That was pretty close to my response from my armchair before we got news of the extent of the nuclear plant failures. I felt pretty low about it at the time, and although I came to terms with it and got to just feeling dumb already this made me feel even better.
I think it comes down to any situation being relative. In another life, world events were of direct personal importance because I tended to be moved around according to geopolitical hot spots. Now they are of a more abstract importance as my life is no longer so closely connected to world events. During that time, the Gulf War continued to be of importance for years after mainstream USA seemed to consider it history. Along those lines, I've been in natural disasters and seen life shift gears under power outages and fuel shortages where a several hour road trip would land me in "life as normal." When things affect you directly, you have a very different perspective and a large enough event affects people in very different ways. Compassion compels us to feel for those people who are worse affected than we are even if those feelings are somewhat abstracted by the impact, or lack thereof, of those events on our own lives.
This also has me pondering on the impact of live news on our perception of events. The drive to produce news leads to inaccuracies as reporters are expected to provide information as fast as possible, often before facts can be checked or the situation is made clear. But that drive also puts reporters and international eyes in the epicenter of events. When one has only that view, it is easy to assume that this view is widespread. To those in the epicenter of events, the fact that things are different elsewhere are academic. But for those of us looking in, a more complete understanding requires a wider view. But we rarely get that view as there are not often reporters canvassing an area reporting non-events.
This is my perspective as a non-American living outside of the United States, but do the majority of people inside the U.S. realize how much they've lost on the world stage over the past decade?
It was a talking point during one of the President's speeches. It's not a secret. Whether people care or not is another point. And while some agree US citizens agree with the general sentiment, for others the general vitriol that comes the US' way is fodder for politicians. It makes it really easy to play "us vs. them" which is just another form of fear-mongering that oils the current political machine (on all sides of any given aspect of politics).
Movies especially are every bit an industrial product as games are. And indeed, in the early days of the movie industry, it was very much looked down upon. But the medium evolved and matured, and nowadays many movies are considered a form of art.
I think that's what gets people's attention. You have a film critic who is devoted to the art of film and is undoubtedly familiar with film's history in relation to being considered an artistic medium. That critic peers over the fence and announces that another, yet more modern creative endeavor is not art. It mixes technology, the age-old question of art, generational rifts, and a past-time that is under constant attack all in to a nice tight bundle.
On that basis paintings of dogs playing poker are near the apex of man's creative expression. The prints of this series are among the most ubiquitous. These paintings have a certain technical merit, but they don't have an enduring aesthetic quality and neither do games.
There's a difference between being art and being pinnacle examples of art. Your example is art. But I doubt you'll find many that hold it up as an "apex of man's creative expression."
The novel is mean to be art (no matter its actual merits). The manual, although it might be the best manual around, is meant to be a tool.
Which I think throws the concept back to the admirer. Said author may not have had art in mind when they wrote the manual. But the outcome may be a manual that becomes a fundamental work in it's field. Someone familiar with auto mechanics and the availability of manuals on the subject may understand this and attribute an elevated position to this particular work; consider it a work of art. And while many others may not see it as art or have such high degree of reverence for the work, the same thing could be said about much of what is displayed in art galleries the world over. The same can apply to any other tool. I've got a few favorite kitchen knives that I could consider works of art.
Yup. Just ask McKinnon. Or Bradley Manning. Or the people in GITMO.
So let's be absolutely clear about the comparison we're making here. We have Alan Phillip Gross, accused of providing satellite equipment to a group that would give them Internet access. We have Garry McKinnon, accuse of hacking nearly 100 US Government computer systems. We have Bradley Manning, a US soldier accused of intentionally releasing several hundred thousand classified documents. And we have "people in GITMO", who's crimes we really don't know but could conceivably be anywhere from active terrorism / insurgency to pissing off some neighbor who accused them.
