...anti-interrogation techniques and details on how to kill efficiently.
As well:
Officers also recovered a list that contained prices in both pounds and rupees of a number of items, including an AK47 rifle, rounds of ammunition, a grenade launcher and other survival or combat material.
So the summary is a bit misleading - it wasn't just the bomb making recipes. It was that, and the letter, and information on killing techniques, and anti-interrogation techniques, and price lists for arms, and information about survival stuff.
If we want to debate these things, we at least ought to get the context in there.
The best part of any relationship, including marriage, is sharing the things that are important to you with your partner.
But not everything. It's unhealthy (and extremely hard) to be doing everything together. You get married because you love each other and want to commit and so on - but you're still two different people. Doing things together is healthy, and doing some things by yourself or with other friends is also healthy. Just be aware of what the balance is.
Honestly, I agree with half of what you say and disagree with the other half.
...what is important is the lifetime commitment that it signifies. If people put as much effort into keeping their marriages going as they did for the average wedding, then maybe less would end in divorce.
100% yes. I applaud you.
If it's a geek bride, probably not. They tend to have brains and realise that there are more important things than imagining a day of attention seeking.
Logically, maybe. I see a lot of posts on Slashdot which are logical, calm, persuasive, and utterly devoid of emotion. People are emotional. People are sentimental. It's one day in your life which should be a massive celebration of happiness. It's not unreasonable to want to look back on it and enjoy the memories. It's even healthy.
Geeks on/. can get very emotional and sentimental about their first computer, or the first PCB they constructed, or whatever. I get it. Lots of people don't. Lots of people don't get why I love opera. That's okay, just let me enjoy it. To each their own. I don't get why people get all excited about MMORPGs, and I'm a geek. That's okay, I won't play them, you go ahead and enjoy yourself, and I won't spoil your fun.
But honestly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a big deal about the day when you stand up and say I choose to share my life and commit whole-heartedly to this one other individual, with all the attendant responsibilities. Life is for living. Why not party once in a while?
1. Congrats. 2. Start off on the right foot - ask your soon-to-be-spouse what they want. Don't screw this up. 2a. Think about your parents and your partner's parents. Not saying that you should weakly submit to everything they desire - but if you do it right this is family for a long time. And there is a difference between the family you're born with and the family you choose. 3. Invitations are a key part of the whole day. People often keep one as a remembrance (both guests and, more importantly, participants). Tech can date really quickly, but you could well be looking at the invitation along with your wedding photo album on your tenth or 15th anniversary.
I've deliberately tried to not assume too much so far. From your submission I'm not sure if you're male or female, and I also know that what worked for me and my wife might be totally foreign from what the two of you want. See point #1. If both of you want this, that's a good start.
A thought - the invitations have a very strong emotional meaning for many people, and making them non-traditional might not go over too well. What about indulging your geek side with something to hand out at the reception? People often have a disposable camera laid out at every table so their friends can take pictures. Maybe you can have your techie "thing" be a giveaway at the reception.
Parting thought. I don't know you, and this might be an ideal thing for both you and your partner. Be sure it is. If both of you are really excited by it, then there are a number of ideas on this thread and you should have fun. (Unless one of the parents says "over my dead body". See point #2a. Sometimes picking a battle just isn't worth it.)
Enjoy your day, and the rest of your lives together. Sincerely.
1. ZX81 was available in March 1981; C-64 was almost a year later. 2. The ZX81 was several hundred dollars cheaper. People who couldn't afford a Commodore 64 could afford a ZX81. It helped to bring computing to the masses. 3. A bit of a fuss was made that it only had four ICs inside it. I think the ZX80 had 21.
Whose morals? My morals happen to include "it's wrong to infringe copyright by illegally downloading music/software". I'm clearly outnumbered here on Slashdot by people who, even if they agree it's technically wrong, nevertheless believe it's morally justified because of the evilness of the MPAA/RIAA.
