You think you are the one granting the "privilege"? Or are you just too gutless to accept that you exist "by privilege"?
Punks like this are a dime a dozen in this country. Suck up to the powers that be and act like they're one of them. I've got news for you - you're just another punk to George Bush and John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld and they'll ream your butt just like any other gutless "American" when they get the chance. And like every other gutless American, you'll take it and babble about how you like it and approve of it - just like you just did.
- Plus, if your government is transparent to its - citizens, it's also transparent to its enemies.
This is relevant only in the very narrowly defined areas of active intelligence and active military operations. Virtually everything else CAN be transparent without harm.
Also, your point about people understanding government operations. The point should be that in a transparent government, the reasons for those actions are in fact the items being made transparent, and the reason WHY you need transparent government.
But it will never happen because virtually every American doesn't care what the government does as long as he gets his Big Mac, his Slurpee at the 7-11, his Coors Light, his Monday Night Football, and his WWF Raw - until the government throws him or his kid in jail or gets one (or both) of them killed.
- Moral of the story: If you're in a - politically-sensitive job, or think you might - be, keep your frickin' nose clean.
Like Bill Clinton?
Ritter's nose probably is clean. The whole deal sounds like a setup to me from the get-go, and not by the Iraqis.
As to his anti-US posture, it seems clear to me that much of what he has said is now being echoed to some degree by Hans Blix, i.e., that US intelligence on Iraqi weapons was "pathetic", that the US either made up or ignored the obviously faked nuclear evidence, and that it deliberately cut out the UN weapons inspectors because it was looking for a war for its own agenda.
Not to mention the fact that "underage" was under 10-14 or so for most of human history.
In the 1920's, most husbands married "underage" (i.e., 16) girls.
The whole concept of "underage" is brain-dead. It is a legal definition which has no biological or psychological or evolutionary basis whatsoever.
It is entirely the product of cultures and religions (for the most part, Christianity) who are interested in controlling normal human behavior for reasons of political and social power.
Do you run Windows 98, as I do? Does anything work properly? I reboot Windows 98 at LEAST five times a day when some app like the Epson printer drivers (or maybe it's Spool32.exe or maybe it's...) takes it down.
If Open Office works twice as reliably as Windows 98, it is a godsend...
- This is why we have laws to prevent people from - doing certain things that they'd otherwise be - "free" to do, and this is why we have a police - force to enforce those laws.
Some people will believe anything...
This is a person with no concept of human history except what he got at the hands of an American public school education...
Go over to the Le Monde site (if you can read French - or find an English translation) and read about the US Marines in Iraq who shot kids and old men with canes to protect their (the Marines) "security". Does your right to "security" give you the right to murder people? Ask that question, moron...
And in the US anybody saying anything bad about Bush has his conversation recorded by the FBI, NSA, et al, so he can be hauled off to prison later. Sometimes, not much later...
The only difference between Saddam and Bush is the timing of your haul off to prison...
Allow me to point out that released ex-felons are usually (in Federal cases) on supervised release for three to five years..
In other words, they have a parole officer breathing down their neck just waiting for them to slip.
What other employee can you hire has a Federal officer backing him up? If the ex-con screws up, all you do is make a phone call and he's back in the joint in an hour. If he couldn't get away from them the first time, what makes you think he'll successfully steal from you and escape punishment this time?
Use some common sense. If you are talking about some idiot low-life out of the ghetto, you might have a point. But a hacker is just as likely to go straight (or at least less bent) as he is to repeat. A hacker has to have some smarts and it is the height of stupidity to think you can get away with something you went to jail for in the first place. Only morons from the criminal class do that, and that is partly because they literally don't and virtually can't know any better because that is how they have existed since they were kids. Hackers may have their own emotional problems, but they're not stupid. Once they see they can make a better living working in the computer security business than they can hacking and running from the law, it will be a no-brainer.
