It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of perspective. Even the smartest kids (and adults), when faced with incontrovertable evidence of negative consequences, will maintain the belief of invulnerability.
It is not that teens don't believe that they CAN "wind up in a ditch", it is that the more strongly believe that they WON'T, despite knowing full well they could.
I do trust my kids - to act like kids. It is my job to get them through that stage of their life where they believe they are invulnerable. Even the brightest, most innocent children can do stupid things, and if monitoring IM's helps me stop my bright, innocent children from falling prey to someone, you betcherass I will. They'll likely hate me now, but seeing them live to gain the wisdom they don't currently have is worth it.
"You're back to only rich patrons being able to afford to commission new works, and potentially hoarding them in private collections rather than sharing them for the general good"
I think you miss the fact that a great deal of commissioned work IS publicly displayed, especially large sculpture and paintings. The folks who commision the work often do it specifically for public consumption - it shows how wealthy and powerful they are, that they can afford to be a "patron of the arts".
In my opinion, the commissioned work model never really went away; but simply been institutionalized. Now instead of princes and popes, you have the NEA and galleries and art museums. I also think it is to the detriment of art; peviously, if you displeased your patron, no more support was forthcoming. Now, the artist yelps "freedom of expression" and "you just don't understand the artistic vision", and bureaucrats nod and think they are doing their duty by paying for crap.
Sure, and under the same circumstances. There was little risk of the incident exploding into something much larger - the US had egg on it's face and the USSR was in a superior position.
So the USSR made a big deal out of 1 of a bunch of incidents.
China made a big deal out of 1 of 1 incident. Because they could.
My opinion is that China may continue to do things which irritate the US enough for the US to forgo the special trading relationship we have, and treat them more like an adversary than a rival. Welcome back to the cold war. I doubt it will happen - I think China will follow the money and become more nuanced in international relations. But if that money doesn't start getting out to the peasantry, China will have a bunch of internal problems and may turn inward again.
Funny, the US has BEEN accepting spy satellites over US territory for what, 50 years now? Just like we accepted Soviet spy planes lurking just outside our territorial airspace. We did it too. We still do it. Nobody likes it, but is is generally accepted as SOP, because to do otherwise would be a causus belli (?usage?).
We also flew spy directly over other countries when we could get away with it, in violation of treaty and sovereignty. That pretty much stopped after the Gary Powers U2 incident. The Soviets also rejected Eisenhower's Open Skies proposal, whereby surveillance plane would be allowed to overfly.
These things only really bubble up when there is an incident. The US and USSR used to bump planes and submarines periodically, but both sides kept it quiet because escalation of such incidents would be bad. Contrast this with the incident with the P3 Orion surveiling China some years ago. Same stuff as with the USSR, but China blew it WAY up, and made a "crisis" out of it.
Another difference is that, unlike the USSR, China is testing their weapons on US equipment, not Chinese drones.
Why is China acting so different than the USSR? I have 2 opinions: 1) Whatever happens, nothing is going to escalate rapidly to war. erosion of relations, definitely, but not popping off nukes.
2) China is "immature" as a sovereign nation. Years of looking inward have left it unprepared to take a position as a "world power", and so is now at the dick measuring stage of international relations.
Not that the US is taking the role of elder statesman, here. Right now, I'm not sure anyone is acting honorably or effectively on the world stage.
The difference is that the US has been testing their satellite kill systems on decoys, etc. the Chinese appear to have been testing them on other people's stuff. As posters above have pointed out, that region of space is covered under treaty and is similar to the rules of the open sea.
Imagine if a country fired a missile at another country's ship and explained it by saying that they were "just testing" the missile.
Last night at the bar it was "Cartoons and Shows from the 70's". We were pretty stumped on some (Goldar, Silvar, and...Steve?). Then someone whipped out the Treo and hit Google ("Space Giants" - never did get the last one)
"I don't remember Carl Sagan publishing a peer-reviewed article about that."
Really? Then he should have shut the fuck up about it. Instead, he was pretending to be an authority.
I can remember researching the Viet Nam War for a paper in high school. One of the only books in the library was a "study" about the effects of Agent Orange. I looked at the "authors", and not only were there dozens of them, one was Carl Sagan. I immediately shelved the book, since they obviously weren't using authorities as authors. Turned me off to Mr. "Billions and Billions" from then on.
