You needn't have a totalitarian dictatorship to create a situation where you can bullshit and oppress most of the population.
And it astounds me that within my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to tacitly accepting the equivalent of "papers please, comrade".
And they seem to accept is as a good idea, and completely miss why all of this secret security with absolute power is a really bad idea.
targets included senior U.S. military and diplomatic personnel, congressional personnel, Washington D.C. area journalists, U.S. think tanks, and defense contractors in the U.S. and Israel
You know, you'd really like to hope that organizations like this would be getting more security training.
But, I guess, some of the people who are supposed to work with the press are meant to be complete media whores, and the senior people all think the rules don't apply to them.
I know my company does phishing tests fairly regularly, and if you fail one, you need to go for remedial security training. I think if you fail several, you might get told you should look elsewhere.
IANAL either, but generally speaking, a "licensing agreement" is a contract. And again generally speaking, one is not allowed to change the terms of a contract and make them "retroactive". At least not without the consent of all parties involved. If you did, it would no longer meet the very definition of "contract".
Well, an EULA is a contract. Courts have upheld that the terms of an EULA can be changed arbitrarily by the ones who issued it.
Since you've already agreed to the changes they make in the future, you're hosed.
I mean, just think about it. Could your cable company say "We're going to make you a 'retroactive' customer and charge you for all past years as well"??? Of course not.
Give them time, they're trying. The *AAs would like nothing better than mandatory payment by everybody on the off beat chance they ever see or hear anything.
I'm not advocating it, or saying I agree with it. But retroactively changing the TOS and license for a web site... well, there's already precedent.
Trust me, I don't disagree with you. But, the reality is, it's more or less already happening, and the courts have pretty much upheld it.
bereave [bih-reev] verb (used with object), bereaved or bereft, bereaving. 1. to deprive and make desolate, especially by death (usually followed by of ): Illness bereaved them of their mother. 2. to deprive ruthlessly or by force (usually followed by of ): The war bereaved them of their home. 3. Obsolete. to take away by violence.
Quite frankly, with Sony, any of those is a viable option.
while Media Capture provides access to the user's local audio and video input/output devices
Unless this is 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea.
And, even if it's 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea -- because, let's face it, the security record of IE pretty much guarantees this will get hacked.
The government has NO RIGHT to know what will and won't make me sick.
Except when what can make you sick, can make others sick or even kill them.
If you want the ability to walk around un-immunized and risk your life, maybe you should have to accept civil and criminal liability in the event someone else gets sick.
Because if you being un-immunized causes people to die, and you knew that was a possibility, well, sounds like manslaughter to me.
So out of 7 subjects, 6 with flight experience, 1 was able to follow course headings with an error of 10 degrees. That's pathetic. It's the difference between Baltimore and Washington D.C. (or worse).
Then one was able to land within a "few meters" of the centerline... and that is touted as success? So that means most of the others couldn't hit the runway.
I think the point is that it worked at all. As in, it's new, in its infancy, but very promising technology.
If you're so clever, show us your system which does this. Oh, wait, you don't have one, do you?
It's going to be a long time before I board a 737 with this crap on the pilot's head.
Obviously. Nobody is claiming this is ready for live planes.
What they're saying is they've made the first initial steps with this technology. And initial results in a flight simulator are starting to look like they might be able to make it work.
Why have people on Slashdot started to miss the point entirely?
When Verizon itself is describing these activities as a Title II common carrier, how can the FCC look at broadband internet and continue acting as though it's not a telecommunication network?'
Because the head of the FCC is a former cable and wireless lobbyist.
Wheeler knows all of the dirty tricks these companies use, likely because he was involved in them. Which means there is no way as the chief of the FCC he isn't aware of these shenanigans.
Which means he's quietly happy to allow it, knowing that when he finished his term at the FCC there will be some big fat checks waiting for him for all of his help through the years.
In other words, your regulatory system is broken when you start appointing lobbyists to be your regulators.
It's the fox guarding the hen house. You might as well appoint Bernie Madoff as the head of the SEC.
