Whoa. I sincerely hope "striking back" is still in question.
Striking back can even be as simple as find and arresting those responsible and bringing them trial. It's what I would prefer to be honest. Lock them up for life and let them rot. I personally think a good solution is to treat them like criminals. Don't treat them like warriors but like the killers they are.
We should strike back. That is not in question. But we should strike back against the proper targets. We should not just attack everything we consider a terrorist because we are going to hit the wrong targets. Then when that happens we simply make another enemy. But we shouldn't be talking attack at the moment. Let that wait till tomorrow. Today we should mourn and gather our dead.
There's a good reason for that. Have you seen what that thing looks like? It looks like something that a ten year old put together for a science project. A drunk ten year old at that.
I also recall reading somewhere that the people who organized their desk (cleaned it up) on a weekly or even daily basis before going home, were more productive workers.
Really? I clean my desk every day before going home and I'm one of the least productive people in the office.
It's interesting how you can sue a normal business for bad workmanship, overcharging, etc. and the courts will go along with it. But all of a sudden you do it to major company and the courts are coming down on the side of the major company. At least where I live if my phone company cheeses me off I can switch to another one. And at last count I have at least five to switch too (although three of them are pretty iffy choices). Now I have the problem of monopolized electrical service but that's another story.
The big question though is why you can't sue these companies the same way you can any other company? What makes them so special beyond amounts of money? It's like another poster mentioned, if I was calling someone all the time and leaving messages and wouldn't stop I'd be in jail. But all of a sudden a major company does it and it's alright. I feel the same way about the federal budget. If I ran my personal finances that way I'd be in jail. These institions should be held to the same accountability standards as the rest of us.
Well even though the review didn't say it I will. It is a good read.
It's not Sterling's best though. For that you'll have to go back in his career a little ways (Green Days in Brunei jumps to mind). It's still worth picking up and reading though.
My only problem with it is at times it tries to be a deep intellectual read and comes off sounding hollow. But those moments didn't last too long and you got right back into a decent story.
but nobody wants to use something where they are made to feel stupid when they first sit down and use it.
That's the truth. I sat down to install Mandrake on my box a month or so ago. I had very little idea how to go about it. The whole experience was nerve wracking (thank God Mandrake's manual with the software was well written and I had a good friend to call on for help).
But time came to install a few things. I've never done anything like that before. Posted on a board and guess what? Half the replies were insults and the other half seemed to consist of people just saying "RTFM". Finally solved my problem myself but if this is the response newbies get trying to get help then no wonder Linux is still in just a niche market. Enough to drive me up a wall.
I'm going to keep at it. Partly because I'm stubborn, partly because I do like a lot of the stuff better then Windows and the also because the girlfriend seems to like it (always a good indicator I'll stick with it). But I can easily see why newbies get scared off. So let's help them (me). It's hard enough to learn as it is. Don't make it worse.
Sure. And let's make people take tests before they can get their Constitutional rights. If they don't then lets enslave them. At least we'll have cheap labor.
Granted, this idea has little scientific basis, but its theoretically possible.
Well you never know. Remember that we didn't expect life to be around thermal vents in the ocean but it's there. Of course Venus is harsher then a thermal vent but maybe there is some little microbe that likes huge pressure and ungodly heat.
As for axing the probe I'm pretty sorry to see it go. Just about any space travel is good in my book. Even the crashed Mars probes were worth it because it gets people to realize that this kind of thing isn't easy yet it needs to be done and done right. One of the biggest problems is something I call the Star Trek Syndrome. While Star Trek did have some help in getting people into space it has the problem with people seeing things like space travel being done incredibly easy and they think that it should be like that now. We (people in general) need to remember that anything worth doing is worth working for and that not everything is a guarantee. We've forgotten that putting someone on the moon or even putting a satellite in orbit is a technology wonder that required a lot of very hard and very dangerous work. In short we need to learn to dream again and to take risks again, because anything worth doing is worth risking for it.
Oh come on. The only problem I've seen with Adams is the fact that his crappiest work is the only stuff you can ever seem to find. The good stuff is either impossible to find or when you do find it it's expensive as hell (ex: posters costing $100 a freaking poster!). I agree that a some of his work isn't all it's cracked up to be. Like the pictures of aspen trees (which used the zone photography to a huge degree). But some of them are wonderful. I would like to see what Adams could have done with a digital medium.
