I suppose it's what you're used to. I'd visit back home and drive US roads, really shocked at how much space I had ("Look - I can weave around and still not hit anything"). When I moved back, I had a co-worker here that drives all back-roads because he can't handle being on a highway. The city I live in is really designed around having a car and freeway driving. I have no idea how he deals with it.
(Incidentally, when I said "rearview mirror", I meant side-view mirror - it'd be a really rough driving experience if your rearview mirror collided with the other car)
And the notion that Americans think that there's something deeply wrong with "whatever country with different views, culture and society." I doubt that Americans think that about most European countries or Japan or India or Brazil or many other places.
Cultural uniqueness is not an excuse for all behavior. If your culture has unique customs and traditions - please let me study them. If it has unique foods - please share some with me (I enjoy regional food even more). But if your culture is wrapped up in behavior that I find detestable, even within my own country, then I'm going to have a problem with it. And I'm entirely unapologetic for that.
I find one of Cuba's most influential political figures talking about how open the Internet is while having set up a system that limits access to that freedom to his own people entirely hypocritical. I have the same problem with that attitude in the US. A spade is a spade. But I didn't buy in to the "freedom fries" thing when France refused to help deal with Iraq - in fact, I was rather bemused by a lady at a local grocery store who noted that I shouldn't be buying French brei during the time (whether the French were motivated by a desire for peace or fear of losing their investment in arming Iraq is another conversation). If that makes me an Ugly American, then so be it. Although I would consider myself a different breed than those who would, say, demonize Japan because of their sushi or because they don't (as a nation) worship the right god.
Well, Germany has no speed limit on some (less and less) highways (Autobahn), where you have strictly divided traffic with special safety measures (side rails etc.).
I drove smaller, non-Autobahn roads in Germany with no speed limits. Some of them 2 lane country roads that would have been 1.5 lane roads in the US (when I first started driving there, I kept expecting my rearview mirror would collide with the oncoming vehicle's mirror - too awhile to get used to that).
Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are (except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go where you're constantly changing from standstill to speeds up to 100km/h and back in a constant, rather tight cycle). It's quite stressful to drive on these roads for a couple of hours.
I've driven those roads. They were no more stressful than any given highway in the US. If anything, they were less stressful because slower traffic stayed in the right lanes. The big problems I have during my daily commute in the US is when several lanes try to stay at (or below) the speed limit and there's a backup of others heading in to work used to going 10 - 15mph above the limit trying to find a way around them.
To add to my German roads experience - I drove a lot of small country roads as well. Two lane roads that are about as wide as one and a half US lanes. No speed limits. Occasional blind hills and turns. Farm equipment occasionally on the road. The only accidents I knew of involved either a drunk driver or black ice. As the police say, "speed was a factor." But then, any speed would have been a factor in those cases.
With that in mind, I knew that when a speed limit was posted, there was a damn good reason for it (and it wasn't to "save the children" or fund the local law enforcement). I paid attention to blind spots in the road. I knew to watch for black ice and moderate my speeds in colder months. I watched for tractors. And I got the heck out of the left lane as soon as I was done passing while on a stretch of Autobaun (one time I looked in my rear view mirror when I saw a flash of headlights, didn't see anytihng, looked back down and saw tail-lights in the distance - dude was really moving). I never had an accident and never had a close call in 3 years of driving there. In all, I'm pretty convinced speed isn't the demon the US likes to make it out to be - beyond the fact that any speed is unsafe in the right circumstances.
Which is all fine - but a gimmick is a gimmick. I'm interested in complex appliances, home multimedia centers, etc. I get those things and can see how they are the future. But that is all beside the point.
We're talking 3D technology here. And that, frankly, has the air of a gimmick. I could be wrong. What we see in the future could be really outstanding gear. But that's not what we have now and I'm not convinced what we have is even a glimpse of the future. Yet we're being sold that it is and what's here is absolutely amazing. I smell snake oil.
Give the creative types a few years and 3D TV will look very differently. Heck, it may even work without those awful glasses........
Great. Then maybe in a few years, then it'll be something to comment about. Right now, the technology as it stands, comes across as an over-played gimmick trying to fast-talk it's way in to our living rooms while keeping a foot in the door. Meanwhile, some execs in Hollywood seem to have just woken up from a long nap they started in the 50's, grabbed the guys from the 80s for "new" ideas, and are re-shooting their entire cinemalogue... but this time, in 3D! It'll be us dirty fee-loading Internet copyright theives that will be the ones responsible for any of those films failing at the box office.
