Very few men or women truly believe that there are no innate differences between typical men and women. However, the problem is, if we are ever to know what those are, we need to actually try eliminating the social pressures which impose themselves on either. Further, using "averages" as a reason to keep anyone from trying to do something they want to do, or rewarding successes disproportionately has always has struck me as a sort of cowardice.
Sensible from a security standpoint, sure, but they are essentially limiting their pool of potential vendors. Walmart is no longer the beast it was, and Amazon is growing. If you were a vendor, which horse would you back? Choices: One that was strong, but is getting old and cranky, or the younger, fitter horse that's already working for you?
Good points. I would submit, however, that Windows 10 is a tool (read that how you wish), whereas a movie is an art piece. It's a complicated question. With Windows 10, you purchase an OS to run other programs. The movie doesn't run other items. Arguably from a moral standpoint (not sure about legal), you have every right to re-edit a movie for your own consumption. The question is, do you have the right to repackage someone else's work for mass-consumption? Legally, probably not. Morally, not unless it's as bad as Highlander 2.
No... You should absolutely decide what content you consume. Nor did I call it "wrong". I'm trying to determine if you misread my intention, or if you're just trolling. What I'm saying is, the original piece is designed to convey a message. A third party should not have the right to alter that piece for consumers without the involvement of the original artist or owner of the work. You have EVERY right to skip what you wish. Note, I'm not saying third party commentary is in any way wrong (it can actually be quite enriching), but third party edits of full original pieces is at best questionable practice. "Made for TV" edits of movies have long been a staple of broadcast television (Samuel L. Jackson likely didn't actually say "my friend"), but last I checked, the originators of said pieces are involved. Given the number of movies ruined by internal processes shredding potentially good flicks, I think the concept stands.
Also, original content creators do control the content that is available. If you, or I, don't care for the content that exists, then it behooves us to become original content creators ourselves. But altering someone else's work against their will is poor form. I'm not sure it should be illegal (we already have enough laws), but it's rarely going to improve a piece. This last note really doesn't apply to Highlander 2, which could only be improved by merciless editing and rewriting. By the gods that was awful.
It's a tricky thing, art. While art is and always has been a commercial enterprise to some degree, it's also intended as a communication medium. In effect, altering the artistic work also distorts the message of the artist(s).
I'm not 100% against this on principle, but I find it a dangerous road. It's very similar to editing an interview to destroy the relationship between question and answer. Do I think that some borderline films could benefit from a "kids" edit? Sure. Do I think it should happen without the input of the originators of a work? No.
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
This is completely valid on many levels. Hence supporting the goals vs. supporting the organizations. This is not a simple "yay or nay" kind of issue. Ideally the community of organizations responsible for this behavior would develop some kind of standards against which to measure their decisions, but this is unlikely. The types of personalities which engage in this behavior inherently embrace risk, and this can sometimes stray into recklessness. And since those most likely to take risks are the ones who seem most likely to rise to leadership in such endeavors, this is a major problem.
Well, let's look at this without passion for a moment. If it's true that they released this information on people who were not involved in any variation of corruption, and did so (even without malice) without checking the data for such information, this comes up to gross negligence. Whether we like it or not, some data should remain private. I support the idea that all government activity not directly tied to national security should be publicly accessible, but crime or persecution victims need to be protected.
When we allow "all of the data" to be public, it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse. People become afraid to report crimes against their persons. Victimization thrives on access to personal details of private citizens. Let's just call this what it is: A bad idea either way. Real lives can be shattered by this type of thing. Innocent lives. I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause.
Sociopaths simply don't care but for their advantage, and not all sociopaths are sadists in the least. Emotional intelligence is still poorly defined in some respects, but being able to navigate the emotional landscape of others to your desired goal seems like intelligence to me. Further, I would argue that there is a difference between understanding the motivations of others, and feeling them yourself. Sociopathy itself is not really a bad thing in all cases based on manifestation and career. In those careers the most successful often care the least, which is one reason why I didn't choose one of those.
