While I personally don't understand why people gamble
It's not that hard - people ascribe more value to a large win than to a lot of little losses. The pain at losing $1/week for your entire life is almost non-existant. The joy at being a winner - even of one of the "smaller" prizes of a few thousand - is incredible. Even if you lost money in the long run, that rush - and the irresponsible spending that follows - makes it worth it.
Nobody ever got a surge excitement from responsibly investing a dollar a week.
I'm not endorsing gambling, or saying that it's a smart investment, but I can certainly understand why people would do it.
That's really cool, and I was unaware of a lot (let's face it - all:) of those facts. I had wondered what exactly made NH such a plum for the FreeState project, but was too lazy to go and find out.
(disclosure: I'm the author of the original article. I don't have formal education in politics, and I consider the concept to have a lot of merit, but to be in an alpha state, and a work in progress.)
I've been thinking along those lines. There would have to be a way to weed out people who wouldn't take the job seriously without being overly biased towards or against any particular group.
A few ideas I've come up with are:
You'd have to be a party member and explicitly state you wanted the job to be part of the "draft"
You would have to have at least show some interest in politics. This may involve some sort of community service
You would be required to show up (not vote - that's your choice) to all elections.
I'm not sure that education is as much of an issue as you would believe. Here in Ontario, we had an education minister who had not finished high school. I'm not saying that was good, just that lack of education issues aren't necessarily related to the proposed system.
Your comparison to jury duty is well taken, but the thing to remember is that this is not jury duty (at least as it is described in the article). You would be able to refuse the position if you so chose - or step down at any time, as regular elected officials can. You'll have a chance to make a far greater difference than your average juror can. And probably most importantly, the pay is better (quick google: 25K for a juror, 155K for a congressman)
Bear in mind this isn't being done today, and none of the problems that would come out in practice have been discovered. There is no party, no web page to answer questions. There is just a concept. And yes, it's easy to come up with potential problems
They wouldn't have political experience - it would take them two years to just learn the system, and by the time they mastered it, they'd be gone
and quite easy to come up with possible solutions
Have a mentorship program where previous position holders will help aid the transition to the new job and answer questions. Have a system in place that would allow party members to stay on an extra term if they are extremely popular
I can't see any systemic problems that would cause the whole thing to come crashing down though, and that tells me it might be worth pursuing.
this source leak is very bad for MS, for it will get the worst part of both, closed source and open source, worlds
Great line - succinct and insightful. Perhaps the best way for MS to handle this is to offer amnesty to people who look at the code? Basically accept that this is a loss for them, and try to attenuate that as much as they can by allowing white-hats to see the code without fear of being attacked for it later?
Long shot, I know. I'm thinking in terms of what's best for MS here, not in terms of what's realistic.
It's getting the same kind of security review - but none of the feedback. No white hat wants to admit to MS that they've seen the code, and black hats wouldn't anyway. All this may end up doing is increasing the number of "submarine" exploits out there that hackers use for their own benefit, rather tahn making super-viruses that make the exploit famous.
Righto - but it's hardly a choice in the same sense that a car owner's survey would represent choice. It is probably worth pointing out that difference.
Absolutely. You and your friend did the correct things. I know of another developer who does this and has his software timeout after a certain amount of time if a password isn't put in.
My issues were that: a) The developer was deleting stuff that did not belong to him (information gathered since work was done) b) There was no way for the developer to disable this "feature". Once he's paid, he doesn't remove the gaping security hole.
I'm all for developers standing up for themselves, but they have to realize what is going to far. this was more akin to selling someone a tool, not getting paid, and destroying everything created by that tool.
I've seen stuff like this too. I was bugfixing some PHP code a while back and found this gem:
if ($long_variable_name == "long string") {
mysql_query("DELETE FROM important_table1");
mysql_query("DELETE FROM important_table2");
mysql_query("DELETE FROM important_table3"); }
I can only assume it was put there by the original author to use in case he wasn't paid or saw the script copied or something like that. Regardless, I consider it a gross negligence to allow anyone with the right magic phrase to delete an entire site (I removed it, of course).
Exactly. What about software for "the little people". If I want to whip up a php script in a few hours for $200, it's better for both myself and the customer, who may not be able to afford a $10000 script with a full security audit.
More and more I'm seeing comments that would have been modded Flamebait a few months ago getting +1 Funny ratings. Maybe it's Ghandi's old mantra in reverse?
First we fight them, Then we laugh at them, Then we ignore them, Then they're gone.
Makes me wish I had mod points. I hadn't thought of it that way before, and I'm sure a number of other people hadn't either. Increased power = increased responsibility...what a concept.
If EchoStar so chose, it could get around at least one of the patents by using an encoding scheme other than MPEG-2 to store the data.
This is an example of a *good* patent? In what sense? That's like saying patents on the mouse (I don't know if there are any - let's just say hypothetically) could be circumscribed by using a black mouse ball instead of a grey one. It's no protection for the inventor, and it's just a hassle for everyone else.