I really do like technology and progress. But not all technology is progress. Even when the marketing says it is.
My point though is that it's not just about the IT. Most slashdotters' lives center around IT in one way or another, so we have a strong bias toward keeping up with current technology. Most normal people, OTOH, couldn't give a crap about the computer except in so far as it allows them to enter basic info into some random app and lets them look youtube when the boss isn't around. These people will resist change with every fiber of their being, and you need to pick your battles with them.
The point is moot. IT environments are not static. And while it is true that people resist change, they still have to cope with it. IT is not a static world. It doesn't matter what platform you're on - or whether you shift platforms. Change is going to happen one way or another. Therefore, change itself is not enough of a justification.
As for fearing change, it applies to IT folks as well. A lot of the criticisms I see from Windows-centric IT folks is really a fear of change. Nobody likes being the expert and then dropped in to an environment where their knowledge base is mostly moot. As someone who went from Windows to Unix / Linux - been there, done that.
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.
I paid to see the film at the cinema. I feel ripped off twice over; I paid for something I could have received for free, and the film wasn't all that great anyway. I can't get a refund from the movie company or the cinema, but I can still be peeved at the folks who leaked it. IMHO, by the way, it's the leak who should be sued, not the consumers.
Wait - you feel personally slighted because someone got a better deal than you? How upset are you with people who've never seen the film?
pretty bloody obvious; not even subtle in the least.
sweden was 'sure' he was not guilty about a week ago. what happened since then?
No, what happened was that the warrent for arrest was canceled and the charges of rape were dropped. But if you had paid attention to the news at the time, you might have caught officials say that the charges of molestation were still being pursued. That's what's going on now. I know - it doesn't sound as exciting as conspirators making phone-calls. But then, we always have The X Files for when life doesn't deliver enough excitement.
Governments either are or should be open, something which, unfortunately for any of their citizens, is routinely opposed and undermined by the very same people who swore to represent their fellow citizens, uphold the law and respect democratic values. Sites such as wikileaks are here to enforce the rules of government that those who managed to find themselves in positions of power and influence actively push to quench or undermine.
The main point is that governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour, and their constituents must be informed of their actions and of the consequences that they bring. In short, every government, due to their nature, must be opened and failing to be so constitutes a violation of their own founding principles.
I agree a lot with the general principle expressed. However, I suspect we differ in the details. Some of what our Government does requires secrets. And so while it is important that a lot of what our Government does remain transparent, we can't expect to have total access to all details and all information that our Government handles. This becomes difficult when Government officials start to use this necessary secrecy to hide abuses of power or as a political gambit. We know power will be abused and must always watch for those abuses. Whistleblowers and watchdogs are just as necessary as Governmental secrecy.
On the other hand, private citizens do not have that responsibility. Private citizens have the right to privacy and do not have absolutely any responsibility or obligation to disclose every single piece of information regarding their lives, their business or even their relations. They are entitled to live free from tyranny and free from any oppressive influence imposed by their government and, even moreso, by fellow citizens.
Therefore, trying to impose to private citizens the very same full disclosure principles that is expected from governments is either a perfect sign of ignorance or a poorly thought out harassment campaign based on an unexplainable demand for revenge. I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy. What I know is that this sort of campaign, which is nothing more than persecuting someone for his attempts to defend healthy and lawful government behaviour is not in anyone's best interests.
Which is all fine as long as an individual remains a private citizen. But Wikileaks is a public organization and Assange is a public figure. There is nothing wrong with media, even as questionable as Gawker, investigating either. Now, I expect that they actually FIND something rather than make a lot of noise about nothing. But being Gawker - I expect this to be a lot of noise and little else.
I should note that I'm biased in my view. I don't view Assange as some sort of champion for truth and a hero of Government transparency. I thought the "collateral murder" video was potentially important, but unfortunately overshadowed by Assange's anti-war politics; what could have been an opportunity to hold the military accountable to truthful reporting became a propaganda piece. And I find that the Afghanistan documents, while very interesting, lack any particular "smoking gun" that makes a point other than being more gist for the anti-war mill and a vehicle for propping up Wikileaks and Assange's celebrity. In this light, Wikileaks is failing to be any sort of champion for good Government and is simply a political vehicle. If I were more in the anti-war protest crowd, I might be less critical and willing to overlook that.