I would agree if he were releasing info that endangered ongoing operations (troop movements, missile deployment sites, etc, in the midst of a battle and to the enemy), but when he's whistleblowing on the criminal actions of his superiors, he must be protected. Every agency at EVERY level must be routinely audited for corrupting, and with 54% of our taxpayer money going to feed this military machine in a time of nation crippling deficits, they deserve scrutiny most of all.
First - Manning wasn't in a position to make judgment on the suitability of classification. At that level, classified is classified. It is handled the same way no matter what is between the cover sheets.
Secondly - what he uncovered was hardly "criminal actions of his superiors." He was a fool to believe that what he had was all that special and worth putting his own freedom at risk. But that's how being a whistleblower works. You don't get immunity just because you thought you were doing right. You put your self at risk to uncover something so heinous as to be worth that risk.
Finally - the point still stands. BoA is not the US Military. Manning and some corporate risk analyst are not in the same situation. But it isn't surprising that someone would believe otherwise (whether the OP is believer or a troll).
Back in MY day, we had teletypes! None of these fancy CRTs with their fancy-go-lightly all-the-text-you-want ways.
Followed by....
Teletypes?! OH. We should have BEEN so lucky to have teletypes! With their keyboards and type-written text! We had nothin' but morse code and telegraph keys. And we LIKED it that way.
(Telegraph keys?! With electricity?! Pure luxury! We used semaphore!)
Oh come now. This isn't about anything as crass as money. It's about fear. Fear drives the political machine and Google makes a really good target. Besides - the telecom / cable / media boys aren't thrilled with Google so who's going to be upset? Whoops. Money rears its ugly head after all.
Google might have the slogan "do no evil", but considering the above facts, Microsoft is really not all too bad. I certainly have to agree with the parent that their business model is more honest, at least.
Hotmail does all the same things. Microsoft product. Next riddle?
Not only pointless, but wrong. You can't give up something if you don't realize that you're giving it up. A gift or a trade requires consent, which implies knowledge.
And yet people blindly accept click-throughs on a regular basis. What a paradox. But what an opportunity in the field of education! All we need to do is add an "I agree" button to the end of any given lecture and students will instantly gain knowledge whether they paid attention or not!
None the less, it did start as commercially successful shareware. Then it started popping up as bundles (wonder what the deals were there). And eventually, Jasc was purchased by Corel (another way to make money in the software business).
Traditional shareware, I mean. Has anyone ever made a living off of it?
JASC PaintShop started as shareware. It took off enough to warrant Voit quitting his job as a commercial airline pilot. I remember reading an article where Voit talked about the registration rates on PaintShop; not very high. But he wasn't phased by this. The low percentage of registrations were enough for commercial success and he was keen to see the software spread and collect additional registrations than sit unknown and unpurchased.
The problem with many of the open source licenses is that they are complex. A commercial license to source code or libraries typically gives you simple terms: certain people can use the code for certain purposes for a certain number of projects for a certain amount of money. Some open source licenses, GPL in particular, contain tons of legalese and conditions which IMO makes such licenses best avoided by most developers, regardless of whether they're used for commercial purposes or not.
I find it disingenuous to simplify proprietary licenses and then complain about the complexity of Open Source licensing. Most Open Source licenses, GPL included, can be simplified in the same manner you've simplified your proprietary license example; everyone can use the code for all purposes if they make their changes available on request. Of course, deviate from that and it becomes a matter of devil in the details. But once you complain about the legalese found in the GPL, you're going to have to tackle the legalese boilerplate that tends to also inhabit proprietary licenses as well.
Point still stands though - a retired head spook is far less likely to go full retard about the wikileaks stuff than a serving politician.
I would suggest you go and actually view the entire video linked by El Reg and apply your point accordingly. I suspect you'll find your opinion of "full retard" will swing in full direction to the retired head spook as he becomes critical of Assange.
