No offence to you, but I don't give a fuck about your opinion. And normally I wouldn't say it, but since you seem to think it's important to tell everyone what you don't care about...
I find Manning's actions and any information about her history which would go toward explaining them both interesting and important. People do not act in a vacuum.
Humans crave religion, but since we all agreed that the whole Sky Fairy thing was a bit far fetched, we're onto worshipping the Invisible Hand (Green be upon Him) now. So, unless the Invisible Hand (Green be upon Him) deigns to deliver us a solution, it would be sacrilege to intervene.
"Networking" is already annoying, being mostly about forming fake social relationships to advance your career. Click-to-Like networking on the Internet is even worse, as there is no real effort nor assessment of reputation.
...once I have personally spent a few weeks taking one through the centre of London and across the mountains of Spain, rather than watched some other guy entirely choose what route to demonstrate it on.
Sure, I get it: driverless cars are far safer than human-driven cars according to tests performed under the auspices of a dozen people who with a heavy investment in driverless cars. Give random people in random countries some and see how they do.
tl;dr If you blindly and extremely unneighbourly fire off several packets at every single public IPv4 address in non-sequential order to saturate a fat network pipe, it doesn't take much time to get a lot of shit back.
And of course if you have a not completely crap IDS then anything probing your organisation's entire public space within an hour is going to be detected.
Why are they comparing with nmap? That's not designed for probing the entire Internet.
If only it took less than a minute to install Start8 or ClassicShell or something.
Yes, with Win8 they've crippled the shell to make it almost as featureless as stock OS X (this is the bit where people who like Macs jump for the (-1, Disagree) mod option), but - just like OS X and unlike iOS/RT/assorted crippleware - you can install a third party launcher.
First things first: enforcement of all property laws, real and virtual, are "government intervention" and "economic regulation". The law determines who owns what, when and how. (You may say: "No! My personal philosophy determines that!" but that's just the basis used for the law. It's still government regulation which enforces it.)
So, the moment you have any protections on anything beyond the person, you have government economic regulation.
At which point the game for balance of power has already begun.
Yup, they're giving you the same dragon to chase. At least the religious types were clever enough to only make promises about what happens after death...
Considering the USA had nearly a century and a half head start, I wouldn't expect the USSR to have come close to catching up with it. And yet we're talking about differences in life expectancy of a few years, and very nearly irrelevant definitions of "wealth" when we contrast the models of service provision.
For example, when I lived in the US, I was able to earn a lot more money than in the UK. But it was worth a lot less, as private insurance is an inefficient rip-off vs British healthcare and social safety net. There's really little opportunity for comfort in the US except for a small proportion of people: the majority work far more hours than are needed to sustain a decent lifestyle for the whole country. Western continental Europe does so much better.
I have a brief personal experience with the end of the USSR, and my family worked for a car firm which did business there under Khrushchev. Sure, it sucked too, but not in the terrific way caricatured by Western propaganda.
So, it's a "meme" which I've lodged in my head based on personal experience - and a concerted attempt to enjoy and appreciate both extremes. And that's before we bring in the experiences of everyone else.
But people *don't* stick to their ideals, which is why you need a balance of power - in the pragmatic sense, not the idealistic sense. A social democratic country tries to achieve a balance.
It is not related to capitalism per se, but to any system which bases itself on some extreme ideal - communism, capitalism, pacifism, fascism, whatever.
Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.
The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals, allowing enterprise to flourish while ensuring that the individuals who have benefitted contribute toward a strong infrastructure and humane society.
This is a social democracy.
The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.
Musk does have the kind of track record showing he can pull off big, complex engineering projects which are generally regarded as difficult and expensive applications of existing tech. Not only pull them off but do them well, quickly and cheaply.
Citation, please. In particular:
1) What are the "difficult applications" which Musk himself is to be congratulated for? Don't confuse this with e.g. the artificial SpaceX arrangement, where a huge wad of NASA money sponsors experienced engineers who happen to work under the umbrella of a private enterprise merely to suit ideology.
2) What is regarded as "expensive", beyond the usual public-private agreement whereby a big contractor always makes the first hit nearly-free and then spends the rest of eternity milking the Treasury?
SpaceX is even less than another young aerospace government contractor, because while 75 years ago the pioneers existed in the private sphere and fed into government, today the government gives away to the private sector, for no good reason other than some people believe they are owed a cut.
"Hard working" is the opposite of capitalism's philosophy by design.
"Law abiding" is just a risk minimisation strategy.
I know Romania's been dragged from the horror of despotism into the quagmire of neoconservatism, but really, patriotism's never the way forward, nor is pandering to the propaganda of the Protestant work ethic. These guys are just dicks who are taking advantage of the guy on the street.
Find an excuse for the behaviour! It doesn't matter about the particular individual human beings that are suffering, because you have to look at some twisted bigger picture!
Unless it's a white American or European, then a single harm is a tragedy.
