Google is a service that is, for the most part, free to those who benefit from it.
Somebody discovers that they can manipulate this service to increase their benefit.
The people who provide this (free) service chose to ignore those manipulations. Maybe they deliberately lower the ranking of some pages, to hear the whiny TFH crowd speak.
Then those same whiners--who contributed NOTHING to the process from which they benefit--scream for damages.
If someone invented a pill to make people immortal and one of these jerks didn't get his pill, these same folks would want the inventor jailed for murder.
Until you form a union and negotiate a contract with google--that includes a "past practices" clause, just STFU.
Great. "My ideal utopian assumptions have never been tried before". Why not? Because your utopian model of society assumes things that simply are not so. Communism (which you fail to define) has never been tried before because it's not practical. It assumes conditions which are simply not true. Read on...
*GPL is not Communist. It's cooperative. If I make a buck selling manuals, boxes, CDs, and consulting/design services for GPL software, it's my buck. It does not go to "the community" unless I want it to.
Let's see a successful practical application of communism. I invite you to cite examples.
Communism and capitalism--defined here in very simple terms are the two systems of economics most often discussed. There are other systems, of course, but/. is probably not the best place for a Poli-Sci dissertation.
Capitalism: "Every man for himself" assumes human greed. A capitalist system acknowledges this and involves laws, social mores, and regulations which use this tendency (human greed) to produce good things for society. The individual's greed is his motivator to produce as much as he can.
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." depends on human altruism. Similarly to capitalism, a communist implementation of social structure tries to use this tendency (human altruism) to produce good things for society. The individual's concern for his neighbor and for society at large is his motivator to produce as much as he can.
Failure Modes are the problem. Look around you. Go to longbets.com if you're sure you're right--make a prediction that demonstrates the superiority of communism, and test it.
In an "ideal" society (that's one where everyone behaves the way you want them to), communism looks like utopia.
In the real world--greed kicks the ass of altruism. Every time. You don't find the wealthy embracing communism, giving away all their possessions and dedicating their lives to the service of the poor.
Hey, look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--that's altruism, right? Nah. That's PR. Just like the Carnegie Libraries. Sure they did good. Not by putting themselves in the same financial situation as "the people", though. I'm sure you're familiar with the parable of the widow's mite.
The proponents of communism aren't so altruistic, either. In fact, those are generally the best examples of the greed that makes capitalism successful.
Because "Let's Share" always seems to mean "Let's share...yours"
to grow up in the middle of it as if it were natural
The goal here is not to track kids. The goal here is to desensitize them to the loss of privacy.
The process goes: Offence to personal boundaries, cognitive dissonance, anxiety, rationalization, acceptance.
Repeat with an incrementally greater offence to those boundaries, and soon you'll have a society of prisoners who actually think they are free.
There are people who realize what's being done to them and consciously choose not to follow the script. That takes a lot of work, and is very stressful on those individuals. Still, non-compliant individuals are valuable to the process of subjugation. Violent retribution against, or marginalizing of "extremists" serves as an example to the larger group.
Most people won't have the strength or commitment to break with the expectations of society. Even if you're right, you'll still be treated as a lunatic.
So, I sent them a comment (FWIW). I presented an argument to show that what the broadcasters are asking is wrong, and showed (IANAL) why I think this is wrong.
I DID NOT read any form letters or "canned" arguments first. Duplicate copies of the same comment are always ignored.
I stated my position at the top of the form, then provided justification for my position, then restated the position as a conclusion at the bottom.
I kept the tone calm and as brief as possible. Rants, manifestos, and essays are always ignored.
Unfortunately, I did send it electronically, and late. So, it will probably be ignored.
I oppose broadcasters request that the FCC provide legal means to remove the fair use rights of the public.
I understand that broadcasters wish to prevent me the ability to use recording equipment on certain of their broadcasts.
I understand that broadcasters have asked the FCC to use regulatory means to restrict my rights in favor of their rights.
At a minimum, such restriction subjects my legally protected rights to the whims of the broadcaster.