Way back when, one of the suggested "fixes" for nuclear weapons was to loft a few tons of gravel into LEO. ICBM's would be destroyed upon hitting the gravel lair, and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be gone forever. Except:
1) Wouldn't do anything for bombers or other delivery methods. 2) Would forever close off space exploration, thereby stranding us here and cutting us off from sending out probes, etc.
The worst thing is, some considered the second a small price to pay to guarantee their safety.
The way I read you, if Spamhaus simply lists suspected spammers on their British website, and US citizens go to the website and download, with no interation by Spamhause, they are probably safe.
If Spamhaus sells the data, they are screwed (in the US, anyway)
So the media is lying when they report on the accuracy of exit polling, but is performing a vital service that shouldn't be gamed when performing exit polling?
Make up your mind - government toadies or Beacons of Truth and Freedom?
"thinks the truth and freedom of the press is something to play around with"
As opposed to the members of the press itself, who hold Truth and Freedom so high?
As for truth, go back to grade school history and read up on Hearst, the Yellow Press, and the Spanish American War. Or just watch "Citizen Kane" - it's fiction, so probably more believeable for you.
As for Freedom of the Press, members of the Press have interpreted that to mean that they can do or say anything, legal, or illegal, with no consequences. Combined with their assertion that they are the "watchdog" of the government - in effect, a fourth branch of government - we now have a hugely powerful, largely unaccountable body involved in our government, with none of the constitutional provisions that limit the other three. All thanks to idiots like you who somehow believe that the "Press" is going to save you from the Big, Bad Government.
And the soundest sleepers of all are those who lie to themselves.
1) Generally recognized spammer files suit against Spamhaus, a British based company. 2) Spamhaus does business in the US, and therefor that portion of the business is subject to US law, including the jurisdiction of the courts. (everything rides on this) 3) Spamhaus totally ignores a pending legal action against them in a court which has jurisdiction over them. 4) Court enters default judgement in accordance with hundreds of years of legal precedent, including *English* common law. 5) Spamhaus is now open to the court seizing their US assets to pay the judgement, and an injunction against doing business in the US, enforceable under Federal law by US Marshals.
How is this smart? If they had simply responded to the lawsuit, this probably would have been over in a heartbeat. Instead, they are basically thumbing their noses at a legal system that they believe is beneath their consideration.
The belief that everyone above a certain level of power is a sociopath is just as smug and ignorant as believing that one gender is inherently better than the other.
Are there sociopaths in Congress and the boardrooms? Sure. Are there more sociopaths in those positions than in the general population, on a percentage basis? Possibly, even probably. Are they all sociopaths, such that one cannot BE a national politician or a Fortune 500 executive without being a sociopath? I don't believe that; do you really believe that?
It must be very comforting to believe that you are not powerful because you are better than those in power. If you believe you have very little power over your own life, the illusion that those who wield that power are sociopaths (and therefore, not as worthy as you) would be quite attractive.
For many years we have been told that, if women were in positions of power, they would behave differently than men. This assertion was based solely on the premise that women are somehow fundamentally different than men, and that this difference would ensure that female executives and politicians would be somehow "better" then males.
This has proven not to be the case, as evidenced by the behavior of various corporate and political women in power. While true that the Cynthia McKinney's and Carly Fiorina's of the world are not the rule, they do lead to questions of whether women are so fundamentally different after all.
Is Hillary Clinton somehow better than the other senators simply because she is a woman? Is she exempt from being accused of being an opportunistic carpetbagger, merely because she has a set of tits? That is what some would have us believe.
If I can call Sen. Stevens a bastard, I can call Sen. Clinton a bitch.
2) "Laws" per se are written by "lawmakers" - you know, politicians. A lot of these folks are barely literate in their own language, much less requiring them to learn another.
3) Was I the only one to find the parent remark +1 Humor?
"I agree with Eric Flint's essay, found in the Free Library on baen.com: Until there's some way to make music/movies/books that doesn't require musicians/actors/directors/authors, and until people stop wanting those materials, there *will* be ways to make money off of them. It's just a matter of finding them. And, perhaps, accepting that people don't really need millions for doing what they love."