Because anyone capable of travelling a few hundred light years has also developed other technologies and doesn't need our mineral and water.
Prove that.
If you can't, it's speculative fiction.
What if burning the hydrogen from a vast quantity of water from, say, an ocean, was how you propelled yourself?
We don't know a damned thing about who, what, and how would be travelling a few hundred light years. Not their biology. Not their technology. Not their intent.
I'm sorry, but your emphatic statement is not an actual fact. Unless, of course, you know something the rest of us don't.:-P
why would any one enter conflict over a small planet
Maybe it's a convenient atmosphere for them. Maybe a large ocean can be converted into hydrogen quickly and you burn up the planet in the process. Maybe it's fun.
Any species capable of interstellar travel is going to be able to pull resources out of pure energy.
Well, that's what we mostly assume. Maybe they just scavenge stuff as they go.
They don't mine, or need our water. They don't care what we do, except maybe they observe us and snicker.
In all honesty, if we ever met truly alien life... we have no idea of what we would find, and what they would think of us.
They may look at us as a slave race, food source, a place to lay their eggs or any of a zillion things.
We can make educated guesses by making assumptions about them. But given the sheer number of unknowns, they may or may not have any meaning should it ever happen.
I think it's great to do thought experiments and play what if. But the reality is, at the end of the day, we can't definitely say any of that is actually fact.
So, when you say "don't", "won't", "can't" or "do", "will" and "can" -- you pretty much have to subsitute that for "well, maybe, hopefully at least, that's what my best guess tells me, and it sounds good, so I'm going with it".
Hell, for all you know our kind of planet is needed for the equivalent of the "three seashells" for wiping the arse of some interstellar slug, and it'll just eradicate us while taking a dump without even knowing (or caring) we're here.;-)
And yet, even if you belong to a group, you can't really be said to know every member of that group. So even you might not have the authority to make these generalizations.
And you'll note how I tried very hard to say those generalizations are usually crap.
Our attitudes towards discrimination are not logically consistent, and this dissonance bothers me.
Dude, this is Earth. If you want logically consistent, you'll need to go to Vulcan.
Overall, humans are anything but logical or consistent.
This is such an underrated post. The logic behind "groups we are allowed to stereotype/insult" and "groups we aren't allowed to stereotype/insult" appears very flimsy to me.
Well, it goes something like this... you are free to stereotype/insult any group you are a member of more or less with impunity.:-P
You may seriously piss people off if you do it about a group you are not a member of.
Neither is more accurate (they're both probably wrong), but you can at least say "hey, wait a minute, I am a whatever, and I actually believe I know what I'm talking about."
So, I can stereotype middle aged, over weight nerds any time I want.;-)
I also have black friends, who are allowed to say many many things I wouldn't even consider saying. And, just as often, I find their stereotypes to be just as absurd as anybody else's.
And the same is true for my Indian friends. And my Chinese friends. And my Jewish friends. And my gay friends. They are all 'allowed' to (and often do) make the most absurd generalizations about their own group and it's 'okay', it's considered the opinion of an insider.
That the stereotypes are often wrong or somewhat insulting matters less when you're part of that group.
All tablets that I know of have an LCD, which is like staring into a light bulb
What? I don't know what tablets you've used, and I don't know what you've set the brightness to... but I would not liken using one with staring into a lightbulb. Maybe if you're sitting in a totally dark room -- but guess what, your computer screen is also LCD, do you find that like staring into a lightbulb?
Which tablet do you recommend that has an e-ink display?
And do you want a pony too? e-ink is useful for things which are largely static, and not interactive. And you now want it to be used for stuff which is interactive? How much would your battery life last then? Do you want an e-reader or a tablet?
I get about 10 hours of life out of my tablets. I carry two 5000MAh USB chargers which can charge them as I'm using them. Those cost me about $40 each at Wal-Mart. Between them, I can probably get more like 20 hours.
There are better solutions to having something you can work on and have pretty good battery life than sitting around pining over the fact that nobody has made the device that you long for. Especially since what you want may not even be technologically possibly, or if it is, it may not be cheap.
