Keep people safe. That's all they should do. Laws are here to keep society from collapsing, not to tell us what's a good idea and whats a bad idea. At least, thats what I would see as the ideal, and most "american" use of law.
All laws DO is dictate morals.
Dictating morals and keeping people safe are not mutually exclusive, but laws should be here for the second purpose, and not the first alone. A law only dictating morals would be something like the sodomy laws. That's why those laws are bullshit, IMHO.
Of course, you might have a double standard there. Perhaps you think it's ok to have file sharing even though it can be used in the commision of crimes, but not an object tracking service because it could be used in the commision of crimes?
No, please don't make assumptions about my beliefs. In fact, I do believe in the right to create file sharing software. In fact, I do believe in the right to making tracking devices. I also believe that there is a difference between rights and responsibilities. I don't think laws should dictate morals, but it's certainly ok to talk about them:). This belief is actually integral to why I think not manufacturing these tracking devices, and a (albeit limited) teenager's right to privacy is very important.
First of all, the people making napster and many other file-swapping systems are doing so to enable people to trade copyrighted material. I don't think that's a very moral action, but I also don't care that much, because really I think copyrights are somewhat wacky and novel law.
Secondly, you have to learn morals somewhere. If you have a system set up around you while you're a kid, preventing you from doing anything deemed as "wrong", how can you possibly develop as a person capable of moral choice? When people see a system in front of them which prescribes morals, they figure anything is ok as long as you can work it into the system. The opposite is also true: When given responsibility, people often try to live up to it. My analysis prof would hand us our exams and let us complete them wherever we wanted under the promise of not talking to anyone, or looking at a book or notes, and bringing it to him on time. No one dared cheat on those exams. There is an age, which is NOT 18, at which kids need to start having responsibility. It's not right, and certainly not fair, to dump it all on them when they turn 18.
Many parents do not understand this concept, but by virtue of the fact that they do not have the technology to control their kids, their kids will get a chance to experience being on their own, having a little privacy, and perhaps starting the transition into an adult.
I agree that this device could have some good uses, especially for young children, but if I was woz I'd really think the bad outweighs the good and make the decision not to develop it. Again, I don't think it should be illegal, but I think the responsible choice would be not to manufacture it. That's my opinion, and I'm not a parent so it's probably skewed. But really, I can assure you of disaster for many many kids once these devices are available. I had a friend who was never allowed to leave her apartment except for school or certain verified activities (which didn't come very often). Luckily she was able to sneak out pretty often, and I know there are parents much worse than that. Could you imagine living your entire childhood stuck inside a 3-room apartment? I wouldn't like the idea of enabling such a scenario.
I know you realize that I posted because of possible abuses of this tool, and not because I "saw this as an oppressive tool which removes kids rights to skip school" or something idiotic like that which many other posters seem to believe I thought. I'm responding to you because I don't have the patience to respond to everyone else, and your response was actually insightful.
Kids right to privacy from their parents ends where the parents responsibilities to ensure their safety and well being begin.
I would guess you don't know many other parents.
What you mentioned is all fine and good, and perhaps it would be nice to see your kids make it to school all safe and sound from your pc, but don't make the mistake that all parents are as altruistic as you may be. I imagine a great deal of parents will use these as house-arrest devices, tracking every movement of thier kids all the way through 18 years of age. I've met plenty of people who would, so don't tell me that's bullshit. Remember, "Parents responsibilities to ensure safety" are defined by the parents, and there are plenty of morons/assholes out there who will use these devices to some pretty sick ends. I've met some strange people who grew up under very repressive households; I could only imagine how much grief these devices would have added.
You know, that's all fine and dandy for you, but you're in the minority. Most people don't use windows update. Now consider a worm that looks for the voting software and replaces it with a hacked version of the software that silently votes for candidate x without you ever noticing. You'll be safe, but you can't depend on the majority of windows users to be.
is this a case of shameless Googling to find any obscure game with a similar name and make a connection, or is there genuine evidence here?