As for taking lots of pictures, I'm a little sceptical of that. Considering how much film cost in his time and the fact that he usually shot at a F/65 exposure (takes forever) I don't think he just blew through the film.
Actually if I remember right the voice for JarJar was Jamaican. So should the guy have made his voice flat Mid Atlantic English just to make you happy? Now as for the evil "Oriental" traders that comes a little closer to racist for me.
Of course, I also support the death penalty for long-term congressmen.
Why? It's not as if he's in office by some divine right. He's there because people in his district feel like he's doing a good job for them. When they feel like he's not, he's gone and someone else has the job. Term limits are simply a way to get rid of someone without having to campaign against them.
I say put it up and find out what happens. Make sure the articles are correct, that you don't lie and they really can't touch you as long as you don't use their material or their computers to do it. Try and be even handed. Tell both sides of the story. Remember that a good reporter is unbiased (or is supposed to be).
Discuss it with your parents, let them know what you're doing and the reasons you feel it should be done. Make them understand so they will be able to back you if and when it all hits the fan. If they are the kind of parents that would be completely against this and you feel it still needs to be done then go right ahead and do it anyway. But be sure you feel strongly enough to go it all by your lonesome.
Keep backups of all your data in a safe place so that if the site gets taken down for whatever reason you can start anew somewhere else. If you want to go the route of printed material then do so. I suggest you find a way to distribute where you aren't on school grounds when you're handing it out just to avoid a confrontation on that issue. And just because they're a private organization doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. Chances are if they have any kind of a decent reputation then they have a accreditation. Find out who it's with and make complaints (and get others to do so also) if they pull the jack booted thug routine. Have the number for the ACLU on speed dial. Find out how to contact the local newspaper so that you can get a story of it out if you get slapped around (figuratively).
And above all, without question or exception don't do it anonymously! If you feel strongly enough about it to publish then you should be willing to put your name on the material.
Remember that if you believe in what you're and you believe that it's right then don't back down. Good luck.
Schneier explains a lot of stuff, like what authentication is, what a private key is and so on, that most geeks will know backwards. I'm willing to bet that anyone that read his Counterpane newsletters will probably not learn a huge amount of new stuff.
Why do you assume most geeks know this kind of thing well? I know several geeks and all of them know little about cryptology. As long as it works they're happy and they continue on with what ever they're pet project is. It never hurts to review the material.
As for grok I wouldn't consider that just a geek word. My parents know it (sure they don't use it but they know it) and they do not read science fiction at all. Sometimes you would be suprised at what you think is a word or concept non-geeks don't get that they do understand.
Nope. I'm with you on this one. It has the feel as if he just read 1984 and was trying to copy the feel (substitute proles for subversives and you start to see what I'm saying). Maybe I'm a optimist but what he writes seems really unlikely. And what's this about the last digital copy of Sgt. Pepper being erased? I still have the original album (and the record player to play it one) and it's over twenty years old. What makes him think all this is just going to evaporate?
It's about trying to change minds.... through intimidation.
And I agree with you about trying to compare with commercial farms and slaughterhouse to death camps, but how many meat packers do you know that have been gunned down by a animal rights activist? It's all in the context.
Things which you find uncomforatble aren't threats just because you don't want to see them.
Doing my taxes makes me uncomfortable, changing a nasty diaper makes me uncomfortable, the thought of some loons putting up my name and all my vital information on a list with the names of others (and some that have been crossed out because they're murdered)... well that threatens me. And yet again it's all in the context.
The dripping blood obviously couldn't have been used because they people who run the site feel sorry for the children whose blood was spilled. Right?
Nope. If they cared as much as they claim they do then why aren't they out there giving these woman help on alternatives to abortion, instead of making veiled threats towards the doctors? How about helping the woman support these children? Why not go the ultimate step and volunteer to adopt and raise these children themselves?