Which car do you recommend I buy which comes with free money and hookers?
Slashdot Mirror
And it astounds me that within my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to tacitly accepting the equivalent of "papers please, comrade".
And they seem to accept is as a good idea, and completely miss why all of this secret security with absolute power is a really bad idea.
Or, his name and association with Reading Rainbow generated a tremendous amount of goodwill that people decided it was worth donating to.
The series he was on was well respected, and won quite a few awards for its work. Now he's saying they'd like to do it again.
Apparently, people agree with that, and are handing over cash quite readily.
If the money helps them develop new and interesting content, or access other content, why not?
Nah, it'll be more like the last Matrix movie with thousands of Agent Smith running around.
So, start with the magic, then?
I wonder how we go about printing humans on other planets or using wormholes.
Why, if only we had unlimited, non-existent technology, we could do practically anything.
You know, you'd really like to hope that organizations like this would be getting more security training.
But, I guess, some of the people who are supposed to work with the press are meant to be complete media whores, and the senior people all think the rules don't apply to them.
I know my company does phishing tests fairly regularly, and if you fail one, you need to go for remedial security training. I think if you fail several, you might get told you should look elsewhere.
Well, an EULA is a contract. Courts have upheld that the terms of an EULA can be changed arbitrarily by the ones who issued it.
Since you've already agreed to the changes they make in the future, you're hosed.
Give them time, they're trying. The *AAs would like nothing better than mandatory payment by everybody on the off beat chance they ever see or hear anything.
I'm not advocating it, or saying I agree with it. But retroactively changing the TOS and license for a web site ... well, there's already precedent.
Trust me, I don't disagree with you. But, the reality is, it's more or less already happening, and the courts have pretty much upheld it.
Hmmm, which of these 3 did you mean?
Quite frankly, with Sony, any of those is a viable option.
I doubt it. :-P
Well, see, you use up all of your brain's lifespan by using it too much.
So by the time you get older, your brain is all worn out.
By not applying critical thinking, you save up your brain for later in life. ;-)
(NOTE: this is sarcasm for those of you who can't think critically)
Unless this is 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea.
And, even if it's 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea -- because, let's face it, the security record of IE pretty much guarantees this will get hacked.
Maybe people who blindly trust everyone never get identified as having dementia, because they just go along with everything you say?
Now get off my lampshade!
Except when what can make you sick, can make others sick or even kill them.
If you want the ability to walk around un-immunized and risk your life, maybe you should have to accept civil and criminal liability in the event someone else gets sick.
Because if you being un-immunized causes people to die, and you knew that was a possibility, well, sounds like manslaughter to me.
Vaporware? Blowing hot air? Steaming mad? Still ironing out the wrinkles? Future looks hazy?
I think the point is that it worked at all. As in, it's new, in its infancy, but very promising technology.
If you're so clever, show us your system which does this. Oh, wait, you don't have one, do you?
Obviously. Nobody is claiming this is ready for live planes.
What they're saying is they've made the first initial steps with this technology. And initial results in a flight simulator are starting to look like they might be able to make it work.
Why have people on Slashdot started to miss the point entirely?
Wasn't this a movie? With monkeys or something?
There always is.
"I have altered our deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
More or less the same thing happened with Gracenote as I recall.
Lots of people created the content in CCDB, and then the organization took it private and said "ours now".
Sooner or later, it seems like every entity which relies on other people to make their content decide that they now own it and can make it closed.
It's a great business model, but it pretty much screws over the people who actually built your product.
Because the head of the FCC is a former cable and wireless lobbyist.
Wheeler knows all of the dirty tricks these companies use, likely because he was involved in them. Which means there is no way as the chief of the FCC he isn't aware of these shenanigans.
Which means he's quietly happy to allow it, knowing that when he finished his term at the FCC there will be some big fat checks waiting for him for all of his help through the years.
In other words, your regulatory system is broken when you start appointing lobbyists to be your regulators.