There are lots of things which wouldn't work if everyone acted a certain way. There is no need for me to support e.g. any major motion picture, so I shan't. I'm pleased to support live artists and cooperatives, for example.
I'll contribute to the world as well as I can, and take from it as I please, as long as I'm not hurting anyone. I couldn't give a hoot whether rules and regulations and the dullards who stick by them have a problem with that.
So, do you see such cooperatives being able to produce Lord of the Rings and similar?
I'm going to be struck repeatedly for saying that I think the LoTR films are overrated and didn't bring much to the art, but yes, there is no reason why a cooperative model (see e.g. the UK's Co-operative Group and all its smaller affiliates) should come with inherent scale limitations. Technology has made it much easier to do the special effect thing with far fewer resources, if that's what appeals.
They're signing up mostly with one of a few middlemen because marketing+distribution is currently dominated by these few middlemen - this is both a supply and demand side problem, of course. There is nothing inherently bad about hiring someone to help with distribution work, but there is something horrible about half a dozen large companies doing almost all the distribution work.
Funding a cooperative so their members have the means to create is a mile away from paying a subscription to Netflix-and-film-label-and-industry-association or watching Google ads so that these leeches can both profiteer and act as content arbiters.
Anyway, I pay content creators by going to see plays or watching live music. These artists benefit materially from, receive and appreciate support. They contribute toward the community. Even then, I feel no [i]obligation[/i] - there is no art, science or technology which isn't mostly built on earlier ideas and works, and I'm not paying because I see myself as licensing a sound owned by another, but because of the benefit of satisfying the artist's needs.
The greatest undermining of quality content is the lack of demand for quality content in a distributor-dominated system which cares only about quantity of eyeballs.
I am honestly looking forward to a digital content distribution cooperative formed of content creators, free of the shackles of middle-men. Youtube is the end game of free/ad-sponsored content under the choking wing and brand of the distributor, Google, and we need to get as far away from that as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Common sense tells me that it would be obtuse to define gender identity in terms of sex organs.
No offence to you, but I don't give a fuck about your opinion. And normally I wouldn't say it, but since you seem to think it's important to tell everyone what you don't care about...
I find Manning's actions and any information about her history which would go toward explaining them both interesting and important. People do not act in a vacuum.
I've never met a dentist who wasn't just a third rate doctor with steady hands.
I'm not saying there aren't any - I'm saying they're very rare.
Oh, a lot of people pretend to follow a god, but few still live under the yoke of that belief.
tl;dr I have faith in the invisible hand.
Humans crave religion, but since we all agreed that the whole Sky Fairy thing was a bit far fetched, we're onto worshipping the Invisible Hand (Green be upon Him) now. So, unless the Invisible Hand (Green be upon Him) deigns to deliver us a solution, it would be sacrilege to intervene.
"Networking" is already annoying, being mostly about forming fake social relationships to advance your career. Click-to-Like networking on the Internet is even worse, as there is no real effort nor assessment of reputation.
...once I have personally spent a few weeks taking one through the centre of London and across the mountains of Spain, rather than watched some other guy entirely choose what route to demonstrate it on.
Sure, I get it: driverless cars are far safer than human-driven cars according to tests performed under the auspices of a dozen people who with a heavy investment in driverless cars. Give random people in random countries some and see how they do.
Oh, do they mean the IPv4 Internet?
tl;dr If you blindly and extremely unneighbourly fire off several packets at every single public IPv4 address in non-sequential order to saturate a fat network pipe, it doesn't take much time to get a lot of shit back.
And of course if you have a not completely crap IDS then anything probing your organisation's entire public space within an hour is going to be detected.
Why are they comparing with nmap? That's not designed for probing the entire Internet.
If only it took less than a minute to install Start8 or ClassicShell or something.
Yes, with Win8 they've crippled the shell to make it almost as featureless as stock OS X (this is the bit where people who like Macs jump for the (-1, Disagree) mod option), but - just like OS X and unlike iOS/RT/assorted crippleware - you can install a third party launcher.
First things first: enforcement of all property laws, real and virtual, are "government intervention" and "economic regulation". The law determines who owns what, when and how. (You may say: "No! My personal philosophy determines that!" but that's just the basis used for the law. It's still government regulation which enforces it.)
So, the moment you have any protections on anything beyond the person, you have government economic regulation.
At which point the game for balance of power has already begun.
Yup, they're giving you the same dragon to chase. At least the religious types were clever enough to only make promises about what happens after death...
The pulpit's across the street, luv.
Considering the USA had nearly a century and a half head start, I wouldn't expect the USSR to have come close to catching up with it. And yet we're talking about differences in life expectancy of a few years, and very nearly irrelevant definitions of "wealth" when we contrast the models of service provision.