I don't bring this up to get into an argument about copyright and piracy, but to point out that adhering to "moral rules" first requires you define whose moral rules you are using as your measure.
you can rely on people paying because it's the right thing to do
You're suggesting this in a forum that is made up of large numbers of people who vehemently defend pirating stuff, even though they admit it to be wrong, because the RIAA and MPAA are supposed to be even worse? A group of people that seem to think two wrongs do make a right, or a wrong is somehow okay if it's hurting a big bad corporation?
Bad news for Oracle with its "new" Linux: businesses don't want any more Linux choices. On the other hand, this also doesn't bode well for LibreOffice, the OpenOffice fork.
It's not that businesses don't appreciate choice between vendors -- they do. But there's not interested in choosing between half-a-dozen different Linuxes, two or three is much more their speed.
I don't see this as being a big concern. The last important Linux distribution to arise was Ubuntu back in 2004. I don't see any other major new Linux distributions arising in the future for either the desktop or the server. Mobile devices and tablets may be another matter. Android is doing well, but MeeGo may yet turn out to be an important portable Linux, and, who knows, perhaps another one will emerge or an Android or MeeGo variant will emerge.
Well, that's true. Ubuntu is still on top so that's easy for people to pick, right?
Slightly more helpfully, this is one of the biggest reasons why Linux on the desktop won't succeed in 2012. Or 2013 (Mayan predictions notwithstanding). Ordinary users don't want to have to research a hundred different distributions and struggle to understand why, after finally settling on one, they then need to research which UI to use. And then find out that Excel doesn't run on it.
Helpful if they have a friendly understanding geek to explain all these things. Not so much if they don't. And completely insane if they have more than one, because those two will vehemently disagree on everything, get into a protracted propellor-head conversation, and just annoy/confuse the poor member-of-the-public.
Selling, sharing...it's just a matter of money and semantics.
Information sharing
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf. We require that these parties agree to process such information based on our instructions and in compliance with this Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google
It may be black and white, but it's also correct. The concept of Anonymous is so vague as to allow anyone to engage in some random vandalism just for the fun of it and claim "it got done by Anonymous".
There's no working goal. There's no aim, not even a loose and incoherent one. There are just people who make attacks and say "I am Anonymous". Most of the time the provided rationale is nothing more than "these people are bad so we're gonna do something bad to them".
I'm gald you understand "why people would want to do some of the things they've done". It's pretty obvious that most of the actions ascribed to Anonymous are carried out by people who not only can't construct a coherent explanation of why they're doing something but apparently don't even understand themselves what they're trying to do.
Given that, I think the GP poster's position is about the only logical conclusion you can draw.
Mind you, I apparently have an old-fashioned view about these things. I believe that two wrongs don't make a right.
And you think people like Assange and his supporters have the insight and capacity to make the wisest and most responsible call on how much to redact and what to release. Or even the moral authority.
Read some comments here on Slashdot, again. If they don't make you throw up in your mouth a little, then you can't answer that question legitimately.
Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal.
And how does piracy change this?
Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value
You might just as well say individual letters of the alphabet have zero value. Or individual globs of paint have zero value.
I like Karlb's question on your post. How do you respond?
1. People want to do illegal stuff and not get caught; and/or 2. People are overly paranoid.
Modern life is complicated enough without trying to get into trouble. Why bother? (Answer: people have a raging sense of entitlement. "Whine, I don't want to pay for stuff.")
People either lack common sense, or someone was trying really hard to troll this morning.
The latter, and it's working.
Everyone is going on about the maximum theoretical data use and pricing. The actual article wasn't even talking about that. Instead, it was pointing out that raising the plan from 2GB to 3GB was not necessarily beneficial as most users don't hit the 2GB cap right now. The discussion then continues about how data use is trending upwards, and so on.
Exactly. Heck, the very first line of the summary is dishonest:
What would you say if you went to join a gym and were told that it could cost you anywhere from $360 a year to $68,000 a year for the exact same usage?
It's clearly not a legitimate parallel, though, is it? It's impossible for anyone to use a gym 24x7. You have to take breaks to eat, sleep, go to work, etc.