Algebra 1 is sufficient for formal logic, though. He isn't saying to eliminate all algebra. Frankly, stats would not be my choice as a follow-up, but rather a combination of critical thinking courses and civics. Society would likely benefit greatly from more people being involved and more capable of separating their emotions from their important decisions.
This never made a great deal of sense when you consider how not secure a fingerprint really is. Everyone is so worried about the security sensor being hacked (pain in the butt) when it is far easier to just copy a fingerprint and use the pre-existing sensor. This was never a valid security concern. Without dual-factor authentication this was never going to secure a phone.
Consider this: Who would still know how to find or read this? Granted, the half-life of the readable data is more about durability than actual length of time... But in a billion years will anyone even know it's data?
The mere fact that the data exists is not itself the point. It is completely reasonable to expect some degree of privacy in one's communications regardless of how easily they are intercepted (which everyone "knows"). Physical mail is easily intercepted and read too. Is this the new standard that will allow the police to randomly read an entire neighborhood's mail as well? What ever happened to "probable cause"? But then, I was born in the 20th century, so I guess I'm just old-fashioned.
Yes. Because everyone loves having the carpet pulled out from under them. It's this simple: Company screws customers. Customers and public protest getting screwed. Bad behavior being called out isn't dramatic, it's being human.
This is the very definition of the free market in action. Is your intent to contribute to the discussion, or just to tro*... I mean be yourself? Wait. Don't answer that.
I read this a bit differently than how they worded it. To me it reads, "The combination of low numbers of adopters of the system combined with a natural desire to avoid 'lock-in' will limit our market share. Hence, we have decided to wait until more people adopt the product before trying again." Until they promise to NEVER do this AGAIN I recommend against the product.
The nature of a group like ISIS (though I hear they hate being called DAESH, which is a good reason to) leads them to be somewhat gullible on such matters. So this is not surprising. But part of me is oddly reassured by the fact the most feared terrorist organization in the world is on a massive snipe hunt.
Correct. We do indeed go here again, because apparently those who worry about this don't compost their bullshit. The premise of the original thought behind the post is itself questionable. How can one be destructive without consequence? View this from a simple perspective: The consequence of destructive behavior is destruction. However, since there is no actual destruction, there cannot have been any destructive behavior. In other words, even if the intent of the question was valid (and perhaps it is) they are asking it in such a way as to invalidate its purpose.
I have no particular contention with your premise. However, the problem isn't whether it has happened, but whether it reasonably could happen. Given that modern routers generally look for an open channel (assuming they are set to auto) it is unlikely to make a big problem occur. Whether it is FAA radar, or meteorological radar, or what-have-you, odds are it will not be affected by what is in my house unless I am broadcasting at very high power levels compared to standard. Building in hardware controls that limit power output, and maybe even some kind of simple band-pass filtration to limit frequency range, would be the most logical solution that would not impinge upon modifying the software. But as for "concentrate on its actual job," its actual job is regulating the airwaves and the equipment that uses it. Doing it wrong doesn't obviate their power to do it (Oh, what a world that could be...)
Actually, if you are going to pursue one of these, ask yourself whether the branch of the industry you are heading towards embraces said cert. It makes sense to get ITIL Foundations if you want to work for companies that go down that route. This will be true for PMP, higher degrees, etc. Getting an industrial management cert might make sense for a welder... not so sure it would for an underwater basket weaver.
Many states used to control and ban what a lot of adults could do in the privacy of their own homes with other consenting adult humans. Almost all those laws have been wiped clean, and now, in the name of progress, this researcher wants to control what I can or can't do with a machine?!? Will the prude and pious attempts of puritan fanatics to control our sexuality, outlaw harmless "perversion," and squelch sexual freedom never stop?!
If history is an indicator, then no. The question is valid, but the answer nonetheless borders on obvious.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few men or women truly believe that there are no innate differences between typical men and women. However, the problem is, if we are ever to know what those are, we need to actually try eliminating the social pressures which impose themselves on either. Further, using "averages" as a reason to keep anyone from trying to do something they want to do, or rewarding successes disproportionately has always has struck me as a sort of cowardice.
