Of course, a real problem arises if the procedure is not dispensed to the whole of mankind, but to some sort of ethnic or social elite. We don't need the rich to get more intelligent as a whole: the beauty of intelligence right now is that it comes up in unexpected places, and gives a real edge to anyone to change their destiny.
On the one hand, it would probably start out too expensive for most people to afford. On the other hand, this would probably change with time.
On the gripping hand, "Vote for me if you want a free intelligence boost" is a rather double-edged campaign slogan. /.
By lying about the scan or notifying the employees of the scan in advance without the permission of management you are demonstrating that you are untrustworthy.
Only Elmer FUD would try to lump these two concepts together. Lying about the scan demonstrates untrustworthiness, to be sure. OTOH, sending out a general notification (along with getting the directive to do the scan in writing and signed, having the directive include nit-picking detail on what is prohibited, procedures for handling claims of unsolicited/accidental pr0n access, etc) is essential self-protection. /.
TNT canceled it before it even started for not having enough sex and violence.
Yeah, a show that cleverly uses an interspecies pr0n video as a plot device doesn't have enough sex and violence for the PHBs. That "cleverly" kills them every time.
What can you expect from a network that has its professional wrestling shows run late so the audience will think it's a real sport? /.
Well, if they're telling you to do this, make them tell you exactly what they want done:
1. Require the legal department to sign off on the policy (for all jurisdictions in which your company has a presence).
2. Set specific standards for proving that any e-mail pr0n was solicited by the recipient, and not spam, maliciously planted, etc. Depending on just how much you don't want to do this, your definition of the word "specific" can be just as flexible as Bill Clinton's definition of the word "is".
3. Set specific standards for levels of accidental access to typo-URL pr0n sites. See above re the word "specific".
4. For each amendment somebody makes at steps 2-3, repeat step 1.
If a policy ever does emerge from the black hole that is a legal department (I thought it was common knowledge that Legal is where you sent bad ideas to die -- I remember seeing a Dilbert strip about this from before the boss had pointy hair), there is always malicious compliance. /.
The fundamental grievance behind the Revolution was taxation without representation. If the government of Buttscratch, Kansas wants me to pay sales taxes (with or without Federal proxies), they can bloody well give me the same vote as a Buttscratch resident. Otherwise, no dice. /.
It was made clear in the book that O'Brien was running a sting (he personally oversaw the breaking of Winston Smith, had recordings of their seditious conversation, etc). /.
But how many of you get on the phone each day and say "I'm goin to go assassinate the president at 6:30 tonight. Good Bye."
I have often said that Clinton sucks (even before this became a news item with the verb in the passive voice), which seems to be enough to get him to sic the jackboots on you, as demonstrated in the Mendoza case. /.
Er, you people do realize they still need a judge's order to do wiretaps, right?
Nope. You need a bit of electronic equipment to do wiretaps. You are supposed to also have a judge's order -- but when I see a few Feds who dispensed with that part spending 5-10 years at the Crossbar Hotel as Bubba's boytoy, then I might be inclined to take your argument seriously. /.
We could make major progress in this direction with a few simple rules:
1. All laws shall expire not more than ten years from passage. (They can be effectively renewed by re-passing them, going through the same procedure as for a new law.)
2. All bills shall be read on the floor in their entirety by the sponsor (or by a colleague designated by the sponsor, to be fair to the vocally challenged should any such be found in politics).
3. Only legislators who have remained present for the entire reading get to vote on that bill. If this is less than a quorum, the bill dies right there. /.
It's a bit disappointing to me that many so-called libertarians seem a lot more concerned about getting rid of environmental and consumer protection regulations and lowering taxes, than actually protecting citizens from direct and overt abuses of power.
There's no bright line between the two -- some of the most outrageous abuses are committed by the tax collectors and environmental enforcers. Laws against polluting other people's air and water are one thing (supported by pretty much everybody, libertarians included); blocking multi-million dollar developments (in effect, confiscating the assets involved) to protect a population of eight flies (I swear I am not making this up) is quite another. /.
The FBI has reasonable rules concerning cars, and homes.
Actually, no, they don't. (Well, maybe they do written down on a yellowing scrap of paper somewhere, but in actual practice law enforcement at all levels has been getting into the habit of just stealing stuff.) /.
Libertarians act like all that will happen is an abuse of any new rights given to the police. That is NOT a given.
It is also not a given that you will die if you jump out a tenth-story window, but it would not be prudent to take the chance.
However, seems like everytime I post a comment this, people quote T Jefferson (A little revolution every now and then is a good thing) etc.
Hmmm... whose opinions should carry more weight when it comes to the foundations of the Republic? Anonymous Chemist... Thomas Jefferson... Anonymous Chemist... Thomas Jefferson... Tough choice -- NOT!