Don't forget that Baen Books puts their policies where their mouth is. Baen's Webscriptions http://www.webscription.net/ have almost all of their catalog available for paid download in multiple formats, all unencumbered and non-expiring. The prices are reasonable, and the download process couldn't be more convenient - I mean, they take Paypal, fer Chrissake.
And guess what - they make money at it.
In the article's scenario, Baen couldn't possibly be doing this - once one person spends the $6.99 for the download, the book would propogate all over the net, and Baen wouldn't see another dime. Yet that doesn't happen. Why?
- Most people are inherently honest, and don't mind paying for quality - Those honest folks, when asked to post the books on file sharing networks, generally tell the requestor to stop being a cheapskate and buy the damned thing. It's cheap and convenient, and if you still don't want to pay, go to a public library.
Is there filesharing with these? Sure, but like Eric Flynt said, it's like stealing penny candy.
BTW, Jim Baen, the publisher of Baen Books and the driving force behind their digital publishing policies, recently passed away. Whether you like what he published or not (and many don't, especially the military sci-fi), he was the ONLY mainstream publisher with the balls to try the business model being advocated so much on slashdot. Put your money where your mouth is, go to webscriptions, and buy some books. Or buy hardcovers and donate them to a school or library.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of perspective. Even the smartest kids (and adults), when faced with incontrovertable evidence of negative consequences, will maintain the belief of invulnerability.
It is not that teens don't believe that they CAN "wind up in a ditch", it is that the more strongly believe that they WON'T, despite knowing full well they could.
I do trust my kids - to act like kids. It is my job to get them through that stage of their life where they believe they are invulnerable. Even the brightest, most innocent children can do stupid things, and if monitoring IM's helps me stop my bright, innocent children from falling prey to someone, you betcherass I will. They'll likely hate me now, but seeing them live to gain the wisdom they don't currently have is worth it.
"list a larger set of attributes for the films."
Why larger? Only a few matter.
Tits?
Guns?
Cars?
Explosives?
Each one counts as 25%.
Can I collect my $1M now?
"You're back to only rich patrons being able to afford to commission new works, and potentially hoarding them in private collections rather than sharing them for the general good"
I think you miss the fact that a great deal of commissioned work IS publicly displayed, especially large sculpture and paintings. The folks who commision the work often do it specifically for public consumption - it shows how wealthy and powerful they are, that they can afford to be a "patron of the arts".
In my opinion, the commissioned work model never really went away; but simply been institutionalized. Now instead of princes and popes, you have the NEA and galleries and art museums. I also think it is to the detriment of art; peviously, if you displeased your patron, no more support was forthcoming. Now, the artist yelps "freedom of expression" and "you just don't understand the artistic vision", and bureaucrats nod and think they are doing their duty by paying for crap.
Sure, and under the same circumstances. There was little risk of the incident exploding into something much larger - the US had egg on it's face and the USSR was in a superior position.
So the USSR made a big deal out of 1 of a bunch of incidents.
China made a big deal out of 1 of 1 incident. Because they could.
My opinion is that China may continue to do things which irritate the US enough for the US to forgo the special trading relationship we have, and treat them more like an adversary than a rival. Welcome back to the cold war. I doubt it will happen - I think China will follow the money and become more nuanced in international relations. But if that money doesn't start getting out to the peasantry, China will have a bunch of internal problems and may turn inward again.
Funny, the US has BEEN accepting spy satellites over US territory for what, 50 years now? Just like we accepted Soviet spy planes lurking just outside our territorial airspace. We did it too. We still do it. Nobody likes it, but is is generally accepted as SOP, because to do otherwise would be a causus belli (?usage?).
We also flew spy directly over other countries when we could get away with it, in violation of treaty and sovereignty. That pretty much stopped after the Gary Powers U2 incident. The Soviets also rejected Eisenhower's Open Skies proposal, whereby surveillance plane would be allowed to overfly.
These things only really bubble up when there is an incident. The US and USSR used to bump planes and submarines periodically, but both sides kept it quiet because escalation of such incidents would be bad. Contrast this with the incident with the P3 Orion surveiling China some years ago. Same stuff as with the USSR, but China blew it WAY up, and made a "crisis" out of it.