Or everyone can take another breath once they realize that he isn't saying Wikileaks is good. All he's doing is drawing a parallel to the decentralization of power due to decentralized communications technology. Wikileaks is an example of that. The revolutions / protests against various regimes are another. He did not say one caused the other. He did not say any particular example is "good" (although he notes the political unrest as "exciting" and "extraordinary"). The actual quote is:
“I would definitely draw parallels at the moment between the wave of political unrest which is sweeping through the Middle East in a very exciting and rather extraordinary fashion and also the WikiLeaks phenomenon,” Dearlove said. “Really, what ties these two events together, and of course a number of other events, is the diffusion of power, away from the states and the empowerment of individuals, and small groups of individuals, by technology.”
The next time Microsoft releases a patch for a security vulnerability I would like to see this sentiment repeated.
If you can point to a post on/. where the general consensus is that Microsoft did something wrong by releasing a patch, then you'll have a point. The same goes for Apple while we're at it.
The guy has been around/. for years. And apparently has spent a fair amount of time swimming with sharks (of the legal profession). I agree that the overall tone is a bit... distracting. But I can imagine the shenanigans he's gone through require a bit of shenanigans of his own to handle. I'd pick his actions over spamers any day.
Ahh - someone who hasn't had enough hits on the dead horse yet.
What freedom do you think you have because you bought a phone with less quality control? Because that's really what you're saying.
When you say "quality control", do you mean "what's good for the company?" Because that's what you're really saying. What's good for the Keeper of the Walled Garden is good for you too, right? See - we can all put words in each others mouths.
Fair point even if it can be made in a more honest way. Yes - I might be giving up some amount of quality control. But I'm also getting more general control. I'm willing to make that trade. I understand how trading away my control can be appealing - even beneficial to some. But it's not for everyone and not for me.
I should also point out how life was back in the days of Ma Bell and the very strict control they had over the POTS network due to "quality control." When we no longer had to ask Ma Bell for permission to connect MODEMs, answering machines, our own phone, etc. we saw a surge of technology and options that benefited the consumer. The old Ma Bell phones are iconic and undoubtedly top-grade devices. But I, for one, don't mind trading them for my first MODEM.
Slashdot Mirror
That was pretty close to my response from my armchair before we got news of the extent of the nuclear plant failures. I felt pretty low about it at the time, and although I came to terms with it and got to just feeling dumb already this made me feel even better.
I think it comes down to any situation being relative. In another life, world events were of direct personal importance because I tended to be moved around according to geopolitical hot spots. Now they are of a more abstract importance as my life is no longer so closely connected to world events. During that time, the Gulf War continued to be of importance for years after mainstream USA seemed to consider it history. Along those lines, I've been in natural disasters and seen life shift gears under power outages and fuel shortages where a several hour road trip would land me in "life as normal." When things affect you directly, you have a very different perspective and a large enough event affects people in very different ways. Compassion compels us to feel for those people who are worse affected than we are even if those feelings are somewhat abstracted by the impact, or lack thereof, of those events on our own lives.
This also has me pondering on the impact of live news on our perception of events. The drive to produce news leads to inaccuracies as reporters are expected to provide information as fast as possible, often before facts can be checked or the situation is made clear. But that drive also puts reporters and international eyes in the epicenter of events. When one has only that view, it is easy to assume that this view is widespread. To those in the epicenter of events, the fact that things are different elsewhere are academic. But for those of us looking in, a more complete understanding requires a wider view. But we rarely get that view as there are not often reporters canvassing an area reporting non-events.
It's a trap!
If it's not it soon will be once I start uploading Uwe Boll movies under the title "The Tunnel: Director's Cut" ;-)
You have a cruel, cruel soul.
This is my perspective as a non-American living outside of the United States, but do the majority of people inside the U.S. realize how much they've lost on the world stage over the past decade?
It was a talking point during one of the President's speeches. It's not a secret. Whether people care or not is another point. And while some agree US citizens agree with the general sentiment, for others the general vitriol that comes the US' way is fodder for politicians. It makes it really easy to play "us vs. them" which is just another form of fear-mongering that oils the current political machine (on all sides of any given aspect of politics).
Fair enough. Though I would guess that there are too many people who would agree with your statement in earnest.