Evidence of what? Playing a violent video game? Big deal. Most kids play violent video games. What kind of games do you expect psycho killers to enjoy: doom3 or oregon trail? These critics really need to understand that a=>b does NOT mean b=>a. It's a very simple logical fallacy. I'm not discounting the possibility that violent games can incourage violent behavoir either, it's just that you actually need to show that video games lead one to violence when one would otherwise not be disposed to it. Violence was here long before video games were.
This story is very simmilar to a very old story here. Anyway, I'm not sure what the big deal is this time. The author says "brag" as if this is a crazy notion. He's bragging because this policy keeps buyers safe. I'm a privacy advocate, but in this case, why the hell should seller information be kept private from the police? I've been ripped off several times on eBay. I'm very glad to hear that sellers aren't anonymous!!!! So, you should be allowed to stay annonymous when accepting money on the promise of delivering goods?? WTF?! Could you imagine some of the anonymous trolls on this stie selling you shit? How does this escalate directly to giving out buyers bank info? I don't think he'd be bragging to customers about that deal. It's COMPLETELY different.
Your first post is considered tresspass by California state law. You will now be rounded up and sent to infinite detention at Gauntanamo Bay! TERRORIST!
if it's that easy to get hired into airport security, why doesn't our buddy bin laden just get some asshole to work there and let some terrorists through unchecked?
Um, I'm only a novice Japanese student, and I might have totally mangled this, but let me try to explain as best as I understand. If you know this stuff a lot better than I do, feel free to correct me; I'm finished with my classes and am trying to learn the language on my own now. Anyway:
This is a Japanese adage which basically means "pearls before swine". The 'ni' in this particular case is, in english, more like "to" than "in"; it has multiple meanings. So, it's more like "gold-coins to a cat". Or it might be more like "gold coins at the location of a cat" which could be more like "gold coins before a cat". Here's the link I read about it at.
Was that your translation or did you use babelfish? I only ask because it sounds kinda like a babelfish translation. They can be pretty funny:) It's very difficult to translate a lot of Japanese to English (well, for me anyway:). I'm surprised Babelfish does so well but when particles like this are a little ambiguous, it totally fails, which of course is the case at least half the time.
What if there were a beowulf cluster of the top 500 supercomputers?
I suppose, if you truly see a beowulf cluster as a single computer, it would then be the fastest computer and the next 499 fastest would have to be aought out. But then the cluster would have to include these next 499 since it's a beowulf cluster of the 500 fastest. But then... is this a paradox?:) Well, I guess it might be if there were an infinite number of computers, but unfortuneately this recursion has a root:( Actually, I think the answer to your question would be "a beowulf cluster of all computers in the world".
I was 10 when this movie came out and I remember HATING it! I distinctly remember my brother and I mocking it the whole way home. How does this piece of marketing trash deserve an iota of respect?
The thing is, I loved nintendo back then. I also loved terrible movies. I think if I can credit this movie with anything, it would be: the beginning of my cynicism.
Re:If they could ramp this up…
on
Chicken Run
·
· Score: 1
yeah, if only the Chinese had that they wouldn't have needed to gun down protesters at Tienemen Square. We could call it the RTAFSE (right to assemble/free speach eliminator). Then we can once and for all stop this problem of people questioning the government.
Either way you look at it, copyright holders are not getting the $$$ that they are legally entitled to.
That's right! Ever since I found out I could just find the lyrics to music on the internet, I stopped buying CD's entirely! You see, the only reason I bought CD's was so I could find out what song lyrics are. I've never really been interested in hearing the actual "songs". I assume most people feel the same way about this that I do, because otherwise the owners of the music wouldn't be losing any money and we'd both sound like idiots, right? It's a damn good thing someone is doing something about stopping people from having a convient way to find out what people are saying in songs! This "internet" problem has gone on long enough!!
A math professor at the school I go to (OSU) also has a page about math and origami. I think she gave a talk over this subject not too long ago at our math club. Anyway, the page has some pictures, notes, and a bunch of relevant links at the bottom.
what they hell is wrong with your oversimplifications? (and english;) Jesus people, this is only law/ethics, not rocket science. Even an AC should know better;)
If you paid me money for something then I inherently owe you some sort of garuntee that it will work.