The Internet is not a Mall. Sure, there are stores. Sure, there are ads for anything you can think of plastered everywhere. Sure, it's an anonymous place with crowds of people you don't actually know.
But the Internet is not a Mall.
...I was looking for how "the Internet is not a truck" was going to fit in to that. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or not.
I think that is an oversimplification - everyone agrees that the intended ends (cures for diseases, etc) are desirable, its just that a small but vocal minority says that the means are bad because some book can vaguely be interpreted to say so.
Well, yes. It's an oversimplification. But so is the idea of not allowing anybody's beliefs to get in the way of scientific research. It's that sort of thinking that's the hallmark of the mad scientist cliche.
Nope, no illegal access. It was open to the public. There was no damage done. There was no secrets unearthed. There was no crime and the crime he is being extradited for did not exist in the US at the time.
The NASA systems in question were hardly open to the public. For him to do what he did, he had to hop multiple hosts from multiple networks. These were not public-facing systems.
His access was certainly illegal - even at the time that he did it. People have been convicted of illegal access since at least the early 90s.
Whether he intentionally damaged anything is up to debate - prosecutors say he deleted crucial files, he claims otherwise. Clean-up after him would certainly cost additional money (I don't know how accurate the claimed amount is).
Nice try. But to be a really good troll, you're going to have to skirt closer to the truth than this attempt did.
If nothing else, it may make the children more aware of the possibilities regarding terrorism.
The key part to this is that the class studies terrorism. The material covered chemical and biological weapons. I'd imagine it also covered a bit of ideology and psychology of terrorism. Thus, the exercise was really a theoretical test to put that knowledge in to theoretical action - or at least look at all the pieces analytically and understand more than the simple facts of what nerve agents do or how fear motivates.
From the article:
Grades were to be allocated based on students' ability to analyze information they had learned on terrorism and chemical and biological warfare and apply it to a real-life scenario, the newspaper reported.
What stands out for me is that this wasn't simply an exercise in Hollywood scenario building. This was practical application of material.
Some time ago, one of the guests on TWiT was talking about his experience with his Tesla. One discussion talked about the odd interactions because of the car being so quiet. So being geeky - there was a general declaration that they were going to wire in a sound system. And that sound system would involve custom sound effects. Among the sound files discussed were Pod Racer, Formula One, and Locomotive.
Those of us with critical thinking skills figured that out without all the extra effort. Anyone duped by that film needs mental counseling.
Really? I think you're not giving the film enough credit. I suspected something strange was up because the claims were... well... extraordinary. When I say I was duped, it's not that I was a believer in the message. Rather - I wondered how the hell they would have the audacity to make the claims. When I went back over it after the first view, I saw that they weren't actually making most of the claims I thought they were making. But the end effect was the same. Moore got a message across all the while being able to act coy and claim to never have made any such outlandish claims. And even more telling, he did get believers in that message.
It is true art.
No, it is filth.
Ahh well - eye of the beholder I suppose. But I would again point out at how well crafted the film was. Ignore the message. Look at the tactics. They were well executed.
Interesting? I think it's that other word - tedious.
These are all examples of political slight-of-hand. They are emotional non-issues designed to galvanize our beliefs so that we pledge unconditional support to one side or another. These non-issues split our country and distract us from real issues and real problems.
These are not interesting times - they are tragic. So many of these political parlor games feed off real problems - but then do a nice side-step causing us to miss the real point and delve in to petty emotional battles where "victory", if it existed, would be meaningless. We put all this energy in to issues that are just shy of real problems. And thus we end up with no solutions for all our effort. That's the tragedy of all this.
This election cycles is due to be more of the same. We've seen this in history. We're now seeing a rather polished version; individuals improving their game. I suppose if you see politics as a sport, then I'm entirely wrong - this is interesting. We don't watch The Game because the score really means anything - we watch sports to see the players play. We want to see professionals playing the game in a way that becomes art. And that's today's national political scene.