Fact is, if the founding fathers never had any idea of our modern world
This is the same inane argument offered by gun controllers and Internet censors. AC would have us accept that freedom of the press only applies to hand-cranked manual-typeset presses and the right to keep and bear arms only applies to muzzle-loaded muskets.
God forbid we ever have to worry about biological warfare.
They had biological warfare in the eighteenth century. Or did you think they passed out blankets from smallpox patients to the Indians out of generosity?
But no, in the defense of a minority of criminals rights, we should tie up the hands of law enforcement?
In the defense of the Constitutional rights of all citizens, we should require the police to obey the laws they have sworn to uphold.
(It's at times like this that I think of what "oathbreaker" means in the pagan tradition, and the sort of punishments considered appropriate to this sin. Being a sentimental softie, I'd be satisfied to send lawbreaking cops to prison.)
Nor did [the Founders] have any idea that the country they founded would be the leading SuperPower.
Indeed they didn't -- they had advised in the strongest possible terms against any such course. Being classically educated, they understood very well the process by which Republic degenerates into Empire. /.
That's not to make excuses for things like FBI files ending up in the Clinton Administrations hands. Stuff like that should be prosecuted.
And when Clinton and his minions are in prison (don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison, not Club Fed), then you can make the case that I should trust the government. Not before.
And finally, no I am not kidding. The Police are only doing a thankless job.
Police who uphold the law are doing a thankless job. Police who break the law are criminals. Anyone attempting to weaken our institutional protections against the latter is taking the side of criminality.
While you might rail against them in your comments; think about what it might be like if they weren't at the end of 911.
It would be pretty bad if we didn't have doctors and firefighters, too. I'm not letting them crack into my computer, either.
I was serious, either work within the system to change it
Yes -- for instance, I support the original article's suggestion that the people responsible for this proposal should be drummed out of law enforcement for the same reason a convicted pedophile would be drummed out of day care. That's a fine example of working within the system.
Of course, if the system fails to sanction people who so blatantly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, then that indicates that the system is broken.
Libertarians seem to support all sorts of attitudes towards personal freedoms, until it come to discussion of opinions that are contrary to theirs. Then, they attack you...that seems to go against the idea of personal expression. Odd isn't it, where they want double standards like that?
Pointing out the gaping holes in your argument is free expression. Attempts to equate rebuttal with suppression are the last refuge of the intellectually incompetent. /.
These aren't some crazy hacker computer criminals that are getting free access to your computer, it's the government.
Er, the government at the moment is being run by criminals. We've gone far downhill from the days of Watergate (when Chuck Colson went to prison for illegally obtaining one, count 'em one, FBI file) to today (when Clinton has about a thousand illegally obtained FBI files, and that's just what has come to light so far).
With A LOT of revision to this, it may be a good idea.
The required "revision" would be "you need a real search warrant, issued by a real court of law operating under the procedures of traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence (pet Star Chambers need not apply)". We already have laws to that effect, so the "revision" could be accomplished simply -- just pour a bucket of White-Out(TM) over the DOJ proposal.
Maybe some type of key built into any encryption programs that would allow the goverment
They keep trying to get that, too. No dice.
while on the premises and with a search warrant or something
Or something?! What might this "somthing" be?? "I can feel in my bones he's guilty"?
Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted.
"Maybe we should have gotten our information by old-fashioned application of shoe leather to pavement, instead of getting so dependent on computers...."
Just take a moment and think about that before you flame the life out of me.
Many (not all) religious people believe there is an anti-religious sentiment in the country. They have this belief because some people oppose their desire to force everyone else to live according to whichever religion they believe in.
"You don't like the Goths?" "No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!" "Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows. "Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever." "But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased." "That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!" -- L. Sprague deCamp, Lest Darkness Fall /.
And requiring the teaching of a theory based on the assumption that there is no God is substantially equivalent to an establishment of naturalism and/or atheism as a state religion.
Where do you get this odd notion that the theory of evolution is "based on the assumption that there is no God"? The two assertions (evolution and theism) have no bearing on one another. /.
The prime function of the exclusionary rule is to dissuade/punish law enforcement from undertaking illegal searches (why bother to get evidence you can't use). Other means could be used to punish this -- civil fines, administrative sanctions (e.g., suspension or, in egregious cases, dismissal of offending officers)
Nothing less than prison time (in a don't-bend-over-for-the-soap joint, not Club Fed) will do the job. The penalties you suggest are too easy to evade (a slush fund paying the fines under the table, unofficial rewards later to compensate for the administrative sanctions now, etc).
However, I don't think that any jurisdiction in the US has the political will to do this, short of a well-publicized atrocity such as the Abner Louima case in New York. That leaves us stuck with the exclusionary rule until somebody comes up with an effective and politically acceptable substitute. /.
