked. Like Myspace fucked.
Eventually the people in his own country are going to wake up to the consequences of his policy of thuggery and theft.
They will wake up and proceed to blame their nightmares on all the wrong parties. It's not about controlling the economy, it's really about controlling hearts and minds. Look at the Perons in Argentina. Hell, look at Argentina today. When the bank forecloses on a house, the children will usually excoriate the bank as the villain, not the profligate parents who spent way beyond their means. The key here is to ensure your populace remains childlike and uninformed.
Without lyric sites I would have never learned about [David Lowery's] music.
Are you saying it's like rain on your wedding day?
That's what this amounts to. And lost revenue. I've lost count of the number of times where I've been out in public and overheard pieces of a song I liked and committed key phrases to memory to google later. Never fails to find the song. (And frankly, sometimes the results are embarrassing. I like that shit?!)
"We have no comment to make on this particular story."
How is this a response?
When the next iPhone will be curved?
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/13/11/11/0353252/apple-developing-curve-screen-iphones-and-improved-sensors
The "think of the children!" canard. I was expecting you sooner [casually takes a pull from an oversized brandy snifter].
Like naming a new captain to the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.
Well, as long as it's legal, I see no ethical dilemmas. And as long as I can make up laws with no oversight I don't see any practical dilemmas either.
The distinguishing mark of a true criminal (and not simply a lawbreaker) is an extralegal mentality: "the law applies to others (and with extreme prejudice), but not to me." To these people the law is often mrely a tool to achieve political ends - though sometimes it is an obstacle - but in and of itself is meaningless. Unfortunately, many of these people end up running for democratic office. And winning.