The kind of information we need is material that will be acceptable in a court of law for identifying the child-killer and for proving the specific kinds of participation that each individual had in aborting children. We need the following:
1) Photos or videotapes of the abortionist, their car, their house, friends, and anything else of interest (as many and as recent as possible);
2) Current and past personal data including date and place of birth, home and business addresses and phone numbers, Social Security numbers, automobile plate numbers, names and birthdates of spouse(s), children and friends; Now why in the world would they want the names and birthdates of spouses, children and friends? Are they expecting to try these people too for something they didn't even do? Goering's family weren't even indicted at Nuremburg (which they're comparing this too) much less tried and he was the second in command of the Third Reich.?
3) Criminal records, including driving record, mug shots, and fingerprint card;
4) Civil suit record, including informative depositions and divorce file (if any);
5) Affidavits of former employees, former patients, former spouses;
6) Newspaper clippings, news videos;
7) Statements of factual interest from investigators or pro-lifers who have had regular dealings with the abortionist;
8) Contemporaneous notes, journals, or diaries by surveillance workers, sidewalk counselors, or picketers; and
9) Anything else you believe will help identify and convict the abortionist in a future court of law. This one really irritates me. Do they honestly think that they are going to get these guys into a court of law? They're going to have one heck of a time getting a retroactive law into effect. They mean for these people to get the death penalty and it's pretty obvious the only way for this to happen will be if they give it out in their own court of law
We can end the Abortion War if we ram the images of the babies being slaughtered into the minds of every citizen in this nation.
Now I don't think this one needs much explanation. When ever you refer to being at war it's pretty obvious what you're getting at. When you use language like "babies being slaughtered" you're not going for the warm and fuzzy feeling. They are trying to incite rage in their audience and coupled with the names being crossed out, the dripping blood and of course the language it's pretty obvious what they're aiming for. So I will agree with you on one point. No they never flat out say "Go kill some doctors." It's just extremely heavily implied. They may be fanatics but they aren't stupid.
I don't see what is hard about it. The web site listed the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions. It also expressed the opinion that abortion was a crime against humanity. Nowhere did the web site directly incite violence against the doctors. In my opinion, they were well within their first amendment rights.
"Well I never told them to go out and kill those darkies. I mean sure I told them about how they were taking jobs away from them and liked to rape their woman and weren't really humans at all... but I never meant for them to go and kill people."
Speech does have context. Try to pretend otherwise but it does. If I walk up to a buddy and say in a cheerful voice "Hey you bastard! What's going on?" it's just two guys greeting each other. But if I say it to someone I don't know in a irrated tone of voice then it's possibly a prelude to a fist fight.
What do you think about telephone directories? In my local yellow pages there is a big section titled "abortion". If someone has it in his mind to off an abortion doctor, Horsley's site doesn't do much to help him.
Oh really? What about giving out their children's names? That's not listed in the telephone directory. Car tag numbers? Nope, not there either. The information contained on this site was much more then you could get out of a telephone book.
With that in mind the point of this website wasn't really to get someone out there to kill these doctors. It was to get around a existing law without having to get legislation passed. If you have a view point that you want others to adhere to but you can't get it passed into law or have the current law change, why not just frighten the people that are doing what you don't like into stopping? A few doctors get killed because of what they're doing, you put up a site with other doctors information on it and then cross out the dead ones. The one's on the list, and even those off it that are afraid of being put on it, will probably give really serious thought to getting into another line of medicine that doesn't require them to wear body armor and have a body guard. The whole thing is psychological warfare.
This is pretty close to the line of unprotected speech and when it comes right down to it I say they crossed the line on this one. If it had really just been common information available via yellow pages then I would say no, but they gave much more detail then that. If they weren't intending to threaten these people or intimidate them then ask yourself what they were intending when they put this up with dripping blood font and compared it to the Nazi War Crime Trials?
I'd hardly call such novels as Revolt in 2100, Starship Trooper and The Puppet Masters juveniles.
I don't know about Revolt in 2100 or Puppet Masters but Starship Troopers was intended to be a juvenille, albiet for older children (10 and above). Kinda hard to believe when today's juvenille literature is (for the most part) one step above moronic.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa. I sincerely hope "striking back" is still in question.
Striking back can even be as simple as find and arresting those responsible and bringing them trial. It's what I would prefer to be honest. Lock them up for life and let them rot. I personally think a good solution is to treat them like criminals. Don't treat them like warriors but like the killers they are.