Another difference is that, unlike the USSR, China is testing their weapons on US equipment, not Chinese drones.
Why is China acting so different than the USSR? I have 2 opinions:
1) Whatever happens, nothing is going to escalate rapidly to war. erosion of relations, definitely, but not popping off nukes.
2) China is "immature" as a sovereign nation. Years of looking inward have left it unprepared to take a position as a "world power", and so is now at the dick measuring stage of international relations.
Not that the US is taking the role of elder statesman, here. Right now, I'm not sure anyone is acting honorably or effectively on the world stage.
The difference is that the US has been testing their satellite kill systems on decoys, etc. the Chinese appear to have been testing them on other people's stuff. As posters above have pointed out, that region of space is covered under treaty and is similar to the rules of the open sea.
Imagine if a country fired a missile at another country's ship and explained it by saying that they were "just testing" the missile.
Did he pronounce it "beeelion" and have his pinky in his mouth?
Last night at the bar it was "Cartoons and Shows from the 70's". We were pretty stumped on some (Goldar, Silvar, and...Steve?). Then someone whipped out the Treo and hit Google ("Space Giants" - never did get the last one)
Good times, goood times...
Come on - drive the point home...
"There was an old lady who swallowed a horse...she's dead, of course"
Not only are they the result of yesterdays solutions, there is always an end to the process.
"I don't remember Carl Sagan publishing a peer-reviewed article about that."
Really? Then he should have shut the fuck up about it. Instead, he was pretending to be an authority.
I can remember researching the Viet Nam War for a paper in high school. One of the only books in the library was a "study" about the effects of Agent Orange. I looked at the "authors", and not only were there dozens of them, one was Carl Sagan. I immediately shelved the book, since they obviously weren't using authorities as authors. Turned me off to Mr. "Billions and Billions" from then on.
Way back when, one of the suggested "fixes" for nuclear weapons was to loft a few tons of gravel into LEO. ICBM's would be destroyed upon hitting the gravel lair, and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be gone forever. Except:
1) Wouldn't do anything for bombers or other delivery methods.
2) Would forever close off space exploration, thereby stranding us here and cutting us off from sending out probes, etc.
The worst thing is, some considered the second a small price to pay to guarantee their safety.
I'm curious as to your selections.
Grenada and Panama? War? Hardly.
Yugoslavia? Wasn't the US criticized roundly for NOT getting involved until too late, and only then half-heartedly?
So am I, but it would be nice if they digitally enhanced the girls tits - they just aren't up to the siliconed standards of the new milenium.
Oh, yeah - get rid of those dumbass sideburns, too.
The way I read you, if Spamhaus simply lists suspected spammers on their British website, and US citizens go to the website and download, with no interation by Spamhause, they are probably safe.
If Spamhaus sells the data, they are screwed (in the US, anyway)
So the media is lying when they report on the accuracy of exit polling, but is performing a vital service that shouldn't be gamed when performing exit polling?
Make up your mind - government toadies or Beacons of Truth and Freedom?
"thinks the truth and freedom of the press is something to play around with"
As opposed to the members of the press itself, who hold Truth and Freedom so high?
As for truth, go back to grade school history and read up on Hearst, the Yellow Press, and the Spanish American War. Or just watch "Citizen Kane" - it's fiction, so probably more believeable for you.
As for Freedom of the Press, members of the Press have interpreted that to mean that they can do or say anything, legal, or illegal, with no consequences. Combined with their assertion that they are the "watchdog" of the government - in effect, a fourth branch of government - we now have a hugely powerful, largely unaccountable body involved in our government, with none of the constitutional provisions that limit the other three. All thanks to idiots like you who somehow believe that the "Press" is going to save you from the Big, Bad Government.
And the soundest sleepers of all are those who lie to themselves.
So let me get this straight.:
1) Generally recognized spammer files suit against Spamhaus, a British based company.
2) Spamhaus does business in the US, and therefor that portion of the business is subject to US law, including the jurisdiction of the courts. (everything rides on this)
3) Spamhaus totally ignores a pending legal action against them in a court which has jurisdiction over them.