The broadcasters are askeing a Federal Agency to deny the rights of all of The People in order to prevent a potential violation of the rights of a few of The People.
I have committed no violation, but the broadcasters have asked you to remove my rights because I might commit a violation of their rights. This taking of my rights without due process is offensive to me, and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Refer to the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution if this is unclear to you.
This preferential treatment of a small group at the expense of the general public is unconscienable, and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Refer to the fourteenth amenement to the US Constitution if this is unclear to you.
Therefore I oppose the proposition that the FCC grant authority to broadcasters to regulate the fair use of the public.
Thank you for your time and attention in reading this comment. I trust that the FCC will decide fairly and comply with the applicable law in this matter.
To prepare--not merely protect--your kids for the big bad world outside.
Not the world's job to be "safe for kids".
The world is not safe for children. I don't want a world that's safe for children. It would be unproductive and dull.
Too many don't want to be responsible for their own children? Why? Takes too much effort to teach them? Just yell louder when they don't understand what you want them to do. Works when the waiter doesn't speak your native language, right?
Get real, people. They're your kids. You tell them what's safe and what's not safe. You tell them what's morally correct or evil. And you get to define right and wrong for them--that's your duty and your perogative.
Discipline your children. Look up the word "discipline". It means "learning", "knowledge" or "to teach". Quality of discipline is not measured by severity of punishment. Discipline is teaching the kid the things he's going to need to get along in life.
You've been around. You can teach your kid something. He doesn't know that; he thinks you're an old fool. He doesn't want to listen. So you gotta sell it. Carrot and stick. Voice of Authority. At some point, intelligent discussion (they're probably out of the house by then;). It ain't easy. But it's your job, and you gotta do it.
It's a lot of work, I know. If you look into your living room and see an impromptu performance of Lord_of_the_Flies, you're not doing your job! You--not Id Software, not Jenna Jameson--are responsible.
You can cry for regulation, and even get it. It doesn't help, though, does it? Love your children. Spend your valuable time, care, and effort to raise them.
Legislating a world where children can be safe, yet unprepared does not work. There is no such world. Deluding yourself that there is denies your own responsibility. And aggravates the problem you claim the regulation will solve.
In the US, the First Amendment to our Constitution is not absolute.
The value of the speech protected is weighed against the harm that such speech can cause to the community. "Fire" in a crowded movie house and all that.
The most highly protected form of speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution is political speech.
Commercial speech, by comparison, receives far less robust protection in the courts. Clearly, there are types of speech which are neither political, nor commercial.
This action ties specifically political speech to the free use of P2P networks. In doing so, the users of such networks now bind the interests of powerful parties to those of file swappers.
Threaten to shoot down alleged file swappers, and the alleged swappers will now be able to complain that their political voice is being hushed.
Consideration of chilling effects against political speech often weigh heavily in high court decisions. Legislation that would silence such speech--or even make it less likely or more costly to speak is weak.
I suggest that cmdrtaco designate ONE person to send an email to the ATA.
The designated person could print Dave Barry's article as a pdf, and email it to the appropriate ATA employee. This would resolve the concern they announced after the last article.
Just in case they don't have a pdf reader, the designaged person could open it up in the gimp and save it as a.bmp, then email it. Remember to render it at sufficient resolution that it is easily readable.
Take email server rejections on "too large attachment" into account when you render the.pdf as a bmp. An 8.5x11 bmp, at full color will yield the following file sizes at the following resolutions.
24dpi ~.5M
34dpi ~1M
76dpi ~5M
107dpi ~10M
600dpi ~300M
If you are not the designated person, don't send the email. Don't send the email in many different file sizes to see where the ATA's email server borks. Don't send the email to every ATA email address you can find. Don't send the email more than once.
From their previous complaint, I'm sure the ATA would be grateful for such a service.
I think television broadcast should be limited to only really cool documentaries, science fiction, and cartoons. Oh, yeah, and my wife likes Law&Order, The Nanny, and Designer Women, and the Moldy Girls.
Can we pass a law about that?
Sheesh, people! Legislation is NOT the solution to everything!
