it is not required of me to defend the american system in order to attack the brazilian system. please, by all means, attack the american system if you want, i am not defending it, i agree it sucks in many ways, most definitely with the disgusting electoral college. if you reflexively attack the american system when i attack the brazilian system, this is just kneejerk tribalism on your part, you completely miss the point: my words of criticism of the brazilian system are not being spoken as an american, or a japanese, or even a brazilian. this is not a soccer match. i am simply, as a human being who wishes democracy to remain as airtight as possible, imploring everyone to stick with paper voting, not just in brazil, but anywhere democracy flourishes
that the system gives a print out means nothing. if i ghost write statistically invisible records across a wide swath of a vote, covering perhaps 1-10% of a vote, i can sway the entire election on close calls. what will the paper printout protect you from then? you are going to call everyone back and compare each and every record to find the discrepancy? good luck
and you point to how the system is robust. robust against what? a script kiddie? say i am a powerful interest: petrol, agriculture, whatever. the vote looks like it is going against my financial interests, i can see $100 million in losses if a new administration comes in with a new policy. so i am willing to put $10 million up to bribe the right government official, or two (as opposed to hundreds of officials with a paper vote to affect the same volume of changes: impossible to remain an airtight conspiracy). then i hire the 1 right top level hacker programmer to plug in at the right moment at the right spot to ghost write and cover all our tracks and in such a pseudorandom way as to defy statistical analysis
i've just bought the brazilian presidency
only with electronic voting is this scenario possible to happen, and remain absolutely silent and unnoticed
this doesn't bother you? you don't see how this scenario is impossible with paper voting, simply because it requires too much effort by too many actors to remain unnoticed and affect that much change?
if you make voting more complex, you increase the number of attack vectors. and where previously, you might need to have a conspiracy of multiple actors to dispose of/ falsify paper votes over a length of time and with grueling effort affecting only a fraction of precincts, now, one well-placed guy, and one fine tuned hack, can in 3 milliseconds massage the votes in such a way that they defy auditing, statistical analysis...
do brazilians really want brazilian democracy to be this vulnerable to a major challenge to its legitimacy?
i find the prospect of electronic voting to the single most greatest threat to democracy i can think of today. because it undermines the legitimacy of the process. you can't make it transparent AND secure at the same time: these two processes are diametrically opposed to each other. either its secure and opaque and therefore untrustworthy (oh, you're going to trsut some underpaid government technicians with the legitimacy of your democracy? "trust us, everythign is fine"), or its transparent and open to more avenues of mischief. and electronics, unlike paper and pencil, are fundamentally opaque. its a black box: you put votes in, a tally comes out. within that black box is too much potential for easy mischief ranging across the entire vote of millions of people in mere milliseconds. of course you can do mischief with paper ballots. its just that the time and effort required is humongous compared to what one little quick hack can do
it is absolutely absurd to me that anyone would entrust the perception of the legitimacy of their government to electronic voting. every democracy, from the poorest, to the richest, should use paper ballots and ocr. that anyone would seriously consider electronic voting, to me, belies a fatal inability to understand what the role of transparency and trust play in the legitimacy of your democratic government, a fatal inability to understand the whole point of what the voting process is: it must be absolutely clear to the people of a democracy that their vote counts, and that their vote is real. you don't get that with electronics
its mindboggling to me. what does it take to convince technofetishists that the voting process must NOT be "improved"? for the sake of the perception of legitimacy of your government?
Mike Nash : The OSes all go to seven. Look, right across the board, seven, seven, seven and... PHB : Oh, I see. And most OSes top off at Vista? Mike Nash : Exactly. PHB : Does that mean it's better? Is it any better? Mike Nash : Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not Vista. You see, most blokes, you know, will be using Vista. You're on Vista here, all the way up, all your CPUs burning, all the way up, you're on Vista on your PC. Where can you go from there? Where? PHB : I don't know. Mike Nash : Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do? PHB : Put it up to seven. Mike Nash : Seven. Exactly. One better. PHB : Why don't you just make Vista better and make Vista be the top number and make that a little better? Mike Nash : [pause] These go to seven.