I always thought Fahrenheit 911 was an exceptional piece of work; propaganda for the modern age. I like to think of myself as a somewhat jaded, critical thinker. So I was surprise at finding myself duped by this film. It wasn't until I put the movie in one window and movie criticisms next to it and went over it scene by scene that I realized that the movie was implying a lot - but not actually SAYING what I thought it was saying. It is true art. And I suspected it would be studied very closely by everyone in the political business. And while I think it might be a bit generous to describe Fahrenheit 911 as the starting point, I think it does fall in line with the start of things. A start that leads us up to today's political climate.
All that is, I suppose, interesting - even facinating if you look at politics as sport. But the problem is, a baseball score doesn't have much affect on my life. US national politics does. I could use with a lot less artistry and a lot more honesty. I don't expect absolute honesty in politics. We wouldn't have Mr. Smith Goes to Washington if such a thing were really a hallmark of the environment. But I'd like to get away from the point where we seem to do little more than manipulate each other all the time.
But then - I suppose that's kind of boring. That's something CNN knows all too well.
Apparently, developers have a hard time paying attention to licenses. You'd think more of them would run afoul of the law considering the proliferation of proprietary licenses out there. But it seems only the GPL is dangerous like that. Or so Microsoft would have us believe.
(You should be reading my two posts with a sarcastic tone, just in case you haven't picked it up on your own.)
It's very possible that I just don't know enough about the mobile space, but was Windows CE ever, at any point, a commercial success?
I've seen WinCE in early smart phones, thin clients, control interfaces to IT appliances (i.e. tape library), just to name a few. I didn't like them. But they were there.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it's what you're used to. I'd visit back home and drive US roads, really shocked at how much space I had ("Look - I can weave around and still not hit anything"). When I moved back, I had a co-worker here that drives all back-roads because he can't handle being on a highway. The city I live in is really designed around having a car and freeway driving. I have no idea how he deals with it.
(Incidentally, when I said "rearview mirror", I meant side-view mirror - it'd be a really rough driving experience if your rearview mirror collided with the other car)
And the notion that Americans think that there's something deeply wrong with "whatever country with different views, culture and society." I doubt that Americans think that about most European countries or Japan or India or Brazil or many other places.
Cultural uniqueness is not an excuse for all behavior. If your culture has unique customs and traditions - please let me study them. If it has unique foods - please share some with me (I enjoy regional food even more). But if your culture is wrapped up in behavior that I find detestable, even within my own country, then I'm going to have a problem with it. And I'm entirely unapologetic for that.
I find one of Cuba's most influential political figures talking about how open the Internet is while having set up a system that limits access to that freedom to his own people entirely hypocritical. I have the same problem with that attitude in the US. A spade is a spade. But I didn't buy in to the "freedom fries" thing when France refused to help deal with Iraq - in fact, I was rather bemused by a lady at a local grocery store who noted that I shouldn't be buying French brei during the time (whether the French were motivated by a desire for peace or fear of losing their investment in arming Iraq is another conversation). If that makes me an Ugly American, then so be it. Although I would consider myself a different breed than those who would, say, demonize Japan because of their sushi or because they don't (as a nation) worship the right god.
Well, Germany has no speed limit on some (less and less) highways (Autobahn), where you have strictly divided traffic with special safety measures (side rails etc.).
I drove smaller, non-Autobahn roads in Germany with no speed limits. Some of them 2 lane country roads that would have been 1.5 lane roads in the US (when I first started driving there, I kept expecting my rearview mirror would collide with the oncoming vehicle's mirror - too awhile to get used to that).
Those German highways without speed limits are dangerous and demand the driver's full attention because there's almost always a car nearby that is going much faster or much slower than you are (except when traffic is really dense, of course, in which case this degenerates into a massive stop-and-go where you're constantly changing from standstill to speeds up to 100km/h and back in a constant, rather tight cycle). It's quite stressful to drive on these roads for a couple of hours.
I've driven those roads. They were no more stressful than any given highway in the US. If anything, they were less stressful because slower traffic stayed in the right lanes. The big problems I have during my daily commute in the US is when several lanes try to stay at (or below) the speed limit and there's a backup of others heading in to work used to going 10 - 15mph above the limit trying to find a way around them.
To add to my German roads experience - I drove a lot of small country roads as well. Two lane roads that are about as wide as one and a half US lanes. No speed limits. Occasional blind hills and turns. Farm equipment occasionally on the road. The only accidents I knew of involved either a drunk driver or black ice. As the police say, "speed was a factor." But then, any speed would have been a factor in those cases.