Not to mention that IIRC we recently withdrew from a treaty prohibiting biowarfare weapons development because it was hampering our biowarfare weapons development...(Duh...)
Not to mention that Rumsfield notified Congress before the Iraqi invasion that we intended to use "non-lethal" gas as part of our tactics...despite being prohibited by international treaty...
Not to mention the PROBABLE fact that West Nile virus was probably introduced from the Plum Island biowarfare development site (you remember, the place Clarice wanted to send Hannibal?) which is a mere twenty miles from Long Island with the winds blowing onshore...and a history of outbreaks and dead birds...
Really? So the dress shop down the street gets no cash? So the drugstore on the corner gets no cash? So the...
Do you see a problem with your logic?
Publicity is actually marketing. Marketing has to be done by ANYBODY in ANY business. If you are saying that the record labels are in fact marketing firms that are using slave labor, you might be correct.
How is this beneficial for the artist who wants to create and make a living selling music? Keep in mind that as soon as the artist fails to release a platinum record, his ass is out the door...
There's a difference between making a living as an artist and being a superstar slave...
Any artist can market (or hire someone to market) his work and make a living doing so. Not ALL artists can make ten million dollars a year doing so. Not ALL artists under the present system make ten million dollars a year doing so. The difference between an artist in business for himself and one contracted to a slave labor marketing firm is that all the money he makes goes to him (minus expenses for whoever he does hire to do his marketing for him, if he does not choose to do it himself.) What you have now are idiots who are so blinded by the notion of FAME (not art) that they sell their asses to a record label who - once they have used them up - dump them. These idiots then go into withdrawal pains from lack of FAME. What was the name of that TV show? FAME!
FAME is NOT ART...
If programmers thought that way, everybody would be working for Microsoft hoping to be Bill Gates...
Until somebody makes some practical use out of the parallel universe theory, it's just that - theory... Developed mostly to justify somebody's grant or university chair or whatever...anything except truly providing some explanation of what is...
I had a fellow inmate in the hole at Florence FCI in Colorado. Guy was about my age (late forties at the time). He told me that when he was petitioning to go to a lower-security institution, his case manager told him the BOP couldn't recommend it because of "that incident at Alcatraz".
Inmate said, "What incident? I was never at Alcatraz!" Case manager pointed out a notation in the inmates Central File concerning some violence or escape attempt or something engaged in while he was an inmate at Alcatraz.
The inmate pointed out that Alcatraz had closed in the early 60's when he was about 14 years old - and they didsn't put 14-year-olds in Alcatraz...
Didn't faze the case manager.
The hallmarks of government: malice and incompetence...
The problem is your assertion isn't based on anything more than my assertion.
The second problem is, you ignore the fact that advances in nanotech will provide us with an accelerating - note that, accelerating - amount of data on such things as how we are constructed. This is the part that everybody misses. Everybody focuses on what nanotech will do eventually (including me) and few remember that the incremental advances will accelerate knowledge in all other fields of science, thus providing us with the knowledge to use nanotech better. There is a synergistic convergence between nanotech and all (well, most, I don't know that things like astronomy or astrophysics will be impacted very soon since they deal with things not physically present on Earth)sciences and technology.
It boils down to not forgetting that advances do not happen in a vacuum. They impact other fields. And the more basic the advance, like nanotech, the more impact they have.
And that affects the time frame because the advances will accelerate as time goes on. So you can't assume that because nanotech does very little today that the rate of advance will be linear over the next fifty years. Just consider where computers were fifty years ago versus today for an example which is nowhere near as important as nanotech (but which will be very much improved by nanotech as well, and which is important enough to have a convergent effect on the advance of nanotech - as Drexler pointed out in his first book.)
But anyone who does not see that since Nature has done it, it is therefore doable, IS a moron...
Your attempt to reverse the argument that Drexler made years ago that nature has already established what can be done, the rest is merely engineering, is not very convincing.
