Leaving aside the idiocy of treating logfiles like fingerprints, are you absolutely going to swear that the ISP machine and the RIAA machine are set to the same time?
The RIAA's whole approach is a house of cards, and I believe that in the end they will irreversibly damage the credibility of genuine computer forensics.
There used to never be any complaints about the Microsoft bashing, because even if it wasn't entirely true, they deserved it.
When this site was mostly IT folks we all had first-hand experiences to go along with the bashing. The new crop of young republicans don't have the background, so they think we're being unfair.
When it comes to explaining biological reality, Dawkins asserts: "The only thing [William Paley] got wrong, admittedly quite a big thing, was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer [that life was created by God]. . . The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin. Dawkins fails to point out that belief in the doctrine of creation and the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection are in fact compatible.
This statement is really the crux of the whole problem. Creationism and the theory of evolution are not "compatible" or "incompatible". They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They are attempting to answer two entirely different questions.
Would I volunteer to fight the Nazis in WWII? Sure.
Would I just say yes to your question because it's essentially meaningless? Sure.
The point isn't that death doesn't matter. The point is that it's irrelevant to talk about civilian death due to terrorism in the context of our country's core principles.
Yeah, you know, the more I think about this, the more I feel that anyone who publishes their drunken exploits on a massively public forum deserves what they get.
One company I hired for sorted applications based on resume writing style, then gave all the final candidates a logic test.
One company requested an essay rather than a resume. The follow up interview was another essay written in the office.
One company presented several different programming puzzles in the application.
And, my god, one company hired based on the appearance of the female candidates.
My (tortuously arrived at) point is this... if you're applying to a company that screens based on google or facebook searches... FUCK THEM. I know this is akin to telling a battered spouse that she should leave her husband, but seriously, do you need to be a tool all your life? You do have a choice.
Or, and I know this is not a hugely great idea in a depression, only apply to jobs run by clueful people. The very idea that any law firm or financial institution that's been around since the seventies would find any of our generation's "excesses" shocking is, frankly, laughable. Get a few martinis in any old secretary and you will hear stories you will not fucking believe. We are amateurs.
Of course, those of us who have opted to not have children (so far? who the hell knows) will always find it easier to stand on their principles. Welcome to Lifestyles of the Rich and Childless.
I wouldn't worry a whole lot. There's room for so much improvement in their offerings that (are you listening, semi-rich person who's wondering where to put their money?) you could invest in improving GRASS, repackage it with a sharp UI, and make a fucking mint. Basically, GIS is too big for one company to contain. It's going to blow up in probably three or four years, just judging by the rapid clue-getting by people who do actual work.
It's such a shame that people don't see what a huge impact GIS will have on their lives. This is the second coming of the internet, people. Now is your chance.
Are you kidding? MS knows they're already skating on thin ice. You can't threaten a huge amount of people when the alternative is free. Sure, sure, we're all aware of the various OS office software flaws and shortcomings, but are there any that would cause an entire country, let alone an aggregation of countries, serious pain?
Right now, I'd say that the only real area where public work relies on the MS environment is in GIS, and ESRI is really due to have their apple cart knocked over RSN.
((because their basic interface is Photoshop 5.0, that's why))
Yes yes, we've always known that it's harder to be good than evil. We've got thousand year old texts on the subject, we have pop sci-fi trilogies (ahem) on the subject. It's a known deal.
Me personally, I'd rather see a few thousands die than see our country go down the path of least resistance. I've been unfortunate enough to see both occur during the past decade.
I'll never understand how people can base a legal argument around a text file.
Unless you have an officer of the court present during the writing of the router code, the server code, the logging module code, storage of the logs, retrieval of the logs, and on and on and on... it's all absolute bullshit. Strike that 'unless', it should be 'even if'. There's not a person here (he said, as if it was 1998) who couldn't fake this shit given physical access and a week to study.
- the only people who'd be giving up anonymity are average citizens. Not the terrist or the mafioso.
- this is a known problem with this line of thinking, yet it continues to be trotted out again and again.
- why would that be? You're free to draw your own conclusions, but logic dictates that either
a) the people proposing shit like this are incredibly ignorant, or
b) the people proposing shit like this are incredibly complicit.
You can choose option 'a' with the addendum that they're well meaning. It doesn't change anything, but it might prevent a brick through a window.
No man... my general point was that, while knowing someone who pirates crap might be totally great evidence of a larger trend to you, statistically speaking your experience means absolutely nothing.
If you want to convince yourself that pirating is a problem, i'd say mission accomplished. If you want to convince anyone who's pursued math beyond the high school level (or, if you were paying attention, simply high school), then I was trying to point out the problem with your argument.
I'm not saying you're an asshole for holding the opinion that you do. It just really seems that, overall, casual piracy (as opposed to mass piracy for profit) actually seems to boost software sales in the long run. There's room to disagree here, but in the end we need to rely on logic and not opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving aside the idiocy of treating logfiles like fingerprints, are you absolutely going to swear that the ISP machine and the RIAA machine are set to the same time?
The RIAA's whole approach is a house of cards, and I believe that in the end they will irreversibly damage the credibility of genuine computer forensics.
There used to never be any complaints about the Microsoft bashing, because even if it wasn't entirely true, they deserved it.
When this site was mostly IT folks we all had first-hand experiences to go along with the bashing. The new crop of young republicans don't have the background, so they think we're being unfair.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -George Orwell
"I thought that the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest's guts." - George Orwell
Did you mean to link to an article within that site? Or were you using the existence of the site itself as your argument?
If your point was that some people believe in creationism AND understand the theory of evolution, you've entirely missed my point.