With that in mind, I knew that when a speed limit was posted, there was a damn good reason for it (and it wasn't to "save the children" or fund the local law enforcement). I paid attention to blind spots in the road. I knew to watch for black ice and moderate my speeds in colder months. I watched for tractors. And I got the heck out of the left lane as soon as I was done passing while on a stretch of Autobaun (one time I looked in my rear view mirror when I saw a flash of headlights, didn't see anytihng, looked back down and saw tail-lights in the distance - dude was really moving). I never had an accident and never had a close call in 3 years of driving there. In all, I'm pretty convinced speed isn't the demon the US likes to make it out to be - beyond the fact that any speed is unsafe in the right circumstances.
Which is all fine - but a gimmick is a gimmick. I'm interested in complex appliances, home multimedia centers, etc. I get those things and can see how they are the future. But that is all beside the point.
We're talking 3D technology here. And that, frankly, has the air of a gimmick. I could be wrong. What we see in the future could be really outstanding gear. But that's not what we have now and I'm not convinced what we have is even a glimpse of the future. Yet we're being sold that it is and what's here is absolutely amazing. I smell snake oil.
Give the creative types a few years and 3D TV will look very differently. Heck, it may even work without those awful glasses........
Great. Then maybe in a few years, then it'll be something to comment about. Right now, the technology as it stands, comes across as an over-played gimmick trying to fast-talk it's way in to our living rooms while keeping a foot in the door. Meanwhile, some execs in Hollywood seem to have just woken up from a long nap they started in the 50's, grabbed the guys from the 80s for "new" ideas, and are re-shooting their entire cinemalogue... but this time, in 3D! It'll be us dirty fee-loading Internet copyright theives that will be the ones responsible for any of those films failing at the box office.
I really do like technology and progress. But not all technology is progress. Even when the marketing says it is.
My point though is that it's not just about the IT. Most slashdotters' lives center around IT in one way or another, so we have a strong bias toward keeping up with current technology. Most normal people, OTOH, couldn't give a crap about the computer except in so far as it allows them to enter basic info into some random app and lets them look youtube when the boss isn't around. These people will resist change with every fiber of their being, and you need to pick your battles with them.
The point is moot. IT environments are not static. And while it is true that people resist change, they still have to cope with it. IT is not a static world. It doesn't matter what platform you're on - or whether you shift platforms. Change is going to happen one way or another. Therefore, change itself is not enough of a justification.
As for fearing change, it applies to IT folks as well. A lot of the criticisms I see from Windows-centric IT folks is really a fear of change. Nobody likes being the expert and then dropped in to an environment where their knowledge base is mostly moot. As someone who went from Windows to Unix / Linux - been there, done that.
For most businesses, Linux is more expensive than windows. Anyone who can tie their own shoes can set up a Windows server. Linux, on the other hand, requires someone who at least kind of knows what they're doing, and that commands more money. Not to mention the cost of training the Luddite employees on a new operating system, when it took them 10 years to get used to the last one.
Linux config can be pretty fire-and-forget these days. But even so - it's a dangerous thing to bet your business on an IT infrastructure set up by someone who's qualification is the ability to tie their shoes. It can be done. But it's going to cost you eventually. As for the Luddite employees - no IT environment is without change.
Very true. Probably because all of the "teenage girls" on IRC are bots.
Some of them are FBI agents. But then, some of the FBI agents are mandroids.
I paid to see the film at the cinema. I feel ripped off twice over; I paid for something I could have received for free, and the film wasn't all that great anyway. I can't get a refund from the movie company or the cinema, but I can still be peeved at the folks who leaked it. IMHO, by the way, it's the leak who should be sued, not the consumers.
Wait - you feel personally slighted because someone got a better deal than you? How upset are you with people who've never seen the film?
pretty bloody obvious; not even subtle in the least.
sweden was 'sure' he was not guilty about a week ago. what happened since then?
No, what happened was that the warrent for arrest was canceled and the charges of rape were dropped. But if you had paid attention to the news at the time, you might have caught officials say that the charges of molestation were still being pursued. That's what's going on now. I know - it doesn't sound as exciting as conspirators making phone-calls. But then, we always have The X Files for when life doesn't deliver enough excitement.