The argument boils down to whether selection is more powerful than conceptual thinking. I think in the end it is irrelevant which is true. There is no a priori reason for believing that we can not duplicate whatever nature does. We might not be able to develop anything that nature has not already developed, but that is not relevant either, since we can repurpose what has been developed. And in the case of nanotech, we are duplicating things on a level that nature itself uses, i.e., molecules. We don't have to spend millions of years generating random attempts in real time. All we need to do is understand the mechanisms involved and we can duplicate anything nature has done. Once we are far enough along on the curve in terms of nanotech computers, we can use random processes speeded up millions of times to relearn what took nature millions of years, if such an approach proves necessary due to complexity theory problems.
And that doesn't even begin to touch on the possibilities of femtotechnology, which will be the step after nanotech...
Nanotech is not gross mechanics, it is a technology based on the actual physics of nature. Whatever nature did is based on physics. Learn to apply the physics and you can do anything nature does.
If you haven't read Drexler's first book, "Engines of Creation", I suggest you do so. He covers all these a priori arguments there.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, wait, I said that before about this issue...
Never mind...
Now who posted this?
Bill Gates?
John Ashcroft?
George Bush?
Saddam Hussein?
Or just some asshole with the same attitude...
You think you are the one granting the "privilege"? Or are you just too gutless to accept that you exist "by privilege"?
Punks like this are a dime a dozen in this country. Suck up to the powers that be and act like they're one of them. I've got news for you - you're just another punk to George Bush and John Ashcroft and Donald Rumsfeld and they'll ream your butt just like any other gutless "American" when they get the chance. And like every other gutless American, you'll take it and babble about how you like it and approve of it - just like you just did.
Punk.
No, I can blame you - because you voted.
You can't blame me - I didn't vote. I am in no way responsible for authorizing anybody to do anything in (supposedly) my name.
In fact, I spent over eight years in prison because I took up a gun to destroy these assholes.
The only thing you can blame me for is failing to do it. And I don't need your blame - I've got enough of my own.
Now I'm working to get the money and the technology to do the job right next time...
- Plus, if your government is transparent to its
- citizens, it's also transparent to its enemies.
This is relevant only in the very narrowly defined areas of active intelligence and active military operations. Virtually everything else CAN be transparent without harm.
Also, your point about people understanding government operations. The point should be that in a transparent government, the reasons for those actions are in fact the items being made transparent, and the reason WHY you need transparent government.
But it will never happen because virtually every American doesn't care what the government does as long as he gets his Big Mac, his Slurpee at the 7-11, his Coors Light, his Monday Night Football, and his WWF Raw - until the government throws him or his kid in jail or gets one (or both) of them killed.
- Moral of the story: If you're in a
- politically-sensitive job, or think you might
- be, keep your frickin' nose clean.
Like Bill Clinton?
Ritter's nose probably is clean. The whole deal sounds like a setup to me from the get-go, and not by the Iraqis.
As to his anti-US posture, it seems clear to me that much of what he has said is now being echoed to some degree by Hans Blix, i.e., that US intelligence on Iraqi weapons was "pathetic", that the US either made up or ignored the obviously faked nuclear evidence, and that it deliberately cut out the UN weapons inspectors because it was looking for a war for its own agenda.
Not to mention the fact that "underage" was under 10-14 or so for most of human history.
In the 1920's, most husbands married "underage" (i.e., 16) girls.
The whole concept of "underage" is brain-dead. It is a legal definition which has no biological or psychological or evolutionary basis whatsoever.
It is entirely the product of cultures and religions (for the most part, Christianity) who are interested in controlling normal human behavior for reasons of political and social power.
how else could an idiot story like this get in here - not even as comedy yet...
This is on a par with a hypothetical story about a SQL database company harassing Mozilla because of a name similarity...
Oh, wait...
Oh, wow, embedded video fails...
Do you run Windows 98, as I do? Does anything work properly? I reboot Windows 98 at LEAST five times a day when some app like the Epson printer drivers (or maybe it's Spool32.exe or maybe it's...) takes it down.