For example, when I lived in the US, I was able to earn a lot more money than in the UK. But it was worth a lot less, as private insurance is an inefficient rip-off vs British healthcare and social safety net. There's really little opportunity for comfort in the US except for a small proportion of people: the majority work far more hours than are needed to sustain a decent lifestyle for the whole country. Western continental Europe does so much better.
I have a brief personal experience with the end of the USSR, and my family worked for a car firm which did business there under Khrushchev. Sure, it sucked too, but not in the terrific way caricatured by Western propaganda.
So, it's a "meme" which I've lodged in my head based on personal experience - and a concerted attempt to enjoy and appreciate both extremes. And that's before we bring in the experiences of everyone else.
Which specific outlier are you complaining about please?
But people *don't* stick to their ideals, which is why you need a balance of power - in the pragmatic sense, not the idealistic sense. A social democratic country tries to achieve a balance.
It is not related to capitalism per se, but to any system which bases itself on some extreme ideal - communism, capitalism, pacifism, fascism, whatever.
Why the straw man about some type of government being incorruptible?
My point was that everything is corruptible, so don't allow any single entity to become so powerful that corruption of or by it can ruin a society.
Capitalism promotes competitive, selfish activity.
Eventually, the winners realise that they can corrupt the system of government too. By hook or crook - psychology or guns.
The only effective society is one which overtly and deliberately puts a cap on power, both of the government and of private individuals, allowing enterprise to flourish while ensuring that the individuals who have benefitted contribute toward a strong infrastructure and humane society.
This is a social democracy.
The USSR sucked. The USA sucks. They were the same thing but with "apparatchik" instead of "management" to label the guys running the show. Life under either is glorious for those at the top, and a shitty struggle for the average person.
Musk does have the kind of track record showing he can pull off big, complex engineering projects which are generally regarded as difficult and expensive applications of existing tech. Not only pull them off but do them well, quickly and cheaply.
Citation, please. In particular:
1) What are the "difficult applications" which Musk himself is to be congratulated for? Don't confuse this with e.g. the artificial SpaceX arrangement, where a huge wad of NASA money sponsors experienced engineers who happen to work under the umbrella of a private enterprise merely to suit ideology.
2) What is regarded as "expensive", beyond the usual public-private agreement whereby a big contractor always makes the first hit nearly-free and then spends the rest of eternity milking the Treasury?
SpaceX is even less than another young aerospace government contractor, because while 75 years ago the pioneers existed in the private sphere and fed into government, today the government gives away to the private sector, for no good reason other than some people believe they are owed a cut.
"Hard working" is the opposite of capitalism's philosophy by design.
"Law abiding" is just a risk minimisation strategy.
I know Romania's been dragged from the horror of despotism into the quagmire of neoconservatism, but really, patriotism's never the way forward, nor is pandering to the propaganda of the Protestant work ethic. These guys are just dicks who are taking advantage of the guy on the street.
Find an excuse for the behaviour! It doesn't matter about the particular individual human beings that are suffering, because you have to look at some twisted bigger picture!
Unless it's a white American or European, then a single harm is a tragedy.
There are lots of things which wouldn't work if everyone acted a certain way. There is no need for me to support e.g. any major motion picture, so I shan't. I'm pleased to support live artists and cooperatives, for example.
I'll contribute to the world as well as I can, and take from it as I please, as long as I'm not hurting anyone. I couldn't give a hoot whether rules and regulations and the dullards who stick by them have a problem with that.
So, do you see such cooperatives being able to produce Lord of the Rings and similar?
I'm going to be struck repeatedly for saying that I think the LoTR films are overrated and didn't bring much to the art, but yes, there is no reason why a cooperative model (see e.g. the UK's Co-operative Group and all its smaller affiliates) should come with inherent scale limitations. Technology has made it much easier to do the special effect thing with far fewer resources, if that's what appeals.
They're signing up mostly with one of a few middlemen because marketing+distribution is currently dominated by these few middlemen - this is both a supply and demand side problem, of course. There is nothing inherently bad about hiring someone to help with distribution work, but there is something horrible about half a dozen large companies doing almost all the distribution work.
Funding a cooperative so their members have the means to create is a mile away from paying a subscription to Netflix-and-film-label-and-industry-association or watching Google ads so that these leeches can both profiteer and act as content arbiters.
Anyway, I pay content creators by going to see plays or watching live music. These artists benefit materially from, receive and appreciate support. They contribute toward the community. Even then, I feel no [i]obligation[/i] - there is no art, science or technology which isn't mostly built on earlier ideas and works, and I'm not paying because I see myself as licensing a sound owned by another, but because of the benefit of satisfying the artist's needs.
The greatest undermining of quality content is the lack of demand for quality content in a distributor-dominated system which cares only about quantity of eyeballs.
I am honestly looking forward to a digital content distribution cooperative formed of content creators, free of the shackles of middle-men. Youtube is the end game of free/ad-sponsored content under the choking wing and brand of the distributor, Google, and we need to get as far away from that as possible.