/Where are we all going, and why are we in this handbasket?
I am not a sociologist or a behavioural psychologist, so all I saw when I read the article were a bunch of flashy new-age buzzwords. Maybe a qualified professional can follow this up with a "No, it's not BS; it's an incremental improvement in the field." I do know, however, that that article pegged my BS meter. And my BS meter has never failed me yet.
For the sake of argument, I'll put a temporary jumper around the BS alarm. Now, how 'bout a game of "let's pretend":
Standing back and looking at the situation from a "black box" perspective, I see two scenarios:
One or few persons apply a practical approach to modeling collective behaviour. They use it to control that same collective behaviour. It is a dark day for individual freedoms, as The Leaders decide that there simply won't be any more turkey subs because almost everybody suddenly prefers ham. But how would we know? Isn't this what Madison Avenue does to us every day? Why are cr@ppy boy bands so popular?
Modelling methods are developed which are simple and easy for anyone to apply. We all run around trying to manipulate one another. On a small scale, one person rises to control the family/frat/team/whatever. Persons with the best manipulative ability "rise to the top", and control larger systems--nations, corporations, etc. Again, this is not very different from what we see today
So, my conclusion is that even if this works, we won't see much change. It's another tool for controlling the behaviour of one's neighbors. But bribery, guns, taxes, bombs, and intimidation are tools as well. They're pretty effective.
Or, maybe I'm just whistling in the dark.
At any rate, I, for one, welcome our new overlords...
Slashdot Mirror
Google is a service that is, for the most part, free to those who benefit from it.
Somebody discovers that they can manipulate this service to increase their benefit.
The people who provide this (free) service chose to ignore those manipulations. Maybe they deliberately lower the ranking of some pages, to hear the whiny TFH crowd speak.
Then those same whiners--who contributed NOTHING to the process from which they benefit--scream for damages.
If someone invented a pill to make people immortal and one of these jerks didn't get his pill, these same folks would want the inventor jailed for murder.
Until you form a union and negotiate a contract with google--that includes a "past practices" clause, just STFU.
Heh...
About seven or so years ago, I worked with an engineering co-op who was uncomfortable with that nomenclature.
She referred to the connectors as type "A" and type "B". Because if they were male and female, then when you put them together...what are they doing?
She wasn't belligerant about, and we respected her squeamishness (she was pretty young).
But, yeah. It's coming.
Can we still say "coming"?
Yup--smokes mine (video), too.
Funny, though, the 2.4GHz phone--a device that's supposed to emit microwaves--doesn't seem to affect it nearly as much.
Fire hot, water wet
Klein Bottle Coffee Mug
NSA Kids page? WTF??
Mommy, I want to be a spook when I grow up.
Attorney: Isn't it true that you stole code from SCO?
Geek: Yes.
Attorney: What? So, you did steal code from SCO?
Geek: No.
Attorney: I'm confused, now, did you or did you not steal code from SCO?
Geek: Yes.
Attorney: Your Honor, I would like to treat this witness as hostile.
The Court: The witness is directed to answer only "yes" or "no".
Attorney: AAAARRRRGH!
Geek: Hmmm...Is is Sept 19 already?
..collaboration with this guy would be productive.
If the masses don't buy into my perception of a music collection, then my price is going up.
Linux would not exist if there was no Windows. Think hardware economy of scale.
New Scientist
Folks, trolls have existed in the ink and paper realm long before newsgroups/slashdot/blogs.
Three words: "Restraint of Trade".
Who's the doughboy afraid of?
Great. "My ideal utopian assumptions have never been tried before". Why not? Because your utopian model of society assumes things that simply are not so. Communism (which you fail to define) has never been tried before because it's not practical. It assumes conditions which are simply not true. Read on...
*GPL is not Communist. It's cooperative. If I make a buck selling manuals, boxes, CDs, and consulting/design services for GPL software, it's my buck. It does not go to "the community" unless I want it to.
Let's see a successful practical application of communism. I invite you to cite examples.