If Open Office works twice as reliably as Windows 98, it is a godsend...
- This is why we have laws to prevent people from
- doing certain things that they'd otherwise be
- "free" to do, and this is why we have a police
- force to enforce those laws.
Some people will believe anything...
This is a person with no concept of human history except what he got at the hands of an American public school education...
Go over to the Le Monde site (if you can read French - or find an English translation) and read about the US Marines in Iraq who shot kids and old men with canes to protect their (the Marines) "security". Does your right to "security" give you the right to murder people? Ask that question, moron...
And in the US anybody saying anything bad about Bush has his conversation recorded by the FBI, NSA, et al, so he can be hauled off to prison later. Sometimes, not much later...
The only difference between Saddam and Bush is the timing of your haul off to prison...
Have Mozilla change the name to Bat Guano or Komodo or some shit...
Doesn't anybody have anything better to do than argue over names for totally dissimilar products?
Morons...
Allow me to point out that released ex-felons are usually (in Federal cases) on supervised release for three to five years..
In other words, they have a parole officer breathing down their neck just waiting for them to slip.
What other employee can you hire has a Federal officer backing him up? If the ex-con screws up, all you do is make a phone call and he's back in the joint in an hour. If he couldn't get away from them the first time, what makes you think he'll successfully steal from you and escape punishment this time?
Use some common sense. If you are talking about some idiot low-life out of the ghetto, you might have a point. But a hacker is just as likely to go straight (or at least less bent) as he is to repeat. A hacker has to have some smarts and it is the height of stupidity to think you can get away with something you went to jail for in the first place. Only morons from the criminal class do that, and that is partly because they literally don't and virtually can't know any better because that is how they have existed since they were kids. Hackers may have their own emotional problems, but they're not stupid. Once they see they can make a better living working in the computer security business than they can hacking and running from the law, it will be a no-brainer.
it accidentally walks up your ass?
Makes the Richard Gere story look tame, doesn't it?
who?
Jessica Alba? Carmen Electra?
Or even some no-name Asian chick down in the Tenderloin here in San Francisco?
If not, I foresee no sale...
Unless you can use it as a dildo...
Then it will sell big in San Francisco, for both sexes...
Nope - it decides to kill YOU...
If you gotta violate a rule, make sure it's a BIG violation...
Not to mention that IIRC we recently withdrew from a treaty prohibiting biowarfare weapons development because it was hampering our biowarfare weapons development...(Duh...)
Not to mention that Rumsfield notified Congress before the Iraqi invasion that we intended to use "non-lethal" gas as part of our tactics...despite being prohibited by international treaty...
Not to mention the PROBABLE fact that West Nile virus was probably introduced from the Plum Island biowarfare development site (you remember, the place Clarice wanted to send Hannibal?) which is a mere twenty miles from Long Island with the winds blowing onshore...and a history of outbreaks and dead birds...
I always like Chiun's response to the quoting of Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"...
He said, "And where's he now?"...
'Nuff said...
Really? So the dress shop down the street gets no cash? So the drugstore on the corner gets no cash? So the...
Do you see a problem with your logic?
Publicity is actually marketing. Marketing has to be done by ANYBODY in ANY business. If you are saying that the record labels are in fact marketing firms that are using slave labor, you might be correct.
How is this beneficial for the artist who wants to create and make a living selling music? Keep in mind that as soon as the artist fails to release a platinum record, his ass is out the door...
There's a difference between making a living as an artist and being a superstar slave...
Any artist can market (or hire someone to market) his work and make a living doing so. Not ALL artists can make ten million dollars a year doing so. Not ALL artists under the present system make ten million dollars a year doing so. The difference between an artist in business for himself and one contracted to a slave labor marketing firm is that all the money he makes goes to him (minus expenses for whoever he does hire to do his marketing for him, if he does not choose to do it himself.) What you have now are idiots who are so blinded by the notion of FAME (not art) that they sell their asses to a record label who - once they have used them up - dump them. These idiots then go into withdrawal pains from lack of FAME. What was the name of that TV show? FAME!