your summary speaks of an expectation that the rules of employment are hard set in terms years of that, experience with this, etc. not that a lot if not most employment opportunities do work in the way you understand. however, you'll find that there is a lot of wiggle room out there. some relaxation of requirements comes from a wildly unprepared employer, belying an unpleasant work experience. other times requirements are relaxed and gambles are made simply because you are in boom times, or its really hard for some reason to find prospective candidates, due to all sorts of factors
its not formulaic. you can spend 10 years ratcheting up the job ladder to get to a pay scale and job experience that you could have gotten if you had just gone to a few more interviews 10 years earlier. nothing is guaranteed, everything is chaotic. you'll find (and probably have already found) that your coworkers differ dramatically in skillset and effectiveness. its always like this, and there is a certain level of salesmanship and misrepresentation and misperception going on in every job interview
you'll also find some people will join a company, then leave after a week, if things are not to their liking. so don't feel skittish about taking a risk on a promising job, and then leaving if its not what you though it would be. and go to a lot of interviews, simply to see what is out there, and to build your interview skills, and don't be afraid to fall in love with something and put a lot of effort into it to see your chances uptliamtely dashed. the reward for your short term pain is long term gain
"somebody has CO2, and made it into fuel! no details!"
there's a million ways to do that
all of which require energy. there is no way to convert CO2 into any kind of usable fuel that does also include putting energy in at some point
whereever that energy comes from is the real story. since that isn't even hinted at, there's no story here. or, alternatively, some idiot thinks you can turn CO2 into fuel without an energy input. which beggars the low end of the iq curve in terms of understanding the subject matter here
if i took random spam from my inbox about growing my penis size and posted it here, that would be more informative and useful than this crap nonstory
but now everyone i know pretty much can email with their phones. and if not, there's an sms-email gateway, where you type their [phone number]@vzw.net or something like that. of course they have to pay for that, but if they reply, it comes in as a regular email, so you don't have to pay anything
such that i'm thinking of shunning sms use completely
sms is a wonderfully useful little signalling protocol... if it weren't being milked to death. so it will be discarded from general use, killed off by the phone company
the only true test of bias is the individual. and since each of our bullshit meters is different, only in aggregate does a judgment of bias become apparent
and when you look at an aggregate opinion of the people, it becomes apparent that some media swings right, and some swings left
and this is the way it always was, is, and always will be. if fox news went out of business, another media outlet would spring into being to fill the void, since it satisfies a craving for right leaning folks to get their prejudices pampered. and this observation applies equally to the left, its prejudices, and liberal media. there is never an end to a right wing media, never an end to left wing media
such that a constant passionate obsession with bias in the media is more of a hallmark of naivete and cluelessness
every day the sun rises and sets. at 7 am when the sun comes up, do i guffaw with shock and amazement? when the tide comes in and out, do i start frothing at the mouth in hysterics?
no. nothing i do will change the rising and setting of the sun or the tides. nor do these occurences become interesting or remarkable anymore
likewise, nothing i do will change the existence of bias in the media, nor is the existence of bias in the media of any interest or remarkability
the entire subject matter is remedial
this applies equally to those who foam at the mouth about the liberal media, and those who foam at the mouth about fox news: naivete about how their world works
anyone with any real intelligence on the issue of bias in the media is over it, doesn't care anymore
meanwhile, anyone who is a child is still obsessed with the issue
its over. its a done topic. its completely unimportant: media is biased. it doesn't matter anymore. stop talking about it already unless you wish to prove you are unfamiliar with simple realities about the world you live in like a small child
went up the hill to fetch a pail of financial intervention
betty and sue just got married in connecticut
oh wait what? you were taking this SERIOUSLY
dude: i'm going to ease you a nice soft pitch of intellectual charity, and then i'm going to run away and post no more in this thread, because you are certifiable, and i don't like being mean to crazy people:
the folly of the ideology of free market fundamentalism is in a burning heap right now
central government is a valid tool in this world, and should be used, and anyone not pragmatic enough to realize this is a simpleminded idealistic fool
the free market does not solve all problems, and sometimes must be saved from itself, and more importantly, as a guiding philosophical principle, is fatally flawed
right now, for a company to outlay the time and expense to go to IPv6 isn't worth the benefit... from the persective of the company
from the persective of the internet, yes
but you are asking everyone to sacrifice for some noble cause voluntarily. this never works. you need to make the sacrifice compulsory
if there is a fire in a theatre, it makes sense for everyone to leave the theatre in an orderly fashion. it will be quicker and safer. but the evacuation does not take place from an omniscient view from the sky. it takes place in terms of individual decisions by bit actors in a burning theatre. from their individual persective, it makes sense to make a beeline for the exit and claw over anyone caught under your feet. even though this means, in aggregate, and as individuals, they have a greater chance of dying
individual decisions about what is best for you are not often not in synchronicity with what is best for the group as a whole, and sometimes, paradoxically, not even in synchronicity with what is best for the individual. its a tragedy