Communism and capitalism--defined here in very simple terms are the two systems of economics most often discussed. There are other systems, of course, but
Capitalism: "Every man for himself" assumes human greed. A capitalist system acknowledges this and involves laws, social mores, and regulations which use this tendency (human greed) to produce good things for society. The individual's greed is his motivator to produce as much as he can.
Communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." depends on human altruism. Similarly to capitalism, a communist implementation of social structure tries to use this tendency (human altruism) to produce good things for society. The individual's concern for his neighbor and for society at large is his motivator to produce as much as he can.
Failure Modes are the problem. Look around you. Go to longbets.com if you're sure you're right--make a prediction that demonstrates the superiority of communism, and test it.
In an "ideal" society (that's one where everyone behaves the way you want them to), communism looks like utopia.
In the real world--greed kicks the ass of altruism. Every time. You don't find the wealthy embracing communism, giving away all their possessions and dedicating their lives to the service of the poor.
Hey, look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--that's altruism, right? Nah. That's PR. Just like the Carnegie Libraries. Sure they did good. Not by putting themselves in the same financial situation as "the people", though. I'm sure you're familiar with the parable of the widow's mite.
The proponents of communism aren't so altruistic, either. In fact, those are generally the best examples of the greed that makes capitalism successful.
Because "Let's Share" always seems to mean "Let's share...yours"
The goal here is not to track kids. The goal here is to desensitize them to the loss of privacy.
The process goes: Offence to personal boundaries, cognitive dissonance, anxiety, rationalization, acceptance.
Repeat with an incrementally greater offence to those boundaries, and soon you'll have a society of prisoners who actually think they are free.
There are people who realize what's being done to them and consciously choose not to follow the script. That takes a lot of work, and is very stressful on those individuals. Still, non-compliant individuals are valuable to the process of subjugation. Violent retribution against, or marginalizing of "extremists" serves as an example to the larger group.
Most people won't have the strength or commitment to break with the expectations of society. Even if you're right, you'll still be treated as a lunatic.
I DID NOT read any form letters or "canned" arguments first. Duplicate copies of the same comment are always ignored.
I stated my position at the top of the form, then provided justification for my position, then restated the position as a conclusion at the bottom.
I kept the tone calm and as brief as possible. Rants, manifestos, and essays are always ignored.
Unfortunately, I did send it electronically, and late. So, it will probably be ignored.
I oppose broadcasters request that the FCC provide legal means to remove the fair use rights of the public.
I understand that broadcasters wish to prevent me the ability to use recording equipment on certain of their broadcasts. I understand that broadcasters have asked the FCC to use regulatory means to restrict my rights in favor of their rights.
At a minimum, such restriction subjects my legally protected rights to the whims of the broadcaster.
The broadcasters are askeing a Federal Agency to deny the rights of all of The People in order to prevent a potential violation of the rights of a few of The People.
I have committed no violation, but the broadcasters have asked you to remove my rights because I might commit a violation of their rights. This taking of my rights without due process is offensive to me, and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Refer to the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution if this is unclear to you.
This preferential treatment of a small group at the expense of the general public is unconscienable, and, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Refer to the fourteenth amenement to the US Constitution if this is unclear to you.
Therefore I oppose the proposition that the FCC grant authority to broadcasters to regulate the fair use of the public.
Thank you for your time and attention in reading this comment. I trust that the FCC will decide fairly and comply with the applicable law in this matter.
Not the world's job to be "safe for kids".
The world is not safe for children. I don't want a world that's safe for children. It would be unproductive and dull.
Too many don't want to be responsible for their own children? Why? Takes too much effort to teach them? Just yell louder when they don't understand what you want them to do. Works when the waiter doesn't speak your native language, right?
Get real, people. They're your kids. You tell them what's safe and what's not safe. You tell them what's morally correct or evil. And you get to define right and wrong for them--that's your duty and your perogative.
Discipline your children. Look up the word "discipline". It means "learning", "knowledge" or "to teach". Quality of discipline is not measured by severity of punishment. Discipline is teaching the kid the things he's going to need to get along in life.