I've heard that comment about satire before, and I'm always surprised that TV and booze never rate a mention.
When it comes to explaining biological reality, Dawkins asserts: "The only thing [William Paley] got wrong, admittedly quite a big thing, was the explanation itself. He gave the traditional religious answer [that life was created by God]. . . The true explanation is utterly different, and it had to wait for one of the most revolutionary thinkers of all time, Charles Darwin. Dawkins fails to point out that belief in the doctrine of creation and the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection are in fact compatible.
This statement is really the crux of the whole problem. Creationism and the theory of evolution are not "compatible" or "incompatible". They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They are attempting to answer two entirely different questions.
How would that work, exactly?
Would I volunteer to fight the Nazis in WWII? Sure.
Would I just say yes to your question because it's essentially meaningless? Sure.
The point isn't that death doesn't matter. The point is that it's irrelevant to talk about civilian death due to terrorism in the context of our country's core principles.
Yeah, you know, the more I think about this, the more I feel that anyone who publishes their drunken exploits on a massively public forum deserves what they get.
My experience is somewhat different...
One company I hired for sorted applications based on resume writing style, then gave all the final candidates a logic test.
One company requested an essay rather than a resume. The follow up interview was another essay written in the office.
One company presented several different programming puzzles in the application.
And, my god, one company hired based on the appearance of the female candidates.
My (tortuously arrived at) point is this... if you're applying to a company that screens based on google or facebook searches... FUCK THEM. I know this is akin to telling a battered spouse that she should leave her husband, but seriously, do you need to be a tool all your life? You do have a choice.
Or, and I know this is not a hugely great idea in a depression, only apply to jobs run by clueful people. The very idea that any law firm or financial institution that's been around since the seventies would find any of our generation's "excesses" shocking is, frankly, laughable. Get a few martinis in any old secretary and you will hear stories you will not fucking believe. We are amateurs.
Of course, those of us who have opted to not have children (so far? who the hell knows) will always find it easier to stand on their principles. Welcome to Lifestyles of the Rich and Childless.
I wouldn't worry a whole lot. There's room for so much improvement in their offerings that (are you listening, semi-rich person who's wondering where to put their money?) you could invest in improving GRASS, repackage it with a sharp UI, and make a fucking mint. Basically, GIS is too big for one company to contain. It's going to blow up in probably three or four years, just judging by the rapid clue-getting by people who do actual work.
It's such a shame that people don't see what a huge impact GIS will have on their lives. This is the second coming of the internet, people. Now is your chance.
Are you kidding? MS knows they're already skating on thin ice. You can't threaten a huge amount of people when the alternative is free. Sure, sure, we're all aware of the various OS office software flaws and shortcomings, but are there any that would cause an entire country, let alone an aggregation of countries, serious pain?
Right now, I'd say that the only real area where public work relies on the MS environment is in GIS, and ESRI is really due to have their apple cart knocked over RSN.
((because their basic interface is Photoshop 5.0, that's why))
Well, treat them both the same way and see how far it gets you.
Yes yes, we've always known that it's harder to be good than evil. We've got thousand year old texts on the subject, we have pop sci-fi trilogies (ahem) on the subject. It's a known deal.
Me personally, I'd rather see a few thousands die than see our country go down the path of least resistance. I've been unfortunate enough to see both occur during the past decade.
I'll never understand how people can base a legal argument around a text file.
Unless you have an officer of the court present during the writing of the router code, the server code, the logging module code, storage of the logs, retrieval of the logs, and on and on and on... it's all absolute bullshit. Strike that 'unless', it should be 'even if'. There's not a person here (he said, as if it was 1998) who couldn't fake this shit given physical access and a week to study.
A text file is not a god damn fingerprint.
The Republicans had practically nothing to do with this mess
Aside from, you know, creating it.
I always thought he meant that good artists will use another's technique or concept in a one-off piece, but great artists wholly absorb the approach.
They do not perform their jobs in front of an audience, and do not have to get into the public eye in order to get the job.
You're wrong on both counts. Wildly wrong. Were you homeschooled?
That's a man's way to do things.
For a given value of 'man'.
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act
Obama might be the first black president, but this will be his real legacy. That's not delusion.
- the only people who'd be giving up anonymity are average citizens. Not the terrist or the mafioso.
- this is a known problem with this line of thinking, yet it continues to be trotted out again and again.
- why would that be? You're free to draw your own conclusions, but logic dictates that either
a) the people proposing shit like this are incredibly ignorant, or
b) the people proposing shit like this are incredibly complicit.
You can choose option 'a' with the addendum that they're well meaning. It doesn't change anything, but it might prevent a brick through a window.
No man... my general point was that, while knowing someone who pirates crap might be totally great evidence of a larger trend to you, statistically speaking your experience means absolutely nothing.
If you want to convince yourself that pirating is a problem, i'd say mission accomplished. If you want to convince anyone who's pursued math beyond the high school level (or, if you were paying attention, simply high school), then I was trying to point out the problem with your argument.
I'm not saying you're an asshole for holding the opinion that you do. It just really seems that, overall, casual piracy (as opposed to mass piracy for profit) actually seems to boost software sales in the long run. There's room to disagree here, but in the end we need to rely on logic and not opinion.
I have demonstrated to myself that the proposal is false.
I went ahead and highlighted the key phrase for you there.
The argument that piracy doesn't hurt sales and cost the companies and artists money, is false. My experience directly contradicts it.
My grandmother used anecdotal evidence, and she lived to be a hundred and eight!
Welcome to the internet, you must be new here.