the only solution in the burning theatre is have some guys with guns yelling at people to stay and line and promises to shoot anyone who steps out of line, and then actually doing that when someone panics
same with going to IPv6: the government must mandate it and make it compulsory, with financial punishment. only way it will ever happen is with a central authority enforcing it
form the persepctive of the entire organic internet, yes, IPv6 is a nobrainer, all of your observations of the negative of staying IPv4 are dead on
but from the perspective of individual companies and actors on the net, the only perspective that actually matters when it comes to actually implementing the change, btw, spending a ton of money, a ton of time, in order that 2 people are able to (optionally) view your IPv6 offerings is, again, a complete nobrainer: its not worth it
such that the only way you will get anyone to suffer the pain of making the switchover is to force them too. and the only people that can force the change is the government
we are never, ever, leaving IPv4 until a government body steps in and forces it. free market principles ensure stagnation. that's the flipside of the network effect
we are switching over from analog to digital television transmission in february 2009. at that date, analog tv will simply disappear. if you have an older tv without a converter, it simply won't work. to get this to happen, the government and broadcasters had to sit down, make a timetable, and implement it
in this way, and ONLY IN THIS WAY, were we ever going to switch to digital transmission. furthermore, in this way, and only in this way, will any country ever make the switch to IPv6
there is no free market solution to this problem. in fact, according to principles of the free market, you are punished for making the extra expense and becoming a first adapter: you spend all this time and money, and no one is going to consume what you offer on the new protocol. why? because everyone is making their material avaiable on IPv4, so that's where the audience stays. the inertia is heavy
so either everyone switches to IPv6, or no one switches IPv6. there is no gradual changeover, because there is no incentive, and only punishment for all of the effort, for being a first adapter
governments have to mandate IPv6 changeover. that is only way IPv6 will ever happen. doesn't matter in the slightest how superior IPv6 is. punishment of early adapters trumps all observations of technological superiority
assume for the moment that rf interference from passenger electronics is real, and can cause dramatic effects in aircraft telemetry, instrumentation, etc.
then, as a simple matter of prudence, the airline industry must invest in rf shielding technologies for its planes. such shielding represents what amount of financial outlay and is how effective?
if it is shown to be relatively cheap and effective, then build it into airplanes, and shut down this entire argument. because even if rf intereference is eventually proven to be an exceedingly remote phenomenon, the costs of shielding against it, even just in terms of peace of mind, is worth the expenditure. assuming it isn't much money
end of discussion
sure, you can confiscate electronics, but then you are stuck with a bunch of passengers with nothing to do but complain about being away form their umbilical cord. you can strongly punish people for using their electronics, but that won't stop kids from playing their games, the businessman who has to get that email, or devices that they were sure they turned off, but are still chattering away on their own
and if you were phrase this rf interference in terms of terrorism (since that is so popular these days): if you really believe that some guy can bring on board a small rf generator, twiddle with strength and frequency, and cause the aircraft to go into a dive, then the answer to this problem is obviously to be proactive in the design of the plane, not in how passengers are screened
you can have an rf generator with what? some copper coil and a battery? at the strengths we are talking, heck, just use some copper coil and channel some static electricity, that's easy to find on dry aircraft cabin air with lots of rugs. how hard is it to smuggle fine copper wire onto a plane? in your change in your wallet. then loop it around your finger on board, and start rubbing your sneakers on the ground for a static discharge
if you really believe rf interfering with a plane dramtically is real, this scenario can not be protected against, and so the plane must be proactively shielded
you give it 90% importance on a gauge of personal value, i give it 10% importance
the value within our personal lives of that value is absolute and unquestionable, since the value is gauged only by you, and only has meaning to you
but if we move to the public sphere, the value of your high school graduation photos takes on a new value. it does not replace your personal valuation, it operates in a different sphere, a different perspective
this is the source of your failure in logic: you are confusing the personal perspective with the public perspective
no one is telling you how you value things are wrong, they are telling you your value does not apply outside your personal realm
this is the failure of the story's author. he assumes a high value for his information in the public sphere. he assumes the valuation he applies to his info in the private sphere is universal. the truth is, the value he places on his personal info is unnaturally high as applied to how other's value the same sort of info in their own lives
and there's nothing wrong with that. he can assume a very high value on his personal info if he wants, this doesn't impact me. he can protect this personal info in a bank vault if he likes. i'm not opposed to that at all
but when he assumes i have the same high value on my personal info, i have to tell him he is wrong
indeed, if someone were liberal with their info on facebook, and they pissed off scientology, they would be making it very easy for scientologists to unleash their fascist "fair game" bullshit
so, let me answer your question this way:
any scientologists reading this post, please put me on your enemies list. i will make it every effort of every fibre in my being to defeat you. please find my personal details, please use them against me. i will respond in kind you slimy motherfuckers
why do i say this?