4) Court enters default judgement in accordance with hundreds of years of legal precedent, including *English* common law.
5) Spamhaus is now open to the court seizing their US assets to pay the judgement, and an injunction against doing business in the US, enforceable under Federal law by US Marshals.
How is this smart? If they had simply responded to the lawsuit, this probably would have been over in a heartbeat. Instead, they are basically thumbing their noses at a legal system that they believe is beneath their consideration.
(Cue "US legal system sucks, blah, blah, blah))
If RAH is reading this, I'm sure he's smiling (or whatever the equivalent is in the afterlife).
Of course, he could also be smiling because of the 24/7 blow jobs (or whatever the equivalent is in the afterlife).
The belief that everyone above a certain level of power is a sociopath is just as smug and ignorant as believing that one gender is inherently better than the other.
Are there sociopaths in Congress and the boardrooms? Sure.
Are there more sociopaths in those positions than in the general population, on a percentage basis? Possibly, even probably.
Are they all sociopaths, such that one cannot BE a national politician or a Fortune 500 executive without being a sociopath? I don't believe that; do you really believe that?
It must be very comforting to believe that you are not powerful because you are better than those in power. If you believe you have very little power over your own life, the illusion that those who wield that power are sociopaths (and therefore, not as worthy as you) would be quite attractive.
For many years we have been told that, if women were in positions of power, they would behave differently than men. This assertion was based solely on the premise that women are somehow fundamentally different than men, and that this difference would ensure that female executives and politicians would be somehow "better" then males.
This has proven not to be the case, as evidenced by the behavior of various corporate and political women in power. While true that the Cynthia McKinney's and Carly Fiorina's of the world are not the rule, they do lead to questions of whether women are so fundamentally different after all.
Is Hillary Clinton somehow better than the other senators simply because she is a woman? Is she exempt from being accused of being an opportunistic carpetbagger, merely because she has a set of tits? That is what some would have us believe.
If I can call Sen. Stevens a bastard, I can call Sen. Clinton a bitch.
1) There is - it's called Latin.
2) "Laws" per se are written by "lawmakers" - you know, politicians. A lot of these folks are barely literate in their own language, much less requiring them to learn another.
3) Was I the only one to find the parent remark +1 Humor?
By Larry Niven. Same idea, but with superheroes.
The text of the story was on http://www.larryniven.org/ , but I can't find it now.
I thought steganography was hiding data in an image - are you suggesting hiding an image in an image?
Better would be hiding an image in data...the rebirth of ASCII Porn!
"I agree with Eric Flint's essay, found in the Free Library on baen.com: Until there's some way to make music/movies/books that doesn't require musicians/actors/directors/authors, and until people stop wanting those materials, there *will* be ways to make money off of them. It's just a matter of finding them. And, perhaps, accepting that people don't really need millions for doing what they love."
Don't forget that Baen Books puts their policies where their mouth is. Baen's Webscriptions http://www.webscription.net/ have almost all of their catalog available for paid download in multiple formats, all unencumbered and non-expiring. The prices are reasonable, and the download process couldn't be more convenient - I mean, they take Paypal, fer Chrissake.
And guess what - they make money at it.
In the article's scenario, Baen couldn't possibly be doing this - once one person spends the $6.99 for the download, the book would propogate all over the net, and Baen wouldn't see another dime. Yet that doesn't happen. Why?
- Most people are inherently honest, and don't mind paying for quality
- Those honest folks, when asked to post the books on file sharing networks, generally tell the requestor to stop being a cheapskate and buy the damned thing. It's cheap and convenient, and if you still don't want to pay, go to a public library.
Is there filesharing with these? Sure, but like Eric Flynt said, it's like stealing penny candy.
BTW, Jim Baen, the publisher of Baen Books and the driving force behind their digital publishing policies, recently passed away. Whether you like what he published or not (and many don't, especially the military sci-fi), he was the ONLY mainstream publisher with the balls to try the business model being advocated so much on slashdot. Put your money where your mouth is, go to webscriptions, and buy some books. Or buy hardcovers and donate them to a school or library.
The sole reason Iran is developing a nuclear weapon is because the US sucks, Bush is evil, and Halliburton runs the country.
Now where are my points for being Insightful?