On the other hand, the summary immediately postulates this exact scenario of 24x7 usage of constant load on your internet connection. Even though it's unlikely, that's at least approaching plausibility as you can set up your computers to download while you're asleep or at work or eating.
How many lives would be saved if there were no security measures at all, but instead free blood pressure screenings at the airport?
Probably significantly less than are being saved right now by the free blood pressure savings at every neighborhood pharmacy shop I've ever visited in my life.
As thought experiments go, it's not a very good one. People who object to screening and patdowns would probably scream bloody murder at the "massive invasion of privacy" in having your medical ailments revealed in such a public place.
Here, let's make it simple. Everyone who doesn't want to be screened - take your chances with flight A. Everyone who doesn't care (like me) - go on flight B. I'll let them pat me down, x-ray me, search my luggage, whatever.
Now - which flight is Mr. Terrorist or shoe bomber going to target?
The consumer ( aka normal people) are in control of their own decisions about information and culture? Oh no, whatever will we do.
Judging by previous experience, "culture" will come to mean American Idol and Jersey Shore lookalikes. The vast majority of people want 24x7 football, NASCAR, and Snookie marathons. I guess that's what passes for culture these days. At least it's a democratic way of deciding things.
Slashdot Mirror
The USB stick also contained:
...anti-interrogation techniques and details on how to kill efficiently.
As well:
Officers also recovered a list that contained prices in both pounds and rupees of a number of items, including an AK47 rifle, rounds of ammunition, a grenade launcher and other survival or combat material.
So the summary is a bit misleading - it wasn't just the bomb making recipes. It was that, and the letter, and information on killing techniques, and anti-interrogation techniques, and price lists for arms, and information about survival stuff.
If we want to debate these things, we at least ought to get the context in there.
The best part of any relationship, including marriage, is sharing the things that are important to you with your partner.
But not everything. It's unhealthy (and extremely hard) to be doing everything together. You get married because you love each other and want to commit and so on - but you're still two different people. Doing things together is healthy, and doing some things by yourself or with other friends is also healthy. Just be aware of what the balance is.
Honestly, I agree with half of what you say and disagree with the other half.
...what is important is the lifetime commitment that it signifies. If people put as much effort into keeping their marriages going as they did for the average wedding, then maybe less would end in divorce.
100% yes. I applaud you.
If it's a geek bride, probably not. They tend to have brains and realise that there are more important things than imagining a day of attention seeking.
Logically, maybe. I see a lot of posts on Slashdot which are logical, calm, persuasive, and utterly devoid of emotion. People are emotional. People are sentimental. It's one day in your life which should be a massive celebration of happiness. It's not unreasonable to want to look back on it and enjoy the memories. It's even healthy.
Geeks on /. can get very emotional and sentimental about their first computer, or the first PCB they constructed, or whatever. I get it. Lots of people don't. Lots of people don't get why I love opera. That's okay, just let me enjoy it. To each their own. I don't get why people get all excited about MMORPGs, and I'm a geek. That's okay, I won't play them, you go ahead and enjoy yourself, and I won't spoil your fun.
But honestly, there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a big deal about the day when you stand up and say I choose to share my life and commit whole-heartedly to this one other individual, with all the attendant responsibilities. Life is for living. Why not party once in a while?
1. Congrats.
2. Start off on the right foot - ask your soon-to-be-spouse what they want. Don't screw this up.
2a. Think about your parents and your partner's parents. Not saying that you should weakly submit to everything they desire - but if you do it right this is family for a long time. And there is a difference between the family you're born with and the family you choose.
3. Invitations are a key part of the whole day. People often keep one as a remembrance (both guests and, more importantly, participants). Tech can date really quickly, but you could well be looking at the invitation along with your wedding photo album on your tenth or 15th anniversary.
I've deliberately tried to not assume too much so far. From your submission I'm not sure if you're male or female, and I also know that what worked for me and my wife might be totally foreign from what the two of you want. See point #1. If both of you want this, that's a good start.