because they are already my enemy. they are already your enemy, you reading this. scientology is the enemy of anyone who values privacy and freedom. fight them now, when they are a large cockroach, or your grandchildren will be fighting them when they are a swarm of locusts. there is no such thing, as someone who values privacy, freedom, liberty, to not be fighting scientology, already
you are defined in this world by your enemies. i relish being the enemy of scientology. i welcome their attention. evil fucking scum. life is too damn short to hide. i would rather die poor and proud knowing i actually fought and stood for something in this short brutal life than die rich and a miserable coward, hating myself for giving into evil. because that is what scientology is: its pretty much the definition of evil if you value liberty freedom and privacy
scientology is the enemy of every moral principle i hold dear. they freely disregard people's liberty and basic freedoms in pursuit of growing their fungus of a money consuming ponzi scheme that calls itself a "religion". do not even begin to compare this virus with any established world religion. by orders of magnitude, in your most fantastic description of the operating procedures of traditional religions, none of them consume lives and doggedly destroy the freedoms of its victims and of its enemies as nastily as scientology does
any nation that respects basic human rights and freedoms will do their utmost to outlaw and shut down this fungal growth called scientology. hurray germany! come to your sense, rest of the western world. this institution is the antithesis of every principle western enlightenment is founded upon. it is your enemy, whether you know it or not
a society that says it stands for tolerance but tolerates intolerant institutions is hollow and has invited their doom. in the name of tolerance, you fight intolerant institutions. scientology, by their repeated and disgusting tactics, has made it immensely clear they have absolutely zero respect for your rights and freedoms and your privacy. it is therefore in the name of tolerance i fight scientology. squash the fucking bug while it is still small, drive it from the face of the earth. scientology must cease to exist in the name of everything i stand for
and i invite everyone here on slashdot reading my words to stand with me, if you stand for ANYTHING in this world
it's an old game from around 2000. the score was excellent, music mood and game setting were complementary. but most memorably, whenever you encountered an enemy or engaged in combat, the score would effortlessly change theme to something more edgy and dramatic, and then effortlessly change theme back again when aggressions subsided. it was as if you were scoring the music for an action movie in real time
in the personal realm, value is determined independently of anything else. it has no inherent value from a public perspective
the imposition being made is that the author of the story we are commenting under assumes some sort of public value to our personal information, where none exists
that is my comment in a nutshell, and it makes more sense than what the anonymous coward wrote
and you shouldn't be talking about eating dicks on a public website. people might draw embarassing assumptions... yes i am being sarcastic on a meta-level;-)
Slashdot Mirror
in how it describes the completely opaque methodology by which secures transactions
duh
it is not required of me to defend the american system in order to attack the brazilian system. please, by all means, attack the american system if you want, i am not defending it, i agree it sucks in many ways, most definitely with the disgusting electoral college. if you reflexively attack the american system when i attack the brazilian system, this is just kneejerk tribalism on your part, you completely miss the point: my words of criticism of the brazilian system are not being spoken as an american, or a japanese, or even a brazilian. this is not a soccer match. i am simply, as a human being who wishes democracy to remain as airtight as possible, imploring everyone to stick with paper voting, not just in brazil, but anywhere democracy flourishes
that the system gives a print out means nothing. if i ghost write statistically invisible records across a wide swath of a vote, covering perhaps 1-10% of a vote, i can sway the entire election on close calls. what will the paper printout protect you from then? you are going to call everyone back and compare each and every record to find the discrepancy? good luck
and you point to how the system is robust. robust against what? a script kiddie? say i am a powerful interest: petrol, agriculture, whatever. the vote looks like it is going against my financial interests, i can see $100 million in losses if a new administration comes in with a new policy. so i am willing to put $10 million up to bribe the right government official, or two (as opposed to hundreds of officials with a paper vote to affect the same volume of changes: impossible to remain an airtight conspiracy). then i hire the 1 right top level hacker programmer to plug in at the right moment at the right spot to ghost write and cover all our tracks and in such a pseudorandom way as to defy statistical analysis
i've just bought the brazilian presidency
only with electronic voting is this scenario possible to happen, and remain absolutely silent and unnoticed
this doesn't bother you? you don't see how this scenario is impossible with paper voting, simply because it requires too much effort by too many actors to remain unnoticed and affect that much change?
