What are the chances of being able to "print" a usable pair of shoes anyway? It's not just the shape, it's the material. Most sports shoes seem to have soles made of at least three distinct layers with different properties glued together. If it was possible, Nike would already be "extruding" the whole thing.
Maybe okay for something like Crocs though. But you can buy knockoffs of those for $2 anyway.
Except that less than half of Americans bother to vote.
And neither would Australians if they weren't fined for not voting.
Probably. Which is why it's necessary. The alternative is large parts of the population are disenfranchised, that it is because they have been convinced their votes can't change anything rather than directly preventing them from voting, it has the same corrosive effect on the political situation. It encourages extremism, a relatively small group of motivated zealots, NRA members, for instance, can leverage their ability to turn out the vote to have an undue influence on government.
If you have a philosophical objection to voting, you can just pay the small fine. Or cast a blank ballot.
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree "wackos", or are you tipping your hand and showing your fear which underlies your very argument?
Not everyone. Gun nuts, creationist, new agers, that kind of self righteous jerk who are impervious to rationality.
If you disagree that government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people--if you believe that the government is responsible for citizens, rather than citizens being responsible for government--then, naturally, you don't want any citizens to have any means by which to oppose government....
You have elections in America, I believe. That is how you "oppose government". You throw them out. You aren't in Gaddafi's Libya or Washington's British colony. All you have to do is turn up and vote and you can throw your government out on its ear. You want a fascist government? Vote for a fascist. You want a Muslim one? Communist? You can have whatever government you, and 51% of the people, want. But if you only represent 1%, well, you're right, you'll have to use murder to take power.
Those gun nuts who claim their weapons are necessary to keep the government in line, are either just lying or self deluded wackos (see, I do use the word only when warranted).
Which has NOTHING to do with how easy it is to simply purchase instantaneous access to existing databases today.
It's easier, yes. The OP seemed to think it was impossible before.
Viol8's point was about the enormous contrast in ease between harvesting small amounts of directory information 20 years ago
If by "small amounts" you mean "tens of millions of names, addresses and numbers".
I was online 20 years ago. It wasn't flashy, you had to use a 28.8 kbps modem, but phone numbers were one of the first things online. This is not a new thing.
Gun ownership is not a quaint anachronism; rather it has aided not falling into tyrrany,
How? When Oswald killed Kennedy?
Why is it that American governments need to have a heavily armed population to "keep them from falling into tyranny"? How about not voting for tyrants, isn't that the idea of democracy? Except that less than half of Americans bother to vote.
Oh, yes, you're so right: none of the people in favor of the Second Amendment ever did anything to advance democracy or human rights:
By "2nd Amendment wackos" I thought it was clear I was referring to you NRA-types, now who want the "right" to have an assault rifle in case the homeboys come calling. Not those who actually were in a well regulated militia and fought in an actual war.
Its a new one on me to have an infected phone number. I guess they mean "not secret".
And who cares? Ever heard of phone directories? You can find millions of phone numbers in there. Including mine. Phone spammers have lists anyway or just have dialers that try every number in a range till one answers.
Just ignore him These American gun nuts can't understand the difference between having a gun in their pocket and just being glad to see you.
In other words, it makes him feel more manly. It does nothing to guarantee democracy, and actually does much to retard it (in both senses of the word). Having a heavily armed population just gives the government a better excuse to surveil you. None of these 2nd Amendment wackos has ever done anything to advance democracy and human rights.
ot. It makes them, at least in my eyes, look like a bunch of loonies I won't even pay a broken dime to
But they have got their message across to some who will be more receptive. They have to do dramatic and silly things to get any publicity. It's Gandhi's "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" principle. So they're up to step 2 or 3 now.
I see. So the plan is to make 99% of people exposed to their campaign think they're absolutely nuts
If you only go by what Forbes says, yes. If you actually read what they say, no.