We should strike back. That is not in question. But we should strike back against the proper targets. We should not just attack everything we consider a terrorist because we are going to hit the wrong targets. Then when that happens we simply make another enemy. But we shouldn't be talking attack at the moment. Let that wait till tomorrow. Today we should mourn and gather our dead.
There's a good reason for that. Have you seen what that thing looks like? It looks like something that a ten year old put together for a science project. A drunk ten year old at that.
I also recall reading somewhere that the people who organized their desk (cleaned it up) on a weekly or even daily basis before going home, were more productive workers.
Really? I clean my desk every day before going home and I'm one of the least productive people in the office.
It's interesting how you can sue a normal business for bad workmanship, overcharging, etc. and the courts will go along with it. But all of a sudden you do it to major company and the courts are coming down on the side of the major company. At least where I live if my phone company cheeses me off I can switch to another one. And at last count I have at least five to switch too (although three of them are pretty iffy choices). Now I have the problem of monopolized electrical service but that's another story.
The big question though is why you can't sue these companies the same way you can any other company? What makes them so special beyond amounts of money? It's like another poster mentioned, if I was calling someone all the time and leaving messages and wouldn't stop I'd be in jail. But all of a sudden a major company does it and it's alright. I feel the same way about the federal budget. If I ran my personal finances that way I'd be in jail. These institions should be held to the same accountability standards as the rest of us.
Well even though the review didn't say it I will. It is a good read.
It's not Sterling's best though. For that you'll have to go back in his career a little ways (Green Days in Brunei jumps to mind). It's still worth picking up and reading though.
My only problem with it is at times it tries to be a deep intellectual read and comes off sounding hollow. But those moments didn't last too long and you got right back into a decent story.
but nobody wants to use something where they are made to feel stupid when they first sit down and use it.
That's the truth. I sat down to install Mandrake on my box a month or so ago. I had very little idea how to go about it. The whole experience was nerve wracking (thank God Mandrake's manual with the software was well written and I had a good friend to call on for help).
But time came to install a few things. I've never done anything like that before. Posted on a board and guess what? Half the replies were insults and the other half seemed to consist of people just saying "RTFM". Finally solved my problem myself but if this is the response newbies get trying to get help then no wonder Linux is still in just a niche market. Enough to drive me up a wall.
I'm going to keep at it. Partly because I'm stubborn, partly because I do like a lot of the stuff better then Windows and the also because the girlfriend seems to like it (always a good indicator I'll stick with it). But I can easily see why newbies get scared off. So let's help them (me). It's hard enough to learn as it is. Don't make it worse.
Now I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he get's 35,000 emails telling him what's going on...
You could argue apathy but I think it's more ignorance of the application then anything. I haven't met very many people who have even heard of it.
Sure. And let's make people take tests before they can get their Constitutional rights. If they don't then lets enslave them. At least we'll have cheap labor.
Granted, this idea has little scientific basis, but its theoretically possible.
Well you never know. Remember that we didn't expect life to be around thermal vents in the ocean but it's there. Of course Venus is harsher then a thermal vent but maybe there is some little microbe that likes huge pressure and ungodly heat.
As for axing the probe I'm pretty sorry to see it go. Just about any space travel is good in my book. Even the crashed Mars probes were worth it because it gets people to realize that this kind of thing isn't easy yet it needs to be done and done right. One of the biggest problems is something I call the Star Trek Syndrome. While Star Trek did have some help in getting people into space it has the problem with people seeing things like space travel being done incredibly easy and they think that it should be like that now. We (people in general) need to remember that anything worth doing is worth working for and that not everything is a guarantee. We've forgotten that putting someone on the moon or even putting a satellite in orbit is a technology wonder that required a lot of very hard and very dangerous work. In short we need to learn to dream again and to take risks again, because anything worth doing is worth risking for it.
Oh come on. The only problem I've seen with Adams is the fact that his crappiest work is the only stuff you can ever seem to find. The good stuff is either impossible to find or when you do find it it's expensive as hell (ex: posters costing $100 a freaking poster!). I agree that a some of his work isn't all it's cracked up to be. Like the pictures of aspen trees (which used the zone photography to a huge degree). But some of them are wonderful. I would like to see what Adams could have done with a digital medium.