A thought - the invitations have a very strong emotional meaning for many people, and making them non-traditional might not go over too well. What about indulging your geek side with something to hand out at the reception? People often have a disposable camera laid out at every table so their friends can take pictures. Maybe you can have your techie "thing" be a giveaway at the reception.
Parting thought. I don't know you, and this might be an ideal thing for both you and your partner. Be sure it is. If both of you are really excited by it, then there are a number of ideas on this thread and you should have fun. (Unless one of the parents says "over my dead body". See point #2a. Sometimes picking a battle just isn't worth it.)
Enjoy your day, and the rest of your lives together. Sincerely.
1. ZX81 was available in March 1981; C-64 was almost a year later.
2. The ZX81 was several hundred dollars cheaper. People who couldn't afford a Commodore 64 could afford a ZX81. It helped to bring computing to the masses.
3. A bit of a fuss was made that it only had four ICs inside it. I think the ZX80 had 21.
Looks like a rip-off of Little Computer People from 1985.
What? Different game play? More options? Still the same basic premise of a sim game, looking sideways on a building.
This is more about moral rules than the law.
Whose morals? My morals happen to include "it's wrong to infringe copyright by illegally downloading music/software". I'm clearly outnumbered here on Slashdot by people who, even if they agree it's technically wrong, nevertheless believe it's morally justified because of the evilness of the MPAA/RIAA.
I don't bring this up to get into an argument about copyright and piracy, but to point out that adhering to "moral rules" first requires you define whose moral rules you are using as your measure.
you can rely on people paying because it's the right thing to do
You're suggesting this in a forum that is made up of large numbers of people who vehemently defend pirating stuff, even though they admit it to be wrong, because the RIAA and MPAA are supposed to be even worse? A group of people that seem to think two wrongs do make a right, or a wrong is somehow okay if it's hurting a big bad corporation?
Sure, let's avoid the issue. This was from October 2010.
4. Fragmentation
Bad news for Oracle with its "new" Linux: businesses don't want any more Linux choices. On the other hand, this also doesn't bode well for LibreOffice, the OpenOffice fork.
It's not that businesses don't appreciate choice between vendors -- they do. But there's not interested in choosing between half-a-dozen different Linuxes, two or three is much more their speed.
I don't see this as being a big concern. The last important Linux distribution to arise was Ubuntu back in 2004. I don't see any other major new Linux distributions arising in the future for either the desktop or the server. Mobile devices and tablets may be another matter. Android is doing well, but MeeGo may yet turn out to be an important portable Linux, and, who knows, perhaps another one will emerge or an Android or MeeGo variant will emerge.
Well, that's true. Ubuntu is still on top so that's easy for people to pick, right?
Difference is Facebook is a social networking site (http://www.facebook.com).
Google is Google +, GMail, Search, Google Maps, YouTube, Google Apps...
One of the best posts I've seen in months.
A good GUI is easy to find.
Totally.
Slightly more helpfully, this is one of the biggest reasons why Linux on the desktop won't succeed in 2012. Or 2013 (Mayan predictions notwithstanding). Ordinary users don't want to have to research a hundred different distributions and struggle to understand why, after finally settling on one, they then need to research which UI to use. And then find out that Excel doesn't run on it.
Helpful if they have a friendly understanding geek to explain all these things. Not so much if they don't. And completely insane if they have more than one, because those two will vehemently disagree on everything, get into a protracted propellor-head conversation, and just annoy/confuse the poor member-of-the-public.
Selling, sharing...it's just a matter of money and semantics.
Information sharing
Google only shares personal information with other companies or individuals outside of Google in the following limited circumstances:
We have your consent. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
We provide such information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies or other trusted businesses or persons for the purpose of processing personal information on our behalf. We require that these parties agree to process such information based on our instructions and in compliance with this Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google
Make sure you read anything before clicking Yes.
It may be black and white, but it's also correct. The concept of Anonymous is so vague as to allow anyone to engage in some random vandalism just for the fun of it and claim "it got done by Anonymous".