Movies especially are every bit an industrial product as games are. And indeed, in the early days of the movie industry, it was very much looked down upon. But the medium evolved and matured, and nowadays many movies are considered a form of art.
I think that's what gets people's attention. You have a film critic who is devoted to the art of film and is undoubtedly familiar with film's history in relation to being considered an artistic medium. That critic peers over the fence and announces that another, yet more modern creative endeavor is not art. It mixes technology, the age-old question of art, generational rifts, and a past-time that is under constant attack all in to a nice tight bundle.
On that basis paintings of dogs playing poker are near the apex of man's creative expression. The prints of this series are among the most ubiquitous. These paintings have a certain technical merit, but they don't have an enduring aesthetic quality and neither do games.
There's a difference between being art and being pinnacle examples of art. Your example is art. But I doubt you'll find many that hold it up as an "apex of man's creative expression."
The novel is mean to be art (no matter its actual merits). The manual, although it might be the best manual around, is meant to be a tool.
Which I think throws the concept back to the admirer. Said author may not have had art in mind when they wrote the manual. But the outcome may be a manual that becomes a fundamental work in it's field. Someone familiar with auto mechanics and the availability of manuals on the subject may understand this and attribute an elevated position to this particular work; consider it a work of art. And while many others may not see it as art or have such high degree of reverence for the work, the same thing could be said about much of what is displayed in art galleries the world over. The same can apply to any other tool. I've got a few favorite kitchen knives that I could consider works of art.
Yup. Just ask McKinnon. Or Bradley Manning. Or the people in GITMO.
So let's be absolutely clear about the comparison we're making here. We have Alan Phillip Gross, accused of providing satellite equipment to a group that would give them Internet access. We have Garry McKinnon, accuse of hacking nearly 100 US Government computer systems. We have Bradley Manning, a US soldier accused of intentionally releasing several hundred thousand classified documents. And we have "people in GITMO", who's crimes we really don't know but could conceivably be anywhere from active terrorism / insurgency to pissing off some neighbor who accused them.
We're saying that these are all equivalent.
If Wikileaks has something, this isn't it. These docs were directly leaked to ANON.
Right. Because what was leaked to Wikileaks couldn't get leaked to any other sources in the world. Not ever.
BTW, I'm a total luddite but occasionally hang out in Anon's IRC channel, you should too, its not like its hard to sign on.
Bashing my head against a wall is even easier and I suspect a very similar experience.
And now I'm on the terrorist watchlist and a botnet.
Can you spot the Fed? Bet you can't.
That would be the "expected fee" fee which covers the work required in preparation to charge you a fee to handle the work of charging you a fee.
I would agree if he were releasing info that endangered ongoing operations (troop movements, missile deployment sites, etc, in the midst of a battle and to the enemy), but when he's whistleblowing on the criminal actions of his superiors, he must be protected. Every agency at EVERY level must be routinely audited for corrupting, and with 54% of our taxpayer money going to feed this military machine in a time of nation crippling deficits, they deserve scrutiny most of all.
First - Manning wasn't in a position to make judgment on the suitability of classification. At that level, classified is classified. It is handled the same way no matter what is between the cover sheets.
Secondly - what he uncovered was hardly "criminal actions of his superiors." He was a fool to believe that what he had was all that special and worth putting his own freedom at risk. But that's how being a whistleblower works. You don't get immunity just because you thought you were doing right. You put your self at risk to uncover something so heinous as to be worth that risk.
Finally - the point still stands. BoA is not the US Military. Manning and some corporate risk analyst are not in the same situation. But it isn't surprising that someone would believe otherwise (whether the OP is believer or a troll).
Followed by....
Teletypes?! OH. We should have BEEN so lucky to have teletypes! With their keyboards and type-written text! We had nothin' but morse code and telegraph keys. And we LIKED it that way.
(Telegraph keys?! With electricity?! Pure luxury! We used semaphore!)