Sensible from a security standpoint, sure, but they are essentially limiting their pool of potential vendors. Walmart is no longer the beast it was, and Amazon is growing. If you were a vendor, which horse would you back? Choices: One that was strong, but is getting old and cranky, or the younger, fitter horse that's already working for you?
Good points. I would submit, however, that Windows 10 is a tool (read that how you wish), whereas a movie is an art piece. It's a complicated question. With Windows 10, you purchase an OS to run other programs. The movie doesn't run other items. Arguably from a moral standpoint (not sure about legal), you have every right to re-edit a movie for your own consumption. The question is, do you have the right to repackage someone else's work for mass-consumption? Legally, probably not. Morally, not unless it's as bad as Highlander 2.
No... You should absolutely decide what content you consume. Nor did I call it "wrong". I'm trying to determine if you misread my intention, or if you're just trolling. What I'm saying is, the original piece is designed to convey a message. A third party should not have the right to alter that piece for consumers without the involvement of the original artist or owner of the work. You have EVERY right to skip what you wish. Note, I'm not saying third party commentary is in any way wrong (it can actually be quite enriching), but third party edits of full original pieces is at best questionable practice. "Made for TV" edits of movies have long been a staple of broadcast television (Samuel L. Jackson likely didn't actually say "my friend"), but last I checked, the originators of said pieces are involved. Given the number of movies ruined by internal processes shredding potentially good flicks, I think the concept stands.
Also, original content creators do control the content that is available. If you, or I, don't care for the content that exists, then it behooves us to become original content creators ourselves. But altering someone else's work against their will is poor form. I'm not sure it should be illegal (we already have enough laws), but it's rarely going to improve a piece. This last note really doesn't apply to Highlander 2, which could only be improved by merciless editing and rewriting. By the gods that was awful.
It's a tricky thing, art. While art is and always has been a commercial enterprise to some degree, it's also intended as a communication medium. In effect, altering the artistic work also distorts the message of the artist(s).
I'm not 100% against this on principle, but I find it a dangerous road. It's very similar to editing an interview to destroy the relationship between question and answer. Do I think that some borderline films could benefit from a "kids" edit? Sure. Do I think it should happen without the input of the originators of a work? No.
Funny. My very first thought when reading the article was how this was a great way to circumvent the right to repair.
I'd have settled for Jeff Foxworthy in a pinch, but Martin Sheen would be better.
Given the number of attractive female gamers I know, D&D has actually been good for my love life. But maybe that's just me...
Another tech guy afraid of getting numbers. The numbers will show what the numbers will show. What's the matter - stats scare you in school? Or was it girls?
I'm confused... Can't he be afraid of both?
This is completely valid on many levels. Hence supporting the goals vs. supporting the organizations. This is not a simple "yay or nay" kind of issue. Ideally the community of organizations responsible for this behavior would develop some kind of standards against which to measure their decisions, but this is unlikely. The types of personalities which engage in this behavior inherently embrace risk, and this can sometimes stray into recklessness. And since those most likely to take risks are the ones who seem most likely to rise to leadership in such endeavors, this is a major problem.
Well, let's look at this without passion for a moment. If it's true that they released this information on people who were not involved in any variation of corruption, and did so (even without malice) without checking the data for such information, this comes up to gross negligence. Whether we like it or not, some data should remain private. I support the idea that all government activity not directly tied to national security should be publicly accessible, but crime or persecution victims need to be protected.
When we allow "all of the data" to be public, it creates a chilling effect on dissent and discourse. People become afraid to report crimes against their persons. Victimization thrives on access to personal details of private citizens. Let's just call this what it is: A bad idea either way. Real lives can be shattered by this type of thing. Innocent lives. I generally support the stated goals of Wikileaks, but complete lack of discretion helps no cause.
Sociopaths simply don't care but for their advantage, and not all sociopaths are sadists in the least. Emotional intelligence is still poorly defined in some respects, but being able to navigate the emotional landscape of others to your desired goal seems like intelligence to me. Further, I would argue that there is a difference between understanding the motivations of others, and feeling them yourself. Sociopathy itself is not really a bad thing in all cases based on manifestation and career. In those careers the most successful often care the least, which is one reason why I didn't choose one of those.