As for taking lots of pictures, I'm a little sceptical of that. Considering how much film cost in his time and the fact that he usually shot at a F/65 exposure (takes forever) I don't think he just blew through the film.
Wouldn't it be really cool if Darth Maul came back? Even cooler if only the top half of him returned from the dead.
Think Taco Bell cup topper.
Stepin Fetchit wasn't funny then,
Actually if I remember right the voice for JarJar was Jamaican. So should the guy have made his voice flat Mid Atlantic English just to make you happy? Now as for the evil "Oriental" traders that comes a little closer to racist for me.
Of course, I also support the death penalty for long-term congressmen.
Why? It's not as if he's in office by some divine right. He's there because people in his district feel like he's doing a good job for them. When they feel like he's not, he's gone and someone else has the job. Term limits are simply a way to get rid of someone without having to campaign against them.
I say put it up and find out what happens. Make sure the articles are correct, that you don't lie and they really can't touch you as long as you don't use their material or their computers to do it. Try and be even handed. Tell both sides of the story. Remember that a good reporter is unbiased (or is supposed to be).
Discuss it with your parents, let them know what you're doing and the reasons you feel it should be done. Make them understand so they will be able to back you if and when it all hits the fan. If they are the kind of parents that would be completely against this and you feel it still needs to be done then go right ahead and do it anyway. But be sure you feel strongly enough to go it all by your lonesome.
Keep backups of all your data in a safe place so that if the site gets taken down for whatever reason you can start anew somewhere else. If you want to go the route of printed material then do so. I suggest you find a way to distribute where you aren't on school grounds when you're handing it out just to avoid a confrontation on that issue. And just because they're a private organization doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. Chances are if they have any kind of a decent reputation then they have a accreditation. Find out who it's with and make complaints (and get others to do so also) if they pull the jack booted thug routine. Have the number for the ACLU on speed dial. Find out how to contact the local newspaper so that you can get a story of it out if you get slapped around (figuratively).
And above all, without question or exception don't do it anonymously! If you feel strongly enough about it to publish then you should be willing to put your name on the material.
Remember that if you believe in what you're and you believe that it's right then don't back down. Good luck.
Schneier explains a lot of stuff, like what authentication is, what a private key is and so on, that most geeks will know backwards. I'm willing to bet that anyone that read his Counterpane newsletters will probably not learn a huge amount of new stuff.
Why do you assume most geeks know this kind of thing well? I know several geeks and all of them know little about cryptology. As long as it works they're happy and they continue on with what ever they're pet project is. It never hurts to review the material.
As for grok I wouldn't consider that just a geek word. My parents know it (sure they don't use it but they know it) and they do not read science fiction at all. Sometimes you would be suprised at what you think is a word or concept non-geeks don't get that they do understand.
Nope. I'm with you on this one. It has the feel as if he just read 1984 and was trying to copy the feel (substitute proles for subversives and you start to see what I'm saying). Maybe I'm a optimist but what he writes seems really unlikely. And what's this about the last digital copy of Sgt. Pepper being erased? I still have the original album (and the record player to play it one) and it's over twenty years old. What makes him think all this is just going to evaporate?
It's about trying to change minds. ... through intimidation.
And I agree with you about trying to compare with commercial farms and slaughterhouse to death camps, but how many meat packers do you know that have been gunned down by a animal rights activist? It's all in the context.
Things which you find uncomforatble aren't threats just because you don't want to see them.
Doing my taxes makes me uncomfortable, changing a nasty diaper makes me uncomfortable, the thought of some loons putting up my name and all my vital information on a list with the names of others (and some that have been crossed out because they're murdered)... well that threatens me. And yet again it's all in the context.
The dripping blood obviously couldn't have been used because they people who run the site feel sorry for the children whose blood was spilled. Right?
Nope. If they cared as much as they claim they do then why aren't they out there giving these woman help on alternatives to abortion, instead of making veiled threats towards the doctors? How about helping the woman support these children? Why not go the ultimate step and volunteer to adopt and raise these children themselves?
All information in italics from: http://www.netfreedom.net/nuremberg/.