Oh come now. This isn't about anything as crass as money. It's about fear. Fear drives the political machine and Google makes a really good target. Besides - the telecom / cable / media boys aren't thrilled with Google so who's going to be upset? Whoops. Money rears its ugly head after all.
Google might have the slogan "do no evil", but considering the above facts, Microsoft is really not all too bad. I certainly have to agree with the parent that their business model is more honest, at least.
Hotmail does all the same things. Microsoft product. Next riddle?
Not only pointless, but wrong. You can't give up something if you don't realize that you're giving it up. A gift or a trade requires consent, which implies knowledge.
And yet people blindly accept click-throughs on a regular basis. What a paradox. But what an opportunity in the field of education! All we need to do is add an "I agree" button to the end of any given lecture and students will instantly gain knowledge whether they paid attention or not!
None the less, it did start as commercially successful shareware. Then it started popping up as bundles (wonder what the deals were there). And eventually, Jasc was purchased by Corel (another way to make money in the software business).
Traditional shareware, I mean. Has anyone ever made a living off of it?
JASC PaintShop started as shareware. It took off enough to warrant Voit quitting his job as a commercial airline pilot. I remember reading an article where Voit talked about the registration rates on PaintShop; not very high. But he wasn't phased by this. The low percentage of registrations were enough for commercial success and he was keen to see the software spread and collect additional registrations than sit unknown and unpurchased.
It's been long said that freedom is not free.
The problem with many of the open source licenses is that they are complex. A commercial license to source code or libraries typically gives you simple terms: certain people can use the code for certain purposes for a certain number of projects for a certain amount of money. Some open source licenses, GPL in particular, contain tons of legalese and conditions which IMO makes such licenses best avoided by most developers, regardless of whether they're used for commercial purposes or not.
I find it disingenuous to simplify proprietary licenses and then complain about the complexity of Open Source licensing. Most Open Source licenses, GPL included, can be simplified in the same manner you've simplified your proprietary license example; everyone can use the code for all purposes if they make their changes available on request. Of course, deviate from that and it becomes a matter of devil in the details. But once you complain about the legalese found in the GPL, you're going to have to tackle the legalese boilerplate that tends to also inhabit proprietary licenses as well.
Point still stands though - a retired head spook is far less likely to go full retard about the wikileaks stuff than a serving politician.
I would suggest you go and actually view the entire video linked by El Reg and apply your point accordingly. I suspect you'll find your opinion of "full retard" will swing in full direction to the retired head spook as he becomes critical of Assange.
Nonsequir. The issue is whether the speaker is saying Wikileaks lead to revolutions or is, in any other way, "good". He didn't.
The next time Microsoft releases a patch for a security vulnerability I would like to see this sentiment repeated.
If you can point to a post on /. where the general consensus is that Microsoft did something wrong by releasing a patch, then you'll have a point. The same goes for Apple while we're at it.
The guy has been around /. for years. And apparently has spent a fair amount of time swimming with sharks (of the legal profession). I agree that the overall tone is a bit... distracting. But I can imagine the shenanigans he's gone through require a bit of shenanigans of his own to handle. I'd pick his actions over spamers any day.
What freedom do you think you have because you bought a phone with less quality control? Because that's really what you're saying.
When you say "quality control", do you mean "what's good for the company?" Because that's what you're really saying. What's good for the Keeper of the Walled Garden is good for you too, right? See - we can all put words in each others mouths.
Fair point even if it can be made in a more honest way. Yes - I might be giving up some amount of quality control. But I'm also getting more general control. I'm willing to make that trade. I understand how trading away my control can be appealing - even beneficial to some. But it's not for everyone and not for me.
I should also point out how life was back in the days of Ma Bell and the very strict control they had over the POTS network due to "quality control." When we no longer had to ask Ma Bell for permission to connect MODEMs, answering machines, our own phone, etc. we saw a surge of technology and options that benefited the consumer. The old Ma Bell phones are iconic and undoubtedly top-grade devices. But I, for one, don't mind trading them for my first MODEM.