if you make voting more complex, you increase the number of attack vectors. and where previously, you might need to have a conspiracy of multiple actors to dispose of/ falsify paper votes over a length of time and with grueling effort affecting only a fraction of precincts, now, one well-placed guy, and one fine tuned hack, can in 3 milliseconds massage the votes in such a way that they defy auditing, statistical analysis...
do brazilians really want brazilian democracy to be this vulnerable to a major challenge to its legitimacy?
i find the prospect of electronic voting to the single most greatest threat to democracy i can think of today. because it undermines the legitimacy of the process. you can't make it transparent AND secure at the same time: these two processes are diametrically opposed to each other. either its secure and opaque and therefore untrustworthy (oh, you're going to trsut some underpaid government technicians with the legitimacy of your democracy? "trust us, everythign is fine"), or its transparent and open to more avenues of mischief. and electronics, unlike paper and pencil, are fundamentally opaque. its a black box: you put votes in, a tally comes out. within that black box is too much potential for easy mischief ranging across the entire vote of millions of people in mere milliseconds. of course you can do mischief with paper ballots. its just that the time and effort required is humongous compared to what one little quick hack can do
it is absolutely absurd to me that anyone would entrust the perception of the legitimacy of their government to electronic voting. every democracy, from the poorest, to the richest, should use paper ballots and ocr. that anyone would seriously consider electronic voting, to me, belies a fatal inability to understand what the role of transparency and trust play in the legitimacy of your democratic government, a fatal inability to understand the whole point of what the voting process is: it must be absolutely clear to the people of a democracy that their vote counts, and that their vote is real. you don't get that with electronics
its mindboggling to me. what does it take to convince technofetishists that the voting process must NOT be "improved"? for the sake of the perception of legitimacy of your government?
Mike Nash : The OSes all go to seven. Look, right across the board, seven, seven, seven and...
PHB : Oh, I see. And most OSes top off at Vista?
Mike Nash : Exactly.
PHB : Does that mean it's better? Is it any better?
Mike Nash : Well, it's one better, isn't it? It's not Vista. You see, most blokes, you know, will be using Vista. You're on Vista here, all the way up, all your CPUs burning, all the way up, you're on Vista on your PC. Where can you go from there? Where?
PHB : I don't know.
Mike Nash : Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
PHB : Put it up to seven.
Mike Nash : Seven. Exactly. One better.
PHB : Why don't you just make Vista better and make Vista be the top number and make that a little better?
Mike Nash : [pause] These go to seven.
your summary speaks of an expectation that the rules of employment are hard set in terms years of that, experience with this, etc. not that a lot if not most employment opportunities do work in the way you understand. however, you'll find that there is a lot of wiggle room out there. some relaxation of requirements comes from a wildly unprepared employer, belying an unpleasant work experience. other times requirements are relaxed and gambles are made simply because you are in boom times, or its really hard for some reason to find prospective candidates, due to all sorts of factors
its not formulaic. you can spend 10 years ratcheting up the job ladder to get to a pay scale and job experience that you could have gotten if you had just gone to a few more interviews 10 years earlier. nothing is guaranteed, everything is chaotic. you'll find (and probably have already found) that your coworkers differ dramatically in skillset and effectiveness. its always like this, and there is a certain level of salesmanship and misrepresentation and misperception going on in every job interview
you'll also find some people will join a company, then leave after a week, if things are not to their liking. so don't feel skittish about taking a risk on a promising job, and then leaving if its not what you though it would be. and go to a lot of interviews, simply to see what is out there, and to build your interview skills, and don't be afraid to fall in love with something and put a lot of effort into it to see your chances uptliamtely dashed. the reward for your short term pain is long term gain
"somebody has CO2, and made it into fuel! no details!"