It's the fox guarding the hen house. You might as well appoint Bernie Madoff as the head of the SEC.
You have no idea of what they need and what they need it for.
You keep using that word. I am not sure it means what you think it means.
Prove that.
If you can't, it's speculative fiction.
What if burning the hydrogen from a vast quantity of water from, say, an ocean, was how you propelled yourself?
We don't know a damned thing about who, what, and how would be travelling a few hundred light years. Not their biology. Not their technology. Not their intent.
I'm sorry, but your emphatic statement is not an actual fact. Unless, of course, you know something the rest of us don't. :-P
Maybe it's a convenient atmosphere for them. Maybe a large ocean can be converted into hydrogen quickly and you burn up the planet in the process. Maybe it's fun.
Well, that's what we mostly assume. Maybe they just scavenge stuff as they go.
In all honesty, if we ever met truly alien life ... we have no idea of what we would find, and what they would think of us.
They may look at us as a slave race, food source, a place to lay their eggs or any of a zillion things.
We can make educated guesses by making assumptions about them. But given the sheer number of unknowns, they may or may not have any meaning should it ever happen.
I think it's great to do thought experiments and play what if. But the reality is, at the end of the day, we can't definitely say any of that is actually fact.
So, when you say "don't", "won't", "can't" or "do", "will" and "can" -- you pretty much have to subsitute that for "well, maybe, hopefully at least, that's what my best guess tells me, and it sounds good, so I'm going with it".
Hell, for all you know our kind of planet is needed for the equivalent of the "three seashells" for wiping the arse of some interstellar slug, and it'll just eradicate us while taking a dump without even knowing (or caring) we're here. ;-)
And you'll note how I tried very hard to say those generalizations are usually crap.
Dude, this is Earth. If you want logically consistent, you'll need to go to Vulcan.
Overall, humans are anything but logical or consistent.
Well, it goes something like this ... you are free to stereotype/insult any group you are a member of more or less with impunity. :-P
You may seriously piss people off if you do it about a group you are not a member of.
Neither is more accurate (they're both probably wrong), but you can at least say "hey, wait a minute, I am a whatever, and I actually believe I know what I'm talking about."
So, I can stereotype middle aged, over weight nerds any time I want. ;-)
I also have black friends, who are allowed to say many many things I wouldn't even consider saying. And, just as often, I find their stereotypes to be just as absurd as anybody else's.
And the same is true for my Indian friends. And my Chinese friends. And my Jewish friends. And my gay friends. They are all 'allowed' to (and often do) make the most absurd generalizations about their own group and it's 'okay', it's considered the opinion of an insider.
That the stereotypes are often wrong or somewhat insulting matters less when you're part of that group.
Dude, seriously, do you not have an emacs mode to tell you it's vi?
Friggin' emacs users, without an electric mode to do it for you, you can't do a damned thing on your own. ;-)
The funniest thing I ever saw was an emacs user stuck on a client site at the console of a Solaris machine which only had vi.
The whining was just pathetic ... but I neeeeed eeeemacs to get any wooooork done. Boo hoo. He was more productive when he couldn't type.
Ah, good times.
What? I don't know what tablets you've used, and I don't know what you've set the brightness to ... but I would not liken using one with staring into a lightbulb. Maybe if you're sitting in a totally dark room -- but guess what, your computer screen is also LCD, do you find that like staring into a lightbulb?
And do you want a pony too? e-ink is useful for things which are largely static, and not interactive. And you now want it to be used for stuff which is interactive? How much would your battery life last then? Do you want an e-reader or a tablet?
I get about 10 hours of life out of my tablets. I carry two 5000MAh USB chargers which can charge them as I'm using them. Those cost me about $40 each at Wal-Mart. Between them, I can probably get more like 20 hours.
There are better solutions to having something you can work on and have pretty good battery life than sitting around pining over the fact that nobody has made the device that you long for. Especially since what you want may not even be technologically possibly, or if it is, it may not be cheap.
Which car do you recommend I buy which comes with free money and hookers?