FAME is NOT ART...
If programmers thought that way, everybody would be working for Microsoft hoping to be Bill Gates...
Oh, wait...
...end up with a religious argument...
Until somebody makes some practical use out of the parallel universe theory, it's just that - theory... Developed mostly to justify somebody's grant or university chair or whatever...anything except truly providing some explanation of what is...
Morons...
Give Bush some more time...
Yes, he WILL bomb her day-care center...
Or Jeb will...
Or some other asshole (Democrat OR Republican OR Green OR Libertarian) will...
Or somebody from the other side of the planet that we attacked who has decided "enough is enough"...
It's the morons who design them and code on them...
I had a fellow inmate in the hole at Florence FCI in Colorado. Guy was about my age (late forties at the time). He told me that when he was petitioning to go to a lower-security institution, his case manager told him the BOP couldn't recommend it because of "that incident at Alcatraz".
Inmate said, "What incident? I was never at Alcatraz!" Case manager pointed out a notation in the inmates Central File concerning some violence or escape attempt or something engaged in while he was an inmate at Alcatraz.
The inmate pointed out that Alcatraz had closed in the early 60's when he was about 14 years old - and they didsn't put 14-year-olds in Alcatraz...
Didn't faze the case manager.
The hallmarks of government: malice and incompetence...
The problem is your assertion isn't based on anything more than my assertion.
The second problem is, you ignore the fact that advances in nanotech will provide us with an accelerating - note that, accelerating - amount of data on such things as how we are constructed. This is the part that everybody misses. Everybody focuses on what nanotech will do eventually (including me) and few remember that the incremental advances will accelerate knowledge in all other fields of science, thus providing us with the knowledge to use nanotech better. There is a synergistic convergence between nanotech and all (well, most, I don't know that things like astronomy or astrophysics will be impacted very soon since they deal with things not physically present on Earth)sciences and technology.
It boils down to not forgetting that advances do not happen in a vacuum. They impact other fields. And the more basic the advance, like nanotech, the more impact they have.
And that affects the time frame because the advances will accelerate as time goes on. So you can't assume that because nanotech does very little today that the rate of advance will be linear over the next fifty years. Just consider where computers were fifty years ago versus today for an example which is nowhere near as important as nanotech (but which will be very much improved by nanotech as well, and which is important enough to have a convergent effect on the advance of nanotech - as Drexler pointed out in his first book.)
But anyone who does not see that since Nature has done it, it is therefore doable, IS a moron...
Your attempt to reverse the argument that Drexler made years ago that nature has already established what can be done, the rest is merely engineering, is not very convincing.
The argument boils down to whether selection is more powerful than conceptual thinking. I think in the end it is irrelevant which is true. There is no a priori reason for believing that we can not duplicate whatever nature does. We might not be able to develop anything that nature has not already developed, but that is not relevant either, since we can repurpose what has been developed. And in the case of nanotech, we are duplicating things on a level that nature itself uses, i.e., molecules. We don't have to spend millions of years generating random attempts in real time. All we need to do is understand the mechanisms involved and we can duplicate anything nature has done. Once we are far enough along on the curve in terms of nanotech computers, we can use random processes speeded up millions of times to relearn what took nature millions of years, if such an approach proves necessary due to complexity theory problems.
And that doesn't even begin to touch on the possibilities of femtotechnology, which will be the step after nanotech...
Nanotech is not gross mechanics, it is a technology based on the actual physics of nature. Whatever nature did is based on physics. Learn to apply the physics and you can do anything nature does.
If you haven't read Drexler's first book, "Engines of Creation", I suggest you do so. He covers all these a priori arguments there.
If eventually is a billion or so years, I'll have time to worry about it...meanwhile I'll take care of business...
Have a nice day.