there's a million ways to do that
all of which require energy. there is no way to convert CO2 into any kind of usable fuel that does also include putting energy in at some point
whereever that energy comes from is the real story. since that isn't even hinted at, there's no story here. or, alternatively, some idiot thinks you can turn CO2 into fuel without an energy input. which beggars the low end of the iq curve in terms of understanding the subject matter here
if i took random spam from my inbox about growing my penis size and posted it here, that would be more informative and useful than this crap nonstory
but now everyone i know pretty much can email with their phones. and if not, there's an sms-email gateway, where you type their [phone number]@vzw.net or something like that. of course they have to pay for that, but if they reply, it comes in as a regular email, so you don't have to pay anything
such that i'm thinking of shunning sms use completely
sms is a wonderfully useful little signalling protocol... if it weren't being milked to death. so it will be discarded from general use, killed off by the phone company
all media is biased
the only true test of bias is the individual. and since each of our bullshit meters is different, only in aggregate does a judgment of bias become apparent
and when you look at an aggregate opinion of the people, it becomes apparent that some media swings right, and some swings left
and this is the way it always was, is, and always will be. if fox news went out of business, another media outlet would spring into being to fill the void, since it satisfies a craving for right leaning folks to get their prejudices pampered. and this observation applies equally to the left, its prejudices, and liberal media. there is never an end to a right wing media, never an end to left wing media
such that a constant passionate obsession with bias in the media is more of a hallmark of naivete and cluelessness
every day the sun rises and sets. at 7 am when the sun comes up, do i guffaw with shock and amazement? when the tide comes in and out, do i start frothing at the mouth in hysterics?
no. nothing i do will change the rising and setting of the sun or the tides. nor do these occurences become interesting or remarkable anymore
likewise, nothing i do will change the existence of bias in the media, nor is the existence of bias in the media of any interest or remarkability
the entire subject matter is remedial
this applies equally to those who foam at the mouth about the liberal media, and those who foam at the mouth about fox news: naivete about how their world works
anyone with any real intelligence on the issue of bias in the media is over it, doesn't care anymore
meanwhile, anyone who is a child is still obsessed with the issue
its over. its a done topic. its completely unimportant: media is biased. it doesn't matter anymore. stop talking about it already unless you wish to prove you are unfamiliar with simple realities about the world you live in like a small child
went up the hill to fetch a pail of financial intervention
betty and sue just got married in connecticut
oh wait what? you were taking this SERIOUSLY
dude: i'm going to ease you a nice soft pitch of intellectual charity, and then i'm going to run away and post no more in this thread, because you are certifiable, and i don't like being mean to crazy people:
it's a LITTLE more complicated than your analogy
(runs away)
not a raving fruitloop
come on people
i request a joke characterature and i get the genuine article
previously, i thought the markets were melting down due to gay marriage
perhaps this is the obvious run up to 2012 and the end of the mayan calendar
paranoid schizophrenics, want to help me out here?