No one writes articles saying, say, that McDonalds encourages children to steal with the Hamburglar mascot. Yet they want to say a cartoon campaign by Peta is absolutely serious and literal. Anyway, Peta can handle it either way.
http://www.peta.org/about/faq/Why-does-PETA-use-controversial-tactics.aspx
PETAâ(TM)s mission is to get the animal rights message out to as many people as possible. Unlike our oppositionâ"which is mostly composed of wealthy industries and corporationsâ"PETA must rely largely on free "advertising" through media coverage. We will do extraordinary things to get the word out about animal cruelty because we have learned from experience that the media, sadly, do not consider the terrible facts about animal suffering alone interesting enough to cover. It is sometimes necessary to shake people up in order to initiate discussion, debate, questioning of the status quo, and, of course, action.
Thus, we try to make our actions colorful and controversial, thereby grabbing headlines around the world and spreading the message of kindness to animals to thousandsâ"sometimes millionsâ"of people. This approach has proved amazingly successful: In the two decades since PETA was founded, it has grown into the largest animal rights group in the country, with more than 3 million members and supporters worldwide. We have also had major groundbreaking successes, such as bringing about the first-ever cruelty conviction against an animal experimenter in the case of the now-famous Silver Spring Monkeys; orchestrating the first-ever raid on an agricultural facility (a factory farm in upstate New York that raised ducks for foie gras under horribly cruel conditions); and convincing more than 200 cosmetics companies to permanently abandon animal tests.
I personally don't agree with their ultimate aims (don't use any animals for anything), but they're right in pointing out a lot of unnecessary cruelty in agriculture.
A collective, "wtf is wrong with you people"? That doesn't seem like a well considered strategy.
Peta isn't complaining about Pokemon at all. It's just using the release of a new Pokemon game as a hook to draw attention to real animal abuse. Slashdot is simply repeating the Forbes article that deliberately takes it out of context to make them seem like a bunch of loonies and disregards the actual issue.
A bullshit "preference" which advertisers will interpret that as "no objection".
All the default does is make the advertisers admit they are ignoring the preference, since we know they will track regardless.
No, it doesn't. The user's interest is in having their expressed interest respected.
And if they express no preference, it should default to "DON'T SPY ON ME YOU BLOODSUCKING IMMORAL SCUMBAGS" (aka DNT:1), not "INVADE MY PRIVACY AND PUT MY EVERY THOUGHT AND ACTION IN A DATABASE AND SELL IT TO ANY FUCKING SPAMMING CUNT TO USE AGAINST ME" (aka DNT:0).
Anyway, if it isn't clear yet, I'm not convinced by your argument. And find it frankly incredible that anyone not collecting a paycheck from an advertising company could sincerely believe that any human being with an ounce of self respect actually wants to be tracked.
Thanks. Sorry I couldn't read your mind and work it out for myself.
Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through
No, they didn't. Any rational human being would have laughed them out of the station. People say tasteless things. Move on.
The law exists and the police don't have the discretion to just ignore an offence, no matter what they, or you, thought about it. It's up to the crown prosecutor and then the judge, not the police.
It's not counterproductive as they see it. They want you, the public, to know that if they want to get you they will get you. They are being bullies, not custodians of the law. They already got their intended chilling effect by making an example of this guy
Who do you think think this "they" is? Does the government care about some drunken twat making a joke? Do you think the cops were clicking on Facebook looking for bad taste jokes? Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through. Same as the "airport bombing"" twitter joke. The judge will also probably be wishing it would all go away. The guy will probably apologise, get a warning and be released.
You think youre being clever and that somehow newer versions of windows are better, but as an IT consultant who deals with all too many virus issues, please just accept that out of date software is a really bad idea for anyone browsing the web
No, I think I'm broke and can't afford to buy a new PC and OS and Adobe Creative Suite 6. So I make what I have work. Rather than spend a lot of time and money on the shiny and at the end of the day not actually be more productive, since 50% of the computer is devoted to security software and second guessing everything I want to do..
More than anything you might be protected by the fact that viruses are broken on Win2k.
Exactly.
We're talking about Microsoft updates. They're never "up to date". I've got a friend with Win 7 laptop, it's always got 100s of MB of Windows updates pending. I installed some third party antivirus so at least he has a chance against the 0-days.
Antivirus, firewalls, and "being clueful" will not protect you from viruses. There was a time when it would, and GP seems to be stuck in that time. These days, no-click 0-day exploits are all the rage, but lesser hacking rings rely on older exploits in the hope that people (like GP) neglect to patch regularly.