Define "work". It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. Does "work" mean unbreakable? So cars should never break down, TV's should never lose reception, cat liter should never smell bad, and software should be 100% secure? You don't have to be a "rocket scientist" or even a computer scientist to know that NO software is 100% secure. Microsoft never claimed that their software was unbreakable. Can I sue masterlock if someone steals my bike with a hacksaw?
Because the concept of a car isn't completely re-invented twice a year, bad pharmacuticals can easily kill you, and neither of these industries can release patches which can resolve the problem before anything goes wrong.
Should you be able to sue a restaurant if their food doesn't taste very good? Should you be able to sue your car manufacturer if a criminal smashes the window and steals your stereo? Microsoft doesn't claim that their software is uncrackable. Perhaps if someone made a false claim, they could be sued for that, but there are definately lines to draw, and the place to draw them is where lawsuits destroy the industry.
As much as I hate Microsoft, this is total BS. If this becomes precedent, how the hell can anyone write an opensource app? Software is a clear case of when "buyer beware" is neccesary. Get software from the people you've grown to trust for not releasing bug-ridden shit. I really don't see how it could work any other way.
just by sharing MP3s... While I realize that what these people did is illegal
Ummm, this guy DIDN'T share any mp3's and, IANAL, IMHO, etc... what he did WASN'T illegial. At least, I can certainly say that it's a huuuuge stretch to be able to assume it's illegal. Did you read the article? He ran a search engine which searched for files through peoples computers who were using windows shares. Basically, it just searched through publicly avaliable information and returned a link. So, either search engines are illegal, windows networking is illegal, or the combination of a search engine with windows networking is illegal, right? no? Oh, I guess they should be sueing the people who were actually pirating shit then...
Slashdot Mirror
Uhh...exactly what is it that you think laws do?
Keep people safe. That's all they should do. Laws are here to keep society from collapsing, not to tell us what's a good idea and whats a bad idea. At least, thats what I would see as the ideal, and most "american" use of law.
All laws DO is dictate morals.
Dictating morals and keeping people safe are not mutually exclusive, but laws should be here for the second purpose, and not the first alone. A law only dictating morals would be something like the sodomy laws. That's why those laws are bullshit, IMHO.
Of course, you might have a double standard there. Perhaps you think it's ok to have file sharing even though it can be used in the commision of crimes, but not an object tracking service because it could be used in the commision of crimes?
No, please don't make assumptions about my beliefs. In fact, I do believe in the right to create file sharing software. In fact, I do believe in the right to making tracking devices. I also believe that there is a difference between rights and responsibilities. I don't think laws should dictate morals, but it's certainly ok to talk about them
First of all, the people making napster and many other file-swapping systems are doing so to enable people to trade copyrighted material. I don't think that's a very moral action, but I also don't care that much, because really I think copyrights are somewhat wacky and novel law.
Secondly, you have to learn morals somewhere. If you have a system set up around you while you're a kid, preventing you from doing anything deemed as "wrong", how can you possibly develop as a person capable of moral choice? When people see a system in front of them which prescribes morals, they figure anything is ok as long as you can work it into the system. The opposite is also true: When given responsibility, people often try to live up to it. My analysis prof would hand us our exams and let us complete them wherever we wanted under the promise of not talking to anyone, or looking at a book or notes, and bringing it to him on time. No one dared cheat on those exams. There is an age, which is NOT 18, at which kids need to start having responsibility. It's not right, and certainly not fair, to dump it all on them when they turn 18.
Many parents do not understand this concept, but by virtue of the fact that they do not have the technology to control their kids, their kids will get a chance to experience being on their own, having a little privacy, and perhaps starting the transition into an adult.
I agree that this device could have some good uses, especially for young children, but if I was woz I'd really think the bad outweighs the good and make the decision not to develop it. Again, I don't think it should be illegal, but I think the responsible choice would be not to manufacture it. That's my opinion, and I'm not a parent so it's probably skewed. But really, I can assure you of disaster for many many kids once these devices are available. I had a friend who was never allowed to leave her apartment except for school or certain verified activities (which didn't come very often). Luckily she was able to sneak out pretty often, and I know there are parents much worse than that. Could you imagine living your entire childhood stuck inside a 3-room apartment? I wouldn't like the idea of enabling such a scenario.