Algebra 1 is sufficient for formal logic, though. He isn't saying to eliminate all algebra. Frankly, stats would not be my choice as a follow-up, but rather a combination of critical thinking courses and civics. Society would likely benefit greatly from more people being involved and more capable of separating their emotions from their important decisions.
This never made a great deal of sense when you consider how not secure a fingerprint really is. Everyone is so worried about the security sensor being hacked (pain in the butt) when it is far easier to just copy a fingerprint and use the pre-existing sensor. This was never a valid security concern. Without dual-factor authentication this was never going to secure a phone.
Consider this: Who would still know how to find or read this? Granted, the half-life of the readable data is more about durability than actual length of time... But in a billion years will anyone even know it's data?
The mere fact that the data exists is not itself the point. It is completely reasonable to expect some degree of privacy in one's communications regardless of how easily they are intercepted (which everyone "knows"). Physical mail is easily intercepted and read too. Is this the new standard that will allow the police to randomly read an entire neighborhood's mail as well? What ever happened to "probable cause"? But then, I was born in the 20th century, so I guess I'm just old-fashioned.
I was thinking as a sort of refund-based term of service, but your overall statement is valid.
Yes. Because everyone loves having the carpet pulled out from under them. It's this simple: Company screws customers. Customers and public protest getting screwed. Bad behavior being called out isn't dramatic, it's being human.
This is the very definition of the free market in action. Is your intent to contribute to the discussion, or just to tro* ... I mean be yourself? Wait. Don't answer that.
I read this a bit differently than how they worded it. To me it reads, "The combination of low numbers of adopters of the system combined with a natural desire to avoid 'lock-in' will limit our market share. Hence, we have decided to wait until more people adopt the product before trying again." Until they promise to NEVER do this AGAIN I recommend against the product.
The nature of a group like ISIS (though I hear they hate being called DAESH, which is a good reason to) leads them to be somewhat gullible on such matters. So this is not surprising. But part of me is oddly reassured by the fact the most feared terrorist organization in the world is on a massive snipe hunt.
State actors or malicious mischief? That is the real question.
Correct. We do indeed go here again, because apparently those who worry about this don't compost their bullshit. The premise of the original thought behind the post is itself questionable. How can one be destructive without consequence? View this from a simple perspective: The consequence of destructive behavior is destruction. However, since there is no actual destruction, there cannot have been any destructive behavior. In other words, even if the intent of the question was valid (and perhaps it is) they are asking it in such a way as to invalidate its purpose.
I have no particular contention with your premise. However, the problem isn't whether it has happened, but whether it reasonably could happen. Given that modern routers generally look for an open channel (assuming they are set to auto) it is unlikely to make a big problem occur. Whether it is FAA radar, or meteorological radar, or what-have-you, odds are it will not be affected by what is in my house unless I am broadcasting at very high power levels compared to standard. Building in hardware controls that limit power output, and maybe even some kind of simple band-pass filtration to limit frequency range, would be the most logical solution that would not impinge upon modifying the software. But as for "concentrate on its actual job," its actual job is regulating the airwaves and the equipment that uses it. Doing it wrong doesn't obviate their power to do it (Oh, what a world that could be...)
Actually, if you are going to pursue one of these, ask yourself whether the branch of the industry you are heading towards embraces said cert. It makes sense to get ITIL Foundations if you want to work for companies that go down that route. This will be true for PMP, higher degrees, etc. Getting an industrial management cert might make sense for a welder... not so sure it would for an underwater basket weaver.
Many states used to control and ban what a lot of adults could do in the privacy of their own homes with other consenting adult humans. Almost all those laws have been wiped clean, and now, in the name of progress, this researcher wants to control what I can or can't do with a machine?!? Will the prude and pious attempts of puritan fanatics to control our sexuality, outlaw harmless "perversion," and squelch sexual freedom never stop?!
If history is an indicator, then no. The question is valid, but the answer nonetheless borders on obvious.