And yet, after 20 years online, I remain without any infections. Every time I try to explain my methodology, people just come along and tell me that either I'm lying or that I already having a dozen rootkits and haven't noticed.
As for the internet being "dangerous" in 1998, no, not in the same way. You can find exploits straight off of Google depending on the day and query; ive had the top results for things like "frame relay cisco 1700" take me to attack sites. Big name sites like Facebook can infect you through their ad system. The days where you could just "stick to sites you know" are long, long gone, and the idea that you can just be clever and not run binaries off the web to stay safe is likewise outdated.
I browse some pretty sleazy sites. Still, not infected. (Well, not since I got WDEF from a floppy on a Mac in about 1991.)
I'm not unfamiliar with more up to date software. I clean viruses off my friends' and family's PCs, using XP and Win 7, and set them up with some antivirus and firewalls. I put Ubuntu on my daughters' laptop, since she's not going to listen to me about what's safe and what's not, so I didn't give her a choice.
I'm not evangelising my methods, but they do work for me, for the software tasks I need and the hardware I have. The only serious issues I've had in the last 10 years have been hardware related. But I don't imagine I'm invulnerable, I make backups.
You don't have to use IE on the Internet, so it shouldn't matter whether IE is on your computer.
Its very hard to stop Windows form using IE in one way or another. Every now and then it pops up when hardcoded in some applications. But I've blocked it at the firewall so it's effectively neutered (I hope).
I gave up on Windows 2000 two or three years ago when most developers stopped supporting it
It's only this year the apps I need to use have started to become incompatible. MS made changes to their compilers last year I think and basically forced the issue. While modders are fighting a rearguard action to patch Win2k, I'll probably move to XP next year. I regularly use a lot of quite old software so am dragging my feet. I could do it all in emulation on a newish PC, and may end up doing that a few more years later. Maybe hosted on Linux. Unix was my first OS, so I'd be happy if I could get back to that and still use my DOS and Windows apps.
All those refs are about seizing laptops. The statement I responded to was "carrying loose drives on board an airplane is far more likely to get them seized".
Anyway, even seizing laptops is still unusual enough to make the news. The idea that either a laptop or a drive is likely to be seized is not demonstrated. Of course it can happen. But it's not likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously he was bumped for the 4chan candidate.
Let's imagine a Slashdot member of Congress:
We open debate on Bill number 3245.... FIRST PSOT!
I draw the honorable member's attention to clause .... RTFA newb!
Nike will claim that all shoes are too similar.
What are the chances of being able to "print" a usable pair of shoes anyway? It's not just the shape, it's the material. Most sports shoes seem to have soles made of at least three distinct layers with different properties glued together. If it was possible, Nike would already be "extruding" the whole thing.
Maybe okay for something like Crocs though. But you can buy knockoffs of those for $2 anyway.
... ten miles to school, barefoot in the snow....
Except that less than half of Americans bother to vote.
And neither would Australians if they weren't fined for not voting.
Probably. Which is why it's necessary. The alternative is large parts of the population are disenfranchised, that it is because they have been convinced their votes can't change anything rather than directly preventing them from voting, it has the same corrosive effect on the political situation. It encourages extremism, a relatively small group of motivated zealots, NRA members, for instance, can leverage their ability to turn out the vote to have an undue influence on government.
If you have a philosophical objection to voting, you can just pay the small fine. Or cast a blank ballot.
Do you call everyone with whom you disagree "wackos", or are you tipping your hand and showing your fear which underlies your very argument?
Not everyone. Gun nuts, creationist, new agers, that kind of self righteous jerk who are impervious to rationality.
If you disagree that government is supposed to be of, by, and for the people--if you believe that the government is responsible for citizens, rather than citizens being responsible for government--then, naturally, you don't want any citizens to have any means by which to oppose government....
You have elections in America, I believe. That is how you "oppose government". You throw them out. You aren't in Gaddafi's Libya or Washington's British colony. All you have to do is turn up and vote and you can throw your government out on its ear. You want a fascist government? Vote for a fascist. You want a Muslim one? Communist? You can have whatever government you, and 51% of the people, want. But if you only represent 1%, well, you're right, you'll have to use murder to take power.