I know you realize that I posted because of possible abuses of this tool, and not because I "saw this as an oppressive tool which removes kids rights to skip school" or something idiotic like that which many other posters seem to believe I thought. I'm responding to you because I don't have the patience to respond to everyone else, and your response was actually insightful.
I would guess that you don't have kids.
Kids right to privacy from their parents ends where the parents responsibilities to ensure their safety and well being begin.
I would guess you don't know many other parents.
What you mentioned is all fine and good, and perhaps it would be nice to see your kids make it to school all safe and sound from your pc, but don't make the mistake that all parents are as altruistic as you may be. I imagine a great deal of parents will use these as house-arrest devices, tracking every movement of thier kids all the way through 18 years of age. I've met plenty of people who would, so don't tell me that's bullshit. Remember, "Parents responsibilities to ensure safety" are defined by the parents, and there are plenty of morons/assholes out there who will use these devices to some pretty sick ends. I've met some strange people who grew up under very repressive households; I could only imagine how much grief these devices would have added.
notifying the owner by phone or e-mail message when a child arrives at school
Yeah, it's a good thing kids don't have those pesky "rights" granted to other americans. God, I'm glad I didn't grow up in woz's brave new world...
You know, that's all fine and dandy for you, but you're in the minority. Most people don't use windows update. Now consider a worm that looks for the voting software and replaces it with a hacked version of the software that silently votes for candidate x without you ever noticing. You'll be safe, but you can't depend on the majority of windows users to be.
actually it's modest mouse, but I like the dismemberment plan too :)
is this a case of shameless Googling to find any obscure game with a similar name and make a connection, or is there genuine evidence here?
Evidence of what? Playing a violent video game? Big deal. Most kids play violent video games. What kind of games do you expect psycho killers to enjoy: doom3 or oregon trail? These critics really need to understand that a=>b does NOT mean b=>a. It's a very simple logical fallacy. I'm not discounting the possibility that violent games can incourage violent behavoir either, it's just that you actually need to show that video games lead one to violence when one would otherwise not be disposed to it. Violence was here long before video games were.
This story is very simmilar to a very old story here. Anyway, I'm not sure what the big deal is this time. The author says "brag" as if this is a crazy notion. He's bragging because this policy keeps buyers safe. I'm a privacy advocate, but in this case, why the hell should seller information be kept private from the police? I've been ripped off several times on eBay. I'm very glad to hear that sellers aren't anonymous!!!! So, you should be allowed to stay annonymous when accepting money on the promise of delivering goods?? WTF?! Could you imagine some of the anonymous trolls on this stie selling you shit? How does this escalate directly to giving out buyers bank info? I don't think he'd be bragging to customers about that deal. It's COMPLETELY different.
The check's in the mail and I'll see you in church and don't you ever change! :)
Your first post is considered tresspass by California state law. You will now be rounded up and sent to infinite detention at Gauntanamo Bay! TERRORIST!
if it's that easy to get hired into airport security, why doesn't our buddy bin laden just get some asshole to work there and let some terrorists through unchecked?
Um, I'm only a novice Japanese student, and I might have totally mangled this, but let me try to explain as best as I understand. If you know this stuff a lot better than I do, feel free to correct me; I'm finished with my classes and am trying to learn the language on my own now. Anyway:
:) It's very difficult to translate a lot of Japanese to English (well, for me anyway :). I'm surprised Babelfish does so well but when particles like this are a little ambiguous, it totally fails, which of course is the case at least half the time.
This is a Japanese adage which basically means "pearls before swine". The 'ni' in this particular case is, in english, more like "to" than "in"; it has multiple meanings. So, it's more like "gold-coins to a cat". Or it might be more like "gold coins at the location of a cat" which could be more like "gold coins before a cat". Here's the link I read about it at.
Was that your translation or did you use babelfish? I only ask because it sounds kinda like a babelfish translation. They can be pretty funny
What if there were a beowulf cluster of the top 500 supercomputers?