The story mentions that little energy was lost by the time the energy left. If the photons remain photons (rather than being absorbed by the glass), they won't increase the temperature.
I'm really amazed that there are people here more concerned with the rights of murderers than victims.
It's easy to be more concerned with the living than the dead. There's nothing we can do for the latter, but if the system can help the former, society as a whole benefits.
Thanks for pointing out why I can never become a Democrat. Sure Republicans piss me off sometimes as well, but I can never back up anyone who would defend a cold-blooded murderer of an innocent child.
As with free speech, the real test of democracy is whether you can defend the rights of those you hate as much as those you love. You sound like those people that hear of prison rapes and say "good, they deserved it". If they really deserve it, then get on the phone to your congressman and try to get a law passed that makes prison rape mandatory for certain crimes. Just because someone did something horrible doesn't mean they waive their rights - and if it does, then that fact should be enshrined in law, not doled out on a whim.
The question here is what is the goal of laws? I completely disagree with the idea of using the justice system for revenge. Ideally, the system should have the maximum reform rate and the maximum deterrent effect. These are the results that will most benefit society. The revenge aspect of punishment benefits only the families of the victims. I'm not saying they don't deserve their satisfaction, but it is wrong to sacrifice the good of society for vengeance for the victims.
I don't want to pass judgement on the case of the rapist you originally mentioned. I don't know any of the facts. He could still be a cold-blooded killer, or he could be completely reformed. I just want to say that the "she can't live any more, so neither can he" argument doesn't hold water for me. That's basically arguing for an eye-for-an-eye justice system.
That's the worst argument I've every heard, and I hear it again and again. If your argument is that he destroyed a life, so his life should be destroyed, why not just kill him and be done with it? Don't beat around the bush and say "why is he walking the streets"? Why is this guy still alive at all? In fifty years, the girl will *still* be dead, and if you keep him in jail 'til then, all that's accomplished is a greater tax burden.
The justice system is not, and should not be about revenge. It should be about ensuring that crimes do not happen again, and act as a deterrent for other criminals. Here this guy has paid the price the court ordered paid for his crime. He should be able to get on with his life. Otherwise, just kill him now.
I don't understand the trouble people seem to have with the "connected to the source" argument. A feasible explanation that comes to mind is a wireless device embedded in Neo's implants (and all machine technology). Normally human minds can't pick it up, but by virtue of being "The One" Neo is able to use it. Just because they didn't spell it out in the movie doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly justified explanation.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhh...
Psychology is a recognized science in most of the world.
While I personally don't understand why people gamble
It's not that hard - people ascribe more value to a large win than to a lot of little losses. The pain at losing $1/week for your entire life is almost non-existant. The joy at being a winner - even of one of the "smaller" prizes of a few thousand - is incredible. Even if you lost money in the long run, that rush - and the irresponsible spending that follows - makes it worth it.
Nobody ever got a surge excitement from responsibly investing a dollar a week.
I'm not endorsing gambling, or saying that it's a smart investment, but I can certainly understand why people would do it.
That's really cool, and I was unaware of a lot (let's face it - all :) of those facts. I had wondered what exactly made NH such a plum for the FreeState project, but was too lazy to go and find out.
Thanks!
I've been thinking along those lines. There would have to be a way to weed out people who wouldn't take the job seriously without being overly biased towards or against any particular group.
A few ideas I've come up with are:
I'm not sure that education is as much of an issue as you would believe. Here in Ontario, we had an education minister who had not finished high school. I'm not saying that was good, just that lack of education issues aren't necessarily related to the proposed system.
Your comparison to jury duty is well taken, but the thing to remember is that this is not jury duty (at least as it is described in the article). You would be able to refuse the position if you so chose - or step down at any time, as regular elected officials can. You'll have a chance to make a far greater difference than your average juror can. And probably most importantly, the pay is better (quick google: 25K for a juror, 155K for a congressman)
Bear in mind this isn't being done today, and none of the problems that would come out in practice have been discovered. There is no party, no web page to answer questions. There is just a concept. And yes, it's easy to come up with potential problems and quite easy to come up with possible solutions
I can't see any systemic problems that would cause the whole thing to come crashing down though, and that tells me it might be worth pursuing.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of this as a solution?
Guy: Soooo - 60% of your movies tanking is a direct result of piracy?
Movie Exec: That's the idea.
Guy: So give me a few examples of the movies you do make money on?
M.E.: Well - there's Spiderman, Lord of the Rings, of course - a few of the lower-budget films that did well - 28 Days Later, for instance.
Guy: And the ones that tanked?
M.E. : Hmmm, so many to choose from - let's say Gigli right at the top there.
Guy: So you're saying that people are downloading copies of Gigli, and that's why no one went to see it in theatres?
M.E. : Errrr...
this source leak is very bad for MS, for it will get the worst part of both, closed source and open source, worlds
Great line - succinct and insightful. Perhaps the best way for MS to handle this is to offer amnesty to people who look at the code? Basically accept that this is a loss for them, and try to attenuate that as much as they can by allowing white-hats to see the code without fear of being attacked for it later?