Governments either are or should be open, something which, unfortunately for any of their citizens, is routinely opposed and undermined by the very same people who swore to represent their fellow citizens, uphold the law and respect democratic values. Sites such as wikileaks are here to enforce the rules of government that those who managed to find themselves in positions of power and influence actively push to quench or undermine.
The main point is that governments must and should follow the law, which forcefully means that their actions must be free from illegalities and unethical behaviour, and their constituents must be informed of their actions and of the consequences that they bring. In short, every government, due to their nature, must be opened and failing to be so constitutes a violation of their own founding principles.
I agree a lot with the general principle expressed. However, I suspect we differ in the details. Some of what our Government does requires secrets. And so while it is important that a lot of what our Government does remain transparent, we can't expect to have total access to all details and all information that our Government handles. This becomes difficult when Government officials start to use this necessary secrecy to hide abuses of power or as a political gambit. We know power will be abused and must always watch for those abuses. Whistleblowers and watchdogs are just as necessary as Governmental secrecy.
On the other hand, private citizens do not have that responsibility. Private citizens have the right to privacy and do not have absolutely any responsibility or obligation to disclose every single piece of information regarding their lives, their business or even their relations. They are entitled to live free from tyranny and free from any oppressive influence imposed by their government and, even moreso, by fellow citizens.
Therefore, trying to impose to private citizens the very same full disclosure principles that is expected from governments is either a perfect sign of ignorance or a poorly thought out harassment campaign based on an unexplainable demand for revenge. I don't know why that the idiot from Gawker believes the idea to persecute Assange is any reasonable or even if he decided to do that to be able to profit from the controversy. What I know is that this sort of campaign, which is nothing more than persecuting someone for his attempts to defend healthy and lawful government behaviour is not in anyone's best interests.
Which is all fine as long as an individual remains a private citizen. But Wikileaks is a public organization and Assange is a public figure. There is nothing wrong with media, even as questionable as Gawker, investigating either. Now, I expect that they actually FIND something rather than make a lot of noise about nothing. But being Gawker - I expect this to be a lot of noise and little else.
I should note that I'm biased in my view. I don't view Assange as some sort of champion for truth and a hero of Government transparency. I thought the "collateral murder" video was potentially important, but unfortunately overshadowed by Assange's anti-war politics; what could have been an opportunity to hold the military accountable to truthful reporting became a propaganda piece. And I find that the Afghanistan documents, while very interesting, lack any particular "smoking gun" that makes a point other than being more gist for the anti-war mill and a vehicle for propping up Wikileaks and Assange's celebrity. In this light, Wikileaks is failing to be any sort of champion for good Government and is simply a political vehicle. If I were more in the anti-war protest crowd, I might be less critical and willing to overlook that.
The Internet is not a Mall. Sure, there are stores. Sure, there are ads for anything you can think of plastered everywhere. Sure, it's an anonymous place with crowds of people you don't actually know.
But the Internet is not a Mall.
...I was looking for how "the Internet is not a truck" was going to fit in to that. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed or not.
I think that is an oversimplification - everyone agrees that the intended ends (cures for diseases, etc) are desirable, its just that a small but vocal minority says that the means are bad because some book can vaguely be interpreted to say so.
Well, yes. It's an oversimplification. But so is the idea of not allowing anybody's beliefs to get in the way of scientific research. It's that sort of thinking that's the hallmark of the mad scientist cliche.
Nope, no illegal access. It was open to the public. There was no damage done. There was no secrets unearthed. There was no crime and the crime he is being extradited for did not exist in the US at the time.
The NASA systems in question were hardly open to the public. For him to do what he did, he had to hop multiple hosts from multiple networks. These were not public-facing systems.
His access was certainly illegal - even at the time that he did it. People have been convicted of illegal access since at least the early 90s.
Whether he intentionally damaged anything is up to debate - prosecutors say he deleted crucial files, he claims otherwise. Clean-up after him would certainly cost additional money (I don't know how accurate the claimed amount is).
Nice try. But to be a really good troll, you're going to have to skirt closer to the truth than this attempt did.
Cue the guys with pointy latex ear extensions flipping off the guys with the neon glowing plastic swords.
Sadly, the F-4G Wild Weasel was retired and hasn't been flying over Spangdahlem for years.