It seems to me that the problem of coding a quantum computer to give the answer to a specific problem is going to turn out to be just as difficult as solving the problem the old-fashioned way. /.
Well, yes, you can manage one time pads for a relatively small volume of communication with a very small group of correspondents. Beyond that, key data either runs out or is accidentally used twice. /.
Sounds like our old friend Elmer FUD from Marketing. All the reports I've seen say that Athlon is a direct competitor for the high-end PIII -- with generally better performance and no Big Brother Inside serial number. /.
it's a great place for singles looking to meet that special someone
Is that all?!? I was expecting at least one bacchanalian orgy per week! Have you guys been paying the preachers to spread that false advertising, or what? /.
Slashdot Mirror
On the one hand, it would probably start out too expensive for most people to afford. On the other hand, this would probably change with time.
On the gripping hand, "Vote for me if you want a free intelligence boost" is a rather double-edged campaign slogan.
/.
Only Elmer FUD would try to lump these two concepts together. Lying about the scan demonstrates untrustworthiness, to be sure. OTOH, sending out a general notification (along with getting the directive to do the scan in writing and signed, having the directive include nit-picking detail on what is prohibited, procedures for handling claims of unsolicited/accidental pr0n access, etc) is essential self-protection.
/.
Yeah, a show that cleverly uses an interspecies pr0n video as a plot device doesn't have enough sex and violence for the PHBs. That "cleverly" kills them every time.
What can you expect from a network that has its professional wrestling shows run late so the audience will think it's a real sport?
/.
1. Require the legal department to sign off on the policy (for all jurisdictions in which your company has a presence).
2. Set specific standards for proving that any e-mail pr0n was solicited by the recipient, and not spam, maliciously planted, etc. Depending on just how much you don't want to do this, your definition of the word "specific" can be just as flexible as Bill Clinton's definition of the word "is".
3. Set specific standards for levels of accidental access to typo-URL pr0n sites. See above re the word "specific".
4. For each amendment somebody makes at steps 2-3, repeat step 1.
If a policy ever does emerge from the black hole that is a legal department (I thought it was common knowledge that Legal is where you sent bad ideas to die -- I remember seeing a Dilbert strip about this from before the boss had pointy hair), there is always malicious compliance.
/.
The fundamental grievance behind the Revolution was taxation without representation. If the government of Buttscratch, Kansas wants me to pay sales taxes (with or without Federal proxies), they can bloody well give me the same vote as a Buttscratch resident. Otherwise, no dice.
/.
It was made clear in the book that O'Brien was running a sting (he personally oversaw the breaking of Winston Smith, had recordings of their seditious conversation, etc).
/.
I have often said that Clinton sucks (even before this became a news item with the verb in the passive voice), which seems to be enough to get him to sic the jackboots on you, as demonstrated in the Mendoza case.
/.
Nope. You need a bit of electronic equipment to do wiretaps. You are supposed to also have a judge's order -- but when I see a few Feds who dispensed with that part spending 5-10 years at the Crossbar Hotel as Bubba's boytoy, then I might be inclined to take your argument seriously.
/.
1. All laws shall expire not more than ten years from passage. (They can be effectively renewed by re-passing them, going through the same procedure as for a new law.)
2. All bills shall be read on the floor in their entirety by the sponsor (or by a colleague designated by the sponsor, to be fair to the vocally challenged should any such be found in politics).
3. Only legislators who have remained present for the entire reading get to vote on that bill. If this is less than a quorum, the bill dies right there.
/.
There's no bright line between the two -- some of the most outrageous abuses are committed by the tax collectors and environmental enforcers. Laws against polluting other people's air and water are one thing (supported by pretty much everybody, libertarians included); blocking multi-million dollar developments (in effect, confiscating the assets involved) to protect a population of eight flies (I swear I am not making this up) is quite another.
/.
Actually, no, they don't. (Well, maybe they do written down on a yellowing scrap of paper somewhere, but in actual practice law enforcement at all levels has been getting into the habit of just stealing stuff.)
/.
This software will be long gone by the year 2000....
/.
It is also not a given that you will die if you jump out a tenth-story window, but it would not be prudent to take the chance.
However, seems like everytime I post a comment this, people quote T Jefferson (A little revolution every now and then is a good thing) etc.
Hmmm... whose opinions should carry more weight when it comes to the foundations of the Republic? Anonymous Chemist... Thomas Jefferson... Anonymous Chemist... Thomas Jefferson... Tough choice -- NOT!
Fact is, if the founding fathers never had any idea of our modern world
This is the same inane argument offered by gun controllers and Internet censors. AC would have us accept that freedom of the press only applies to hand-cranked manual-typeset presses and the right to keep and bear arms only applies to muzzle-loaded muskets.