look at your news ticker
the folly of the ideology of free market fundamentalism is in a burning heap right now
central government is a valid tool in this world, and should be used, and anyone not pragmatic enough to realize this is a simpleminded idealistic fool
the free market does not solve all problems, and sometimes must be saved from itself, and more importantly, as a guiding philosophical principle, is fatally flawed
go outside, write your question and your email address on a poster, and point it skyward
then go inside and wait for a reply in your inbox
if you don't like google's answer, go outside, and stick your middle finger up to the sky
its all about incentive
right now, for a company to outlay the time and expense to go to IPv6 isn't worth the benefit... from the persective of the company
from the persective of the internet, yes
but you are asking everyone to sacrifice for some noble cause voluntarily. this never works. you need to make the sacrifice compulsory
if there is a fire in a theatre, it makes sense for everyone to leave the theatre in an orderly fashion. it will be quicker and safer. but the evacuation does not take place from an omniscient view from the sky. it takes place in terms of individual decisions by bit actors in a burning theatre. from their individual persective, it makes sense to make a beeline for the exit and claw over anyone caught under your feet. even though this means, in aggregate, and as individuals, they have a greater chance of dying
individual decisions about what is best for you are not often not in synchronicity with what is best for the group as a whole, and sometimes, paradoxically, not even in synchronicity with what is best for the individual. its a tragedy
the only solution in the burning theatre is have some guys with guns yelling at people to stay and line and promises to shoot anyone who steps out of line, and then actually doing that when someone panics
same with going to IPv6: the government must mandate it and make it compulsory, with financial punishment. only way it will ever happen is with a central authority enforcing it
from the proper perspective
form the persepctive of the entire organic internet, yes, IPv6 is a nobrainer, all of your observations of the negative of staying IPv4 are dead on
but from the perspective of individual companies and actors on the net, the only perspective that actually matters when it comes to actually implementing the change, btw, spending a ton of money, a ton of time, in order that 2 people are able to (optionally) view your IPv6 offerings is, again, a complete nobrainer: its not worth it
such that the only way you will get anyone to suffer the pain of making the switchover is to force them too. and the only people that can force the change is the government
we are never, ever, leaving IPv4 until a government body steps in and forces it. free market principles ensure stagnation. that's the flipside of the network effect
we are switching over from analog to digital television transmission in february 2009. at that date, analog tv will simply disappear. if you have an older tv without a converter, it simply won't work. to get this to happen, the government and broadcasters had to sit down, make a timetable, and implement it
in this way, and ONLY IN THIS WAY, were we ever going to switch to digital transmission. furthermore, in this way, and only in this way, will any country ever make the switch to IPv6
there is no free market solution to this problem. in fact, according to principles of the free market, you are punished for making the extra expense and becoming a first adapter: you spend all this time and money, and no one is going to consume what you offer on the new protocol. why? because everyone is making their material avaiable on IPv4, so that's where the audience stays. the inertia is heavy
so either everyone switches to IPv6, or no one switches IPv6. there is no gradual changeover, because there is no incentive, and only punishment for all of the effort, for being a first adapter
governments have to mandate IPv6 changeover. that is only way IPv6 will ever happen. doesn't matter in the slightest how superior IPv6 is. punishment of early adapters trumps all observations of technological superiority
assume for the moment that rf interference from passenger electronics is real, and can cause dramatic effects in aircraft telemetry, instrumentation, etc.
then, as a simple matter of prudence, the airline industry must invest in rf shielding technologies for its planes. such shielding represents what amount of financial outlay and is how effective?
if it is shown to be relatively cheap and effective, then build it into airplanes, and shut down this entire argument. because even if rf intereference is eventually proven to be an exceedingly remote phenomenon, the costs of shielding against it, even just in terms of peace of mind, is worth the expenditure. assuming it isn't much money
end of discussion
sure, you can confiscate electronics, but then you are stuck with a bunch of passengers with nothing to do but complain about being away form their umbilical cord. you can strongly punish people for using their electronics, but that won't stop kids from playing their games, the businessman who has to get that email, or devices that they were sure they turned off, but are still chattering away on their own
and if you were phrase this rf interference in terms of terrorism (since that is so popular these days): if you really believe that some guy can bring on board a small rf generator, twiddle with strength and frequency, and cause the aircraft to go into a dive, then the answer to this problem is obviously to be proactive in the design of the plane, not in how passengers are screened
you can have an rf generator with what? some copper coil and a battery? at the strengths we are talking, heck, just use some copper coil and channel some static electricity, that's easy to find on dry aircraft cabin air with lots of rugs. how hard is it to smuggle fine copper wire onto a plane? in your change in your wallet. then loop it around your finger on board, and start rubbing your sneakers on the ground for a static discharge
if you really believe rf interfering with a plane dramtically is real, this scenario can not be protected against, and so the plane must be proactively shielded
you give it 90% importance on a gauge of personal value, i give it 10% importance
the value within our personal lives of that value is absolute and unquestionable, since the value is gauged only by you, and only has meaning to you
but if we move to the public sphere, the value of your high school graduation photos takes on a new value. it does not replace your personal valuation, it operates in a different sphere, a different perspective
this is the source of your failure in logic: you are confusing the personal perspective with the public perspective
no one is telling you how you value things are wrong, they are telling you your value does not apply outside your personal realm
this is the failure of the story's author. he assumes a high value for his information in the public sphere. he assumes the valuation he applies to his info in the private sphere is universal. the truth is, the value he places on his personal info is unnaturally high as applied to how other's value the same sort of info in their own lives
and there's nothing wrong with that. he can assume a very high value on his personal info if he wants, this doesn't impact me. he can protect this personal info in a bank vault if he likes. i'm not opposed to that at all
but when he assumes i have the same high value on my personal info, i have to tell him he is wrong
its the moon after all, cheaply and bountifully available
evolution is like a car trip man! it's like driving from des moines to calgary, got it? and like, the car has broken down in bismark don't you see?