Those gun nuts who claim their weapons are necessary to keep the government in line, are either just lying or self deluded wackos (see, I do use the word only when warranted).
, 4) liberty and personal responsibility are more important than fear.
Owning a gun is an admission that you live in fear, and want to make others fear you even more.
Which has NOTHING to do with how easy it is to simply purchase instantaneous access to existing databases today.
It's easier, yes. The OP seemed to think it was impossible before.
Viol8's point was about the enormous contrast in ease between harvesting small amounts of directory information 20 years ago
If by "small amounts" you mean "tens of millions of names, addresses and numbers".
I was online 20 years ago. It wasn't flashy, you had to use a 28.8 kbps modem, but phone numbers were one of the first things online. This is not a new thing.
Gun ownership is not a quaint anachronism; rather it has aided not falling into tyrrany,
How? When Oswald killed Kennedy?
Why is it that American governments need to have a heavily armed population to "keep them from falling into tyranny"? How about not voting for tyrants, isn't that the idea of democracy? Except that less than half of Americans bother to vote.
Oh, yes, you're so right: none of the people in favor of the Second Amendment ever did anything to advance democracy or human rights:
By "2nd Amendment wackos" I thought it was clear I was referring to you NRA-types, now who want the "right" to have an assault rifle in case the homeboys come calling. Not those who actually were in a well regulated militia and fought in an actual war.
So you think that if the population isn't armed, the government won't want to surveil it or encroach upon its liberty?
Of course it will -- it does. And in America, with a gun on every nightstand and glovebox, it does that too. The government isn't afraid of your guns.
How is a phone number "not safe"?
Seriously? Dude, use your imagination just a little bit here...
Something to do with the Necronomicon?
Phonebooks were generally only easily available in the area you lived in and not accessable by Vlad in Minsk
Until about 1990 when they were available online.
When its in barely readable type in a large book its a bit more effort.
OCR can read a phonebook as as fast as you can feed pages into a scanner.
Its a new one on me to have an infected phone number. I guess they mean "not secret".
And who cares? Ever heard of phone directories? You can find millions of phone numbers in there. Including mine. Phone spammers have lists anyway or just have dialers that try every number in a range till one answers.
In other words, it makes him feel more manly. It does nothing to guarantee democracy, and actually does much to retard it (in both senses of the word). Having a heavily armed population just gives the government a better excuse to surveil you. None of these 2nd Amendment wackos has ever done anything to advance democracy and human rights.
ot. It makes them, at least in my eyes, look like a bunch of loonies I won't even pay a broken dime to
But they have got their message across to some who will be more receptive. They have to do dramatic and silly things to get any publicity. It's Gandhi's "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" principle. So they're up to step 2 or 3 now.
I see. So the plan is to make 99% of people exposed to their campaign think they're absolutely nuts
If you only go by what Forbes says, yes. If you actually read what they say, no.
No one writes articles saying, say, that McDonalds encourages children to steal with the Hamburglar mascot. Yet they want to say a cartoon campaign by Peta is absolutely serious and literal. Anyway, Peta can handle it either way.
I personally don't agree with their ultimate aims (don't use any animals for anything), but they're right in pointing out a lot of unnecessary cruelty in agriculture.
A collective, "wtf is wrong with you people"? That doesn't seem like a well considered strategy.
Peta isn't complaining about Pokemon at all. It's just using the release of a new Pokemon game as a hook to draw attention to real animal abuse. Slashdot is simply repeating the Forbes article that deliberately takes it out of context to make them seem like a bunch of loonies and disregards the actual issue.
"no expressed preference"
A bullshit "preference" which advertisers will interpret that as "no objection".
All the default does is make the advertisers admit they are ignoring the preference, since we know they will track regardless.
No, it doesn't. The user's interest is in having their expressed interest respected.
And if they express no preference, it should default to "DON'T SPY ON ME YOU BLOODSUCKING IMMORAL SCUMBAGS" (aka DNT:1), not "INVADE MY PRIVACY AND PUT MY EVERY THOUGHT AND ACTION IN A DATABASE AND SELL IT TO ANY FUCKING SPAMMING CUNT TO USE AGAINST ME" (aka DNT:0).