God forbid we ever have to worry about biological warfare.
They had biological warfare in the eighteenth century. Or did you think they passed out blankets from smallpox patients to the Indians out of generosity?
But no, in the defense of a minority of criminals rights, we should tie up the hands of law enforcement?
In the defense of the Constitutional rights of all citizens, we should require the police to obey the laws they have sworn to uphold.
(It's at times like this that I think of what "oathbreaker" means in the pagan tradition, and the sort of punishments considered appropriate to this sin. Being a sentimental softie, I'd be satisfied to send lawbreaking cops to prison.)
Nor did [the Founders] have any idea that the country they founded would be the leading SuperPower.
Indeed they didn't -- they had advised in the strongest possible terms against any such course. Being classically educated, they understood very well the process by which Republic degenerates into Empire.
/.
And when Clinton and his minions are in prison (don't-bend-over-for-the-soap prison, not Club Fed), then you can make the case that I should trust the government. Not before.
And finally, no I am not kidding. The Police are only doing a thankless job.
Police who uphold the law are doing a thankless job. Police who break the law are criminals. Anyone attempting to weaken our institutional protections against the latter is taking the side of criminality.
While you might rail against them in your comments; think about what it might be like if they weren't at the end of 911.
It would be pretty bad if we didn't have doctors and firefighters, too. I'm not letting them crack into my computer, either.
I was serious, either work within the system to change it
Yes -- for instance, I support the original article's suggestion that the people responsible for this proposal should be drummed out of law enforcement for the same reason a convicted pedophile would be drummed out of day care. That's a fine example of working within the system.
Of course, if the system fails to sanction people who so blatantly violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, then that indicates that the system is broken.
Libertarians seem to support all sorts of attitudes towards personal freedoms, until it come to discussion of opinions that are contrary to theirs. Then, they attack you...that seems to go against the idea of personal expression. Odd isn't it, where they want double standards like that?
Pointing out the gaping holes in your argument is free expression. Attempts to equate rebuttal with suppression are the last refuge of the intellectually incompetent.
/.
Er, the government at the moment is being run by criminals. We've gone far downhill from the days of Watergate (when Chuck Colson went to prison for illegally obtaining one, count 'em one, FBI file) to today (when Clinton has about a thousand illegally obtained FBI files, and that's just what has come to light so far).
With A LOT of revision to this, it may be a good idea.
The required "revision" would be "you need a real search warrant, issued by a real court of law operating under the procedures of traditional Anglo-American jurisprudence (pet Star Chambers need not apply)". We already have laws to that effect, so the "revision" could be accomplished simply -- just pour a bucket of White-Out(TM) over the DOJ proposal.
Maybe some type of key built into any encryption programs that would allow the goverment
They keep trying to get that, too. No dice.
while on the premises and with a search warrant or something
Or something?! What might this "somthing" be?? "I can feel in my bones he's guilty"?
Just imagine how it would feel to bust some drug dealers and get their computer hardware and browse through their files and see that all the files are encrypted.
"Maybe we should have gotten our information by old-fashioned application of shoe leather to pavement, instead of getting so dependent on computers...."
Just take a moment and think about that before you flame the life out of me.
OK. I've thought about it. Flame on!
/.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague deCamp, Lest Darkness Fall
/.
Where do you get this odd notion that the theory of evolution is "based on the assumption that there is no God"? The two assertions (evolution and theism) have no bearing on one another.
/.
Nothing less than prison time (in a don't-bend-over-for-the-soap joint, not Club Fed) will do the job. The penalties you suggest are too easy to evade (a slush fund paying the fines under the table, unofficial rewards later to compensate for the administrative sanctions now, etc).
However, I don't think that any jurisdiction in the US has the political will to do this, short of a well-publicized atrocity such as the Abner Louima case in New York. That leaves us stuck with the exclusionary rule until somebody comes up with an effective and politically acceptable substitute.
/.
It seems to me that the problem of coding a quantum computer to give the answer to a specific problem is going to turn out to be just as difficult as solving the problem the old-fashioned way.
/.
Well, yes, you can manage one time pads for a relatively small volume of communication with a very small group of correspondents. Beyond that, key data either runs out or is accidentally used twice.
/.
Sounds like our old friend Elmer FUD from Marketing. All the reports I've seen say that Athlon is a direct competitor for the high-end PIII -- with generally better performance and no Big Brother Inside serial number.
/.
The first thing I thought of was RoboRally.
/.
Is that all?!? I was expecting at least one bacchanalian orgy per week! Have you guys been paying the preachers to spread that false advertising, or what?
/.
Let's not go there....
/.
That turns out not to be the case.
/.