:) Well, I guess it might be if there were an infinite number of computers, but unfortuneately this recursion has a root :( Actually, I think the answer to your question would be "a beowulf cluster of all computers in the world".
I suppose, if you truly see a beowulf cluster as a single computer, it would then be the fastest computer and the next 499 fastest would have to be aought out. But then the cluster would have to include these next 499 since it's a beowulf cluster of the 500 fastest. But then... is this a paradox?
I was 10 when this movie came out and I remember HATING it! I distinctly remember my brother and I mocking it the whole way home. How does this piece of marketing trash deserve an iota of respect?
The thing is, I loved nintendo back then. I also loved terrible movies. I think if I can credit this movie with anything, it would be: the beginning of my cynicism.
yeah, if only the Chinese had that they wouldn't have needed to gun down protesters at Tienemen Square. We could call it the RTAFSE (right to assemble/free speach eliminator). Then we can once and for all stop this problem of people questioning the government.
to see if they can make babies?
are you signing up for the experiment?
unless she signed a release, aren't they technically hers? Or am I wrong about this (seriously)?
Either way you look at it, copyright holders are not getting the $$$ that they are legally entitled to.
That's right! Ever since I found out I could just find the lyrics to music on the internet, I stopped buying CD's entirely! You see, the only reason I bought CD's was so I could find out what song lyrics are. I've never really been interested in hearing the actual "songs". I assume most people feel the same way about this that I do, because otherwise the owners of the music wouldn't be losing any money and we'd both sound like idiots, right? It's a damn good thing someone is doing something about stopping people from having a convient way to find out what people are saying in songs! This "internet" problem has gone on long enough!!
A math professor at the school I go to (OSU) also has a page about math and origami. I think she gave a talk over this subject not too long ago at our math club. Anyway, the page has some pictures, notes, and a bunch of relevant links at the bottom.
what they hell is wrong with your oversimplifications? (and english ;) Jesus people, this is only law/ethics, not rocket science. Even an AC should know better ;)
If you paid me money for something then I inherently owe you some sort of garuntee that it will work.
Define "work". It's not nearly as black and white as you make it out to be. Does "work" mean unbreakable? So cars should never break down, TV's should never lose reception, cat liter should never smell bad, and software should be 100% secure? You don't have to be a "rocket scientist" or even a computer scientist to know that NO software is 100% secure. Microsoft never claimed that their software was unbreakable. Can I sue masterlock if someone steals my bike with a hacksaw?
Because the concept of a car isn't completely re-invented twice a year, bad pharmacuticals can easily kill you, and neither of these industries can release patches which can resolve the problem before anything goes wrong.
Should you be able to sue a restaurant if their food doesn't taste very good? Should you be able to sue your car manufacturer if a criminal smashes the window and steals your stereo? Microsoft doesn't claim that their software is uncrackable. Perhaps if someone made a false claim, they could be sued for that, but there are definately lines to draw, and the place to draw them is where lawsuits destroy the industry.
As much as I hate Microsoft, this is total BS. If this becomes precedent, how the hell can anyone write an opensource app? Software is a clear case of when "buyer beware" is neccesary. Get software from the people you've grown to trust for not releasing bug-ridden shit. I really don't see how it could work any other way.
just by sharing MP3s ...
While I realize that what these people did is illegal
Ummm, this guy DIDN'T share any mp3's and, IANAL, IMHO, etc... what he did WASN'T illegial. At least, I can certainly say that it's a huuuuge stretch to be able to assume it's illegal. Did you read the article? He ran a search engine which searched for files through peoples computers who were using windows shares. Basically, it just searched through publicly avaliable information and returned a link. So, either search engines are illegal, windows networking is illegal, or the combination of a search engine with windows networking is illegal, right? no? Oh, I guess they should be sueing the people who were actually pirating shit then...
Well, they already function as part of our legislative branch...
I see the smiley
:) I basically have the same opinion you do on this subject.
Yeah, I was trying to be sarcastic, but oh well, it provided a nice discussion anyway