According to an old Geocities page, they are things that fly around in the sky.
I am to understand that they occasionally flip out and kill people.
If nothing else, it may make the children more aware of the possibilities regarding terrorism.
The key part to this is that the class studies terrorism. The material covered chemical and biological weapons. I'd imagine it also covered a bit of ideology and psychology of terrorism. Thus, the exercise was really a theoretical test to put that knowledge in to theoretical action - or at least look at all the pieces analytically and understand more than the simple facts of what nerve agents do or how fear motivates.
From the article:
What stands out for me is that this wasn't simply an exercise in Hollywood scenario building. This was practical application of material.
Some time ago, one of the guests on TWiT was talking about his experience with his Tesla. One discussion talked about the odd interactions because of the car being so quiet. So being geeky - there was a general declaration that they were going to wire in a sound system. And that sound system would involve custom sound effects. Among the sound files discussed were Pod Racer, Formula One, and Locomotive.
Those of us with critical thinking skills figured that out without all the extra effort. Anyone duped by that film needs mental counseling.
Really? I think you're not giving the film enough credit. I suspected something strange was up because the claims were... well... extraordinary. When I say I was duped, it's not that I was a believer in the message. Rather - I wondered how the hell they would have the audacity to make the claims. When I went back over it after the first view, I saw that they weren't actually making most of the claims I thought they were making. But the end effect was the same. Moore got a message across all the while being able to act coy and claim to never have made any such outlandish claims. And even more telling, he did get believers in that message.
It is true art.
No, it is filth.
Ahh well - eye of the beholder I suppose. But I would again point out at how well crafted the film was. Ignore the message. Look at the tactics. They were well executed.
Interesting? I think it's that other word - tedious.
These are all examples of political slight-of-hand. They are emotional non-issues designed to galvanize our beliefs so that we pledge unconditional support to one side or another. These non-issues split our country and distract us from real issues and real problems.
These are not interesting times - they are tragic. So many of these political parlor games feed off real problems - but then do a nice side-step causing us to miss the real point and delve in to petty emotional battles where "victory", if it existed, would be meaningless. We put all this energy in to issues that are just shy of real problems. And thus we end up with no solutions for all our effort. That's the tragedy of all this.
This election cycles is due to be more of the same. We've seen this in history. We're now seeing a rather polished version; individuals improving their game. I suppose if you see politics as a sport, then I'm entirely wrong - this is interesting. We don't watch The Game because the score really means anything - we watch sports to see the players play. We want to see professionals playing the game in a way that becomes art. And that's today's national political scene.
I always thought Fahrenheit 911 was an exceptional piece of work; propaganda for the modern age. I like to think of myself as a somewhat jaded, critical thinker. So I was surprise at finding myself duped by this film. It wasn't until I put the movie in one window and movie criticisms next to it and went over it scene by scene that I realized that the movie was implying a lot - but not actually SAYING what I thought it was saying. It is true art. And I suspected it would be studied very closely by everyone in the political business. And while I think it might be a bit generous to describe Fahrenheit 911 as the starting point, I think it does fall in line with the start of things. A start that leads us up to today's political climate.
All that is, I suppose, interesting - even facinating if you look at politics as sport. But the problem is, a baseball score doesn't have much affect on my life. US national politics does. I could use with a lot less artistry and a lot more honesty. I don't expect absolute honesty in politics. We wouldn't have Mr. Smith Goes to Washington if such a thing were really a hallmark of the environment. But I'd like to get away from the point where we seem to do little more than manipulate each other all the time.
But then - I suppose that's kind of boring. That's something CNN knows all too well.
Quite possibly - I've never met either of them. But it takes more than being a creep to commit a crime, much less be convicted of doing so.
Apparently, developers have a hard time paying attention to licenses. You'd think more of them would run afoul of the law considering the proliferation of proprietary licenses out there. But it seems only the GPL is dangerous like that. Or so Microsoft would have us believe.
(You should be reading my two posts with a sarcastic tone, just in case you haven't picked it up on your own.)
It's very possible that I just don't know enough about the mobile space, but was Windows CE ever, at any point, a commercial success?
I've seen WinCE in early smart phones, thin clients, control interfaces to IT appliances (i.e. tape library), just to name a few. I didn't like them. But they were there.