There's no working goal. There's no aim, not even a loose and incoherent one. There are just people who make attacks and say "I am Anonymous". Most of the time the provided rationale is nothing more than "these people are bad so we're gonna do something bad to them".
I'm gald you understand "why people would want to do some of the things they've done". It's pretty obvious that most of the actions ascribed to Anonymous are carried out by people who not only can't construct a coherent explanation of why they're doing something but apparently don't even understand themselves what they're trying to do.
Given that, I think the GP poster's position is about the only logical conclusion you can draw.
Mind you, I apparently have an old-fashioned view about these things. I believe that two wrongs don't make a right.
And you think people like Assange and his supporters have the insight and capacity to make the wisest and most responsible call on how much to redact and what to release. Or even the moral authority.
Read some comments here on Slashdot, again. If they don't make you throw up in your mouth a little, then you can't answer that question legitimately.
Because it produces no value. Copyright is meant to encourage the creation of new works by rewarding the creator, rewarding the creator is not the end goal.
And how does piracy change this?
Because copyright as it currently stands is incompatible with computers. Copyright seeks to monetize individual packets of information, and individual packets of information inside a computer system have zero value
You might just as well say individual letters of the alphabet have zero value. Or individual globs of paint have zero value.
I like Karlb's question on your post. How do you respond?
Exactly! Doing something once and getting paid a hundred million times for it is a loophole in our system and it desperately needs to be fixed.
Why?
The book is under the CC BY-NC-SA
So it's copyrighted?
How do you verify the anonymity?
Because they haven't been caught yet. Duh.
It's either that, or face up to the fact that nobody's actually looking for you/you're not really all that terribly interesting.
1. People want to do illegal stuff and not get caught; and/or
2. People are overly paranoid.
Modern life is complicated enough without trying to get into trouble. Why bother? (Answer: people have a raging sense of entitlement. "Whine, I don't want to pay for stuff.")
Pfft, amateur. I use a WGET to have my web pages e-mailed to me. That way anyone who's watching my activity thinks it's Richard Stallman.
People either lack common sense, or someone was trying really hard to troll this morning.
The latter, and it's working.
Everyone is going on about the maximum theoretical data use and pricing. The actual article wasn't even talking about that. Instead, it was pointing out that raising the plan from 2GB to 3GB was not necessarily beneficial as most users don't hit the 2GB cap right now. The discussion then continues about how data use is trending upwards, and so on.
Exactly. Heck, the very first line of the summary is dishonest:
What would you say if you went to join a gym and were told that it could cost you anywhere from $360 a year to $68,000 a year for the exact same usage?
It's clearly not a legitimate parallel, though, is it? It's impossible for anyone to use a gym 24x7. You have to take breaks to eat, sleep, go to work, etc.
On the other hand, the summary immediately postulates this exact scenario of 24x7 usage of constant load on your internet connection. Even though it's unlikely, that's at least approaching plausibility as you can set up your computers to download while you're asleep or at work or eating.
How many lives would be saved if there were no security measures at all, but instead free blood pressure screenings at the airport?
Probably significantly less than are being saved right now by the free blood pressure savings at every neighborhood pharmacy shop I've ever visited in my life.
As thought experiments go, it's not a very good one. People who object to screening and patdowns would probably scream bloody murder at the "massive invasion of privacy" in having your medical ailments revealed in such a public place.
Here, let's make it simple. Everyone who doesn't want to be screened - take your chances with flight A. Everyone who doesn't care (like me) - go on flight B. I'll let them pat me down, x-ray me, search my luggage, whatever.
Now - which flight is Mr. Terrorist or shoe bomber going to target?
The consumer ( aka normal people) are in control of their own decisions about information and culture?
Oh no, whatever will we do.
Judging by previous experience, "culture" will come to mean American Idol and Jersey Shore lookalikes. The vast majority of people want 24x7 football, NASCAR, and Snookie marathons. I guess that's what passes for culture these days. At least it's a democratic way of deciding things.