You've been around. You can teach your kid something. He doesn't know that; he thinks you're an old fool. He doesn't want to listen. So you gotta sell it. Carrot and stick. Voice of Authority. At some point, intelligent discussion (they're probably out of the house by then
It's a lot of work, I know. If you look into your living room and see an impromptu performance of Lord_of_the_Flies, you're not doing your job! You--not Id Software, not Jenna Jameson--are responsible.
You can cry for regulation, and even get it. It doesn't help, though, does it? Love your children. Spend your valuable time, care, and effort to raise them.
Legislating a world where children can be safe, yet unprepared does not work. There is no such world. Deluding yourself that there is denies your own responsibility. And aggravates the problem you claim the regulation will solve.
The value of the speech protected is weighed against the harm that such speech can cause to the community. "Fire" in a crowded movie house and all that.
The most highly protected form of speech under the First Amendment to the US Constitution is political speech.
Commercial speech, by comparison, receives far less robust protection in the courts. Clearly, there are types of speech which are neither political, nor commercial.
This action ties specifically political speech to the free use of P2P networks. In doing so, the users of such networks now bind the interests of powerful parties to those of file swappers.
Threaten to shoot down alleged file swappers, and the alleged swappers will now be able to complain that their political voice is being hushed.
Consideration of chilling effects against political speech often weigh heavily in high court decisions. Legislation that would silence such speech--or even make it less likely or more costly to speak is weak.
Foresaw this.
But his weren't allowed AI.
You have just provided a tool: (text instructions).
This tool can be used to circumvent an access control system.
This access control system is designed to restrict the availability of copyrighted material.
Please remain where you are. The police are on their way.
The designated person could print Dave Barry's article as a pdf, and email it to the appropriate ATA employee. This would resolve the concern they announced after the last article.
Just in case they don't have a pdf reader, the designaged person could open it up in the gimp and save it as a .bmp, then email it. Remember to render it at sufficient resolution that it is easily readable.
Take email server rejections on "too large attachment" into account when you render the .pdf as a bmp. An 8.5x11 bmp, at full color will yield the following file sizes at the following resolutions.
24dpi ~.5M
34dpi ~1M
76dpi ~5M
107dpi ~10M
600dpi ~300M
If you are not the designated person, don't send the email. Don't send the email in many different file sizes to see where the ATA's email server borks. Don't send the email to every ATA email address you can find. Don't send the email more than once.
From their previous complaint, I'm sure the ATA would be grateful for such a service.
Can we pass a law about that?
Sheesh, people! Legislation is NOT the solution to everything!
For the sake of argument, I'll put a temporary jumper around the BS alarm. Now, how 'bout a game of "let's pretend":
Standing back and looking at the situation from a "black box" perspective, I see two scenarios:
One or few persons apply a practical approach to modeling collective behaviour. They use it to control that same collective behaviour. It is a dark day for individual freedoms, as The Leaders decide that there simply won't be any more turkey subs because almost everybody suddenly prefers ham. But how would we know? Isn't this what Madison Avenue does to us every day? Why are cr@ppy boy bands so popular?
Modelling methods are developed which are simple and easy for anyone to apply. We all run around trying to manipulate one another. On a small scale, one person rises to control the family/frat/team/whatever. Persons with the best manipulative ability "rise to the top", and control larger systems--nations, corporations, etc. Again, this is not very different from what we see today
So, my conclusion is that even if this works, we won't see much change. It's another tool for controlling the behaviour of one's neighbors. But bribery, guns, taxes, bombs, and intimidation are tools as well. They're pretty effective.
Or, maybe I'm just whistling in the dark.
At any rate, I, for one, welcome our new overlords...
$15K? No Problem!
Hello, B&H? I'd like:
D2H
WT1-A
+5 Diopter eyepiece corrector
SB800
SB29
20mm f/2.8D
50mm f/1.4D
105mm f/2.8D Micro
80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF
Oh, yeah--Some POS computer with USB & a dialup modem.
THERE Now you can send her some pictures!
I don't know where the rest of the money went...