Anyway, if it isn't clear yet, I'm not convinced by your argument. And find it frankly incredible that anyone not collecting a paycheck from an advertising company could sincerely believe that any human being with an ounce of self respect actually wants to be tracked.
The Police, that's who.
Thanks. Sorry I couldn't read your mind and work it out for myself.
Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through
No, they didn't. Any rational human being would have laughed them out of the station. People say tasteless things. Move on.
The law exists and the police don't have the discretion to just ignore an offence, no matter what they, or you, thought about it. It's up to the crown prosecutor and then the judge, not the police.
It's not counterproductive as they see it. They want you, the public, to know that if they want to get you they will get you. They are being bullies, not custodians of the law. They already got their intended chilling effect by making an example of this guy
Who do you think think this "they" is? Does the government care about some drunken twat making a joke? Do you think the cops were clicking on Facebook looking for bad taste jokes? Some busybody laid an official complaint and the police had to follow through. Same as the "airport bombing"" twitter joke. The judge will also probably be wishing it would all go away. The guy will probably apologise, get a warning and be released.
This 'joke' was posted on a facebook page dedicated to the search for (now the body) of this little girl.
But not, according to reports, by the accused. He posted it on his own page.
You think youre being clever and that somehow newer versions of windows are better, but as an IT consultant who deals with all too many virus issues, please just accept that out of date software is a really bad idea for anyone browsing the web
No, I think I'm broke and can't afford to buy a new PC and OS and Adobe Creative Suite 6. So I make what I have work. Rather than spend a lot of time and money on the shiny and at the end of the day not actually be more productive, since 50% of the computer is devoted to security software and second guessing everything I want to do..
More than anything you might be protected by the fact that viruses are broken on Win2k.
Exactly.
We're talking about Microsoft updates. They're never "up to date". I've got a friend with Win 7 laptop, it's always got 100s of MB of Windows updates pending. I installed some third party antivirus so at least he has a chance against the 0-days.
Antivirus, firewalls, and "being clueful" will not protect you from viruses. There was a time when it would, and GP seems to be stuck in that time. These days, no-click 0-day exploits are all the rage, but lesser hacking rings rely on older exploits in the hope that people (like GP) neglect to patch regularly.
And yet, after 20 years online, I remain without any infections. Every time I try to explain my methodology, people just come along and tell me that either I'm lying or that I already having a dozen rootkits and haven't noticed.
As for the internet being "dangerous" in 1998, no, not in the same way. You can find exploits straight off of Google depending on the day and query; ive had the top results for things like "frame relay cisco 1700" take me to attack sites. Big name sites like Facebook can infect you through their ad system. The days where you could just "stick to sites you know" are long, long gone, and the idea that you can just be clever and not run binaries off the web to stay safe is likewise outdated. I browse some pretty sleazy sites. Still, not infected. (Well, not since I got WDEF from a floppy on a Mac in about 1991.)
I'm not unfamiliar with more up to date software. I clean viruses off my friends' and family's PCs, using XP and Win 7, and set them up with some antivirus and firewalls. I put Ubuntu on my daughters' laptop, since she's not going to listen to me about what's safe and what's not, so I didn't give her a choice.
I'm not evangelising my methods, but they do work for me, for the software tasks I need and the hardware I have. The only serious issues I've had in the last 10 years have been hardware related. But I don't imagine I'm invulnerable, I make backups.
You don't have to use IE on the Internet, so it shouldn't matter whether IE is on your computer.
Its very hard to stop Windows form using IE in one way or another. Every now and then it pops up when hardcoded in some applications. But I've blocked it at the firewall so it's effectively neutered (I hope).
I gave up on Windows 2000 two or three years ago when most developers stopped supporting it
It's only this year the apps I need to use have started to become incompatible. MS made changes to their compilers last year I think and basically forced the issue. While modders are fighting a rearguard action to patch Win2k, I'll probably move to XP next year. I regularly use a lot of quite old software so am dragging my feet. I could do it all in emulation on a newish PC, and may end up doing that a few more years later. Maybe hosted on Linux. Unix was my first OS, so I'd be happy if I could get back to that and still use my DOS and Windows apps.
Anyway, even seizing laptops is still unusual enough to make the news. The idea that either a laptop or a drive is likely to be seized is not demonstrated. Of course it can happen. But it's not likely.