The kind of information we need is material that will be acceptable in a court of law for identifying the child-killer and for proving the specific kinds of participation that each individual had in aborting children. We need the following:
1) Photos or videotapes of the abortionist, their car, their house, friends, and anything else of interest (as many and as recent as possible);
2) Current and past personal data including date and place of birth, home and business addresses and phone numbers, Social Security numbers, automobile plate numbers, names and birthdates of spouse(s), children and friends; Now why in the world would they want the names and birthdates of spouses, children and friends? Are they expecting to try these people too for something they didn't even do? Goering's family weren't even indicted at Nuremburg (which they're comparing this too) much less tried and he was the second in command of the Third Reich. ?
3) Criminal records, including driving record, mug shots, and fingerprint card;
4) Civil suit record, including informative depositions and divorce file (if any);
5) Affidavits of former employees, former patients, former spouses;
6) Newspaper clippings, news videos;
7) Statements of factual interest from investigators or pro-lifers who have had regular dealings with the abortionist;
8) Contemporaneous notes, journals, or diaries by surveillance workers, sidewalk counselors, or picketers; and
9) Anything else you believe will help identify and convict the abortionist in a future court of law. This one really irritates me. Do they honestly think that they are going to get these guys into a court of law? They're going to have one heck of a time getting a retroactive law into effect. They mean for these people to get the death penalty and it's pretty obvious the only way for this to happen will be if they give it out in their own court of law
We can end the Abortion War if we ram the images of the babies being slaughtered into the minds of every citizen in this nation.
Now I don't think this one needs much explanation. When ever you refer to being at war it's pretty obvious what you're getting at. When you use language like "babies being slaughtered" you're not going for the warm and fuzzy feeling. They are trying to incite rage in their audience and coupled with the names being crossed out, the dripping blood and of course the language it's pretty obvious what they're aiming for. So I will agree with you on one point. No they never flat out say "Go kill some doctors." It's just extremely heavily implied. They may be fanatics but they aren't stupid.
but NO WHERE on the site was anyone encouraged to use violence.
Except for the dripping blood font...
I don't see what is hard about it. The web site listed the names and addresses of doctors who perform abortions. It also expressed the opinion that abortion was a crime against humanity. Nowhere did the web site directly incite violence against the doctors. In my opinion, they were well within their first amendment rights.
"Well I never told them to go out and kill those darkies. I mean sure I told them about how they were taking jobs away from them and liked to rape their woman and weren't really humans at all... but I never meant for them to go and kill people."
Speech does have context. Try to pretend otherwise but it does. If I walk up to a buddy and say in a cheerful voice "Hey you bastard! What's going on?" it's just two guys greeting each other. But if I say it to someone I don't know in a irrated tone of voice then it's possibly a prelude to a fist fight.
What do you think about telephone directories? In my local yellow pages there is a big section titled "abortion". If someone has it in his mind to off an abortion doctor, Horsley's site doesn't do much to help him.
Oh really? What about giving out their children's names? That's not listed in the telephone directory. Car tag numbers? Nope, not there either. The information contained on this site was much more then you could get out of a telephone book.
With that in mind the point of this website wasn't really to get someone out there to kill these doctors. It was to get around a existing law without having to get legislation passed. If you have a view point that you want others to adhere to but you can't get it passed into law or have the current law change, why not just frighten the people that are doing what you don't like into stopping? A few doctors get killed because of what they're doing, you put up a site with other doctors information on it and then cross out the dead ones. The one's on the list, and even those off it that are afraid of being put on it, will probably give really serious thought to getting into another line of medicine that doesn't require them to wear body armor and have a body guard. The whole thing is psychological warfare.
This is pretty close to the line of unprotected speech and when it comes right down to it I say they crossed the line on this one. If it had really just been common information available via yellow pages then I would say no, but they gave much more detail then that. If they weren't intending to threaten these people or intimidate them then ask yourself what they were intending when they put this up with dripping blood font and compared it to the Nazi War Crime Trials?
I'd hardly call such novels as Revolt in 2100, Starship Trooper and The Puppet Masters juveniles.
I don't know about Revolt in 2100 or Puppet Masters but Starship Troopers was intended to be a juvenille, albiet for older children (10 and above). Kinda hard to believe when today's juvenille literature is (for the most part) one step above moronic.