Long shot, I know. I'm thinking in terms of what's best for MS here, not in terms of what's realistic.
It's getting the same kind of security review - but none of the feedback. No white hat wants to admit to MS that they've seen the code, and black hats wouldn't anyway. All this may end up doing is increasing the number of "submarine" exploits out there that hackers use for their own benefit, rather tahn making super-viruses that make the exploit famous.
Righto - but it's hardly a choice in the same sense that a car owner's survey would represent choice. It is probably worth pointing out that difference.
Absolutely. You and your friend did the correct things. I know of another developer who does this and has his software timeout after a certain amount of time if a password isn't put in.
My issues were that:
a) The developer was deleting stuff that did not belong to him (information gathered since work was done)
b) There was no way for the developer to disable this "feature". Once he's paid, he doesn't remove the gaping security hole.
I'm all for developers standing up for themselves, but they have to realize what is going to far. this was more akin to selling someone a tool, not getting paid, and destroying everything created by that tool.
I've seen stuff like this too. I was bugfixing some PHP code a while back and found this gem:
if ($long_variable_name == "long string") {
mysql_query("DELETE FROM important_table1");
mysql_query("DELETE FROM important_table2");
mysql_query("DELETE FROM important_table3");
}
I can only assume it was put there by the original author to use in case he wasn't paid or saw the script copied or something like that. Regardless, I consider it a gross negligence to allow anyone with the right magic phrase to delete an entire site (I removed it, of course).
Exactly. What about software for "the little people". If I want to whip up a php script in a few hours for $200, it's better for both myself and the customer, who may not be able to afford a $10000 script with a full security audit.
It was a metaphor, stupid.
*ducks*
See this image of a cow on a haystack to see just how silly your argument is.
More and more I'm seeing comments that would have been modded Flamebait a few months ago getting +1 Funny ratings. Maybe it's Ghandi's old mantra in reverse?
First we fight them,
Then we laugh at them,
Then we ignore them,
Then they're gone.
...not in media trials.
I'd like to rate that mod -1 redundant please?
Makes me wish I had mod points. I hadn't thought of it that way before, and I'm sure a number of other people hadn't either. Increased power = increased responsibility...what a concept.
1. Veni
2. ???
3. Veci!
If EchoStar so chose, it could get around at least one of the patents by using an encoding scheme other than MPEG-2 to store the data.
This is an example of a *good* patent? In what sense? That's like saying patents on the mouse (I don't know if there are any - let's just say hypothetically) could be circumscribed by using a black mouse ball instead of a grey one. It's no protection for the inventor, and it's just a hassle for everyone else.
The story mentions that little energy was lost by the time the energy left. If the photons remain photons (rather than being absorbed by the glass), they won't increase the temperature.
I'm really amazed that there are people here more concerned with the rights of murderers than victims.
It's easy to be more concerned with the living than the dead. There's nothing we can do for the latter, but if the system can help the former, society as a whole benefits.
Thanks for pointing out why I can never become a Democrat. Sure Republicans piss me off sometimes as well, but I can never back up anyone who would defend a cold-blooded murderer of an innocent child.
As with free speech, the real test of democracy is whether you can defend the rights of those you hate as much as those you love. You sound like those people that hear of prison rapes and say "good, they deserved it". If they really deserve it, then get on the phone to your congressman and try to get a law passed that makes prison rape mandatory for certain crimes. Just because someone did something horrible doesn't mean they waive their rights - and if it does, then that fact should be enshrined in law, not doled out on a whim.
The question here is what is the goal of laws? I completely disagree with the idea of using the justice system for revenge. Ideally, the system should have the maximum reform rate and the maximum deterrent effect. These are the results that will most benefit society. The revenge aspect of punishment benefits only the families of the victims. I'm not saying they don't deserve their satisfaction, but it is wrong to sacrifice the good of society for vengeance for the victims.
I don't want to pass judgement on the case of the rapist you originally mentioned. I don't know any of the facts. He could still be a cold-blooded killer, or he could be completely reformed. I just want to say that the "she can't live any more, so neither can he" argument doesn't hold water for me. That's basically arguing for an eye-for-an-eye justice system.
That's the worst argument I've every heard, and I hear it again and again. If your argument is that he destroyed a life, so his life should be destroyed, why not just kill him and be done with it? Don't beat around the bush and say "why is he walking the streets"? Why is this guy still alive at all? In fifty years, the girl will *still* be dead, and if you keep him in jail 'til then, all that's accomplished is a greater tax burden.
The justice system is not, and should not be about revenge. It should be about ensuring that crimes do not happen again, and act as a deterrent for other criminals. Here this guy has paid the price the court ordered paid for his crime. He should be able to get on with his life. Otherwise, just kill him now.
I don't understand the trouble people seem to have with the "connected to the source" argument. A feasible explanation that comes to mind is a wireless device embedded in Neo's implants (and all machine technology). Normally human minds can't pick it up, but by virtue of being "The One" Neo is able to use it. Just because they didn't spell it out in the movie doesn't mean there isn't a perfectly justified explanation.