don't you get it man? evolution has STOPPED dude. the carburetor is blown, the tires are flat, mens' testicles aren't mutated enough!
the implications are HUGE! i'm going to go post this on slashdot, this is an EARTHQUAKE!
maybe we should all have HIGH RADON in our homes to make up for massive changes in the mating rituals!
this is FAR OUT
wy do people give these low iq ideas a soap box?
indeed, if someone were liberal with their info on facebook, and they pissed off scientology, they would be making it very easy for scientologists to unleash their fascist "fair game" bullshit
so, let me answer your question this way:
any scientologists reading this post, please put me on your enemies list. i will make it every effort of every fibre in my being to defeat you. please find my personal details, please use them against me. i will respond in kind you slimy motherfuckers
why do i say this?
because they are already my enemy. they are already your enemy, you reading this. scientology is the enemy of anyone who values privacy and freedom. fight them now, when they are a large cockroach, or your grandchildren will be fighting them when they are a swarm of locusts. there is no such thing, as someone who values privacy, freedom, liberty, to not be fighting scientology, already
you are defined in this world by your enemies. i relish being the enemy of scientology. i welcome their attention. evil fucking scum. life is too damn short to hide. i would rather die poor and proud knowing i actually fought and stood for something in this short brutal life than die rich and a miserable coward, hating myself for giving into evil. because that is what scientology is: its pretty much the definition of evil if you value liberty freedom and privacy
scientology is the enemy of every moral principle i hold dear. they freely disregard people's liberty and basic freedoms in pursuit of growing their fungus of a money consuming ponzi scheme that calls itself a "religion". do not even begin to compare this virus with any established world religion. by orders of magnitude, in your most fantastic description of the operating procedures of traditional religions, none of them consume lives and doggedly destroy the freedoms of its victims and of its enemies as nastily as scientology does
any nation that respects basic human rights and freedoms will do their utmost to outlaw and shut down this fungal growth called scientology. hurray germany! come to your sense, rest of the western world. this institution is the antithesis of every principle western enlightenment is founded upon. it is your enemy, whether you know it or not
a society that says it stands for tolerance but tolerates intolerant institutions is hollow and has invited their doom. in the name of tolerance, you fight intolerant institutions. scientology, by their repeated and disgusting tactics, has made it immensely clear they have absolutely zero respect for your rights and freedoms and your privacy. it is therefore in the name of tolerance i fight scientology. squash the fucking bug while it is still small, drive it from the face of the earth. scientology must cease to exist in the name of everything i stand for
and i invite everyone here on slashdot reading my words to stand with me, if you stand for ANYTHING in this world
does that answer your question clearly enough?
besides, you are talking about an organization that infiltrated and bought to heel the goddamn irs! any virulent, persistent fungal creature that can make the goddamn irs cry mercy is NOT an enemy that will be put off by your pathetic attempts in keeping your personal life safe by avoiding facebook! this forum, slashdot, this forum that so much of us look for on news in the good fight had to bend to the will of these locusts. you honestly think this is a fight you can avoid in your life? you honestly think this is an enemy any of us can allow to continue? you honestly believe you are not already their enemy in principle if you value privacy, freedom liberty?
if you are a recognized enemy of scientology, god save you. nothing will protect your privacy. in which case, the
it's an old game from around 2000. the score was excellent, music mood and game setting were complementary. but most memorably, whenever you encountered an enemy or engaged in combat, the score would effortlessly change theme to something more edgy and dramatic, and then effortlessly change theme back again when aggressions subsided. it was as if you were scoring the music for an action movie in real time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planescape:_Torment
the personal one
the public one
in the personal realm, value is determined independently of anything else. it has no inherent value from a public perspective
the imposition being made is that the author of the story we are commenting under assumes some sort of public value to our personal information, where none exists
that is my comment in a nutshell, and it makes more sense than what the anonymous coward wrote
and you shouldn't be talking about eating dicks on a public website. people might draw embarassing assumptions... yes i am being sarcastic on a meta-level ;-)
(snicker)