If by "decimate", you refer to the old Roman practice of killing one in every ten as punishment used for mutinous legions, then I agree.
I don't see 10% share of the desktop as an improbable situation. Maybe it'll happen before an SSSCA clone is passed and the game is over for all of us.
Re:Correlation vs. Causality
on
BSA IDC FUD
·
· Score: 2, Funny
While you are correct, I don't see how that makes any difference.
If the intended audience is the general public or your average collection of drunken frat-boys then stupid arguments are pretty convincing. It's not through chance that the unethical use FUD.
If, however, the intended audience are our just and wise leaders--those who consider every issue in a careful, logical, and unbiased manner, then your complaint is relevant.
For our leaders would never use such arguments to pacify the public and justify their own interests. Our leaders have the interests of justice and the public good at heart. The protection of moneyed interests is insignificant. Especially when seen in the light of that sacred and holy commitment that each of our leaders has made--to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
P.S. I have some swamp^H^H^H^H^Hland in Florida for only $400/acre if you're interested.
The folly of relativism... Okay--just got back from freshman philosophy class? You define truth as absolute. Next you state that if truth is not absolute, it is meaningless. Then you offer this as support for the statement that relativism is folly. Go talk to your professor and ask the meanings of the terms "tautology" and "non sequitur"
But truth, in this context is not absolute.
It is not the fact that people die in war, people are losing jobs, votes were miscounted, etc. that one wishes to hide. The facts will eventually come out. But they will be presented at a time and in a manner that supports the agendas of the presenters.
It is "the truths" that war is justified, we should spend money on new trucks, and GWB is our just and wise leader that are of interest.
Don't get caught up arguing semantics. What is going on is the control of the hearts and minds of the people. This is achieved through emotion, religion, fear, greed, salesmanship, torture... These are methods that have nothing to do with empirically provable facts.
To control "the truth" is not to hide the facts, but to convince people that only the facts you like are relevant. Anyone who campaigns against this view threatens that control of "the truth"
Those who wish to control "the truth" often state their truths as dogma, and legislate against contravening statements or even privately held views.
In many situations, sedition, heresy, treason by word are crimes. Remember the witch hunts--in the 1600s and the 1950s. Same process; different details. There is a very legitimate concern that those in power--in order to maintain power--will criminalize speech (in any form) that threatens their control.
This is why the first amendment to the US Consititution is the first amendment. It's that important.
BTW, the full text of the above referenced document is available at Thomas. It's an enlightening read if you haven't already. The original text is only 14-15 pages long; check it out!
Well, this guy/gal has probably torqued off a lot of people. Conceivably, this cracker could be prosecuted under several laws. IANAL, so I won't try to guess which. Also, there are probably several people/companies that might want to sue in civil court.
That said, a lot of folks with a lot of resources are probably going to try to find out who did this.
If/When this person is identifiec, I'll be very interested to see exactly how that happens.
"You can't cheat an honest man" is an old saw which means that most people get screwed over by their own greed.
Let's take your hypothetical situation: Half-full inkjet cartridges. Who gets screwed by them? People who have figured out that the printer (with "free" cartridges) actually costs less than a new set of cartridges. Or maybe folks that see cartridges at flybynight.com for half the price offered by missupply.com Hmmm... "I can get something for nothing, they say". Greed ON; Critical thinking OFF.
You wanna see examples of people getting screwed by their own greed? Search deja for discount camera store ripoff stories. Everybody has a sob story. And every followup says the same thing: "If it's too good to be true, it isn't true."
Being smart is not enough to keep you from getting ripped off. These people who got ripped off are not necessarily stupid, either. What they are is greedy.
P.T. Barnum knew that. You'll figure it out, too.
Go hang out with some old dudes; They have something to teach you.
Let's stipulate that catching terrorists is good, and that echelon has been instrumental in catching a terrorist.
The potential for abuse of echelon is still great and that's what, IMO, makes echelon dangerous.
It's not too hard to imagine a world where unrestricted police authority would result in the capture of more criminals.
Do we want to live in this world? (Or, "Do we want to admit we are becoming this world?") Why not?
It's significant that the supporters of such totalitarian policies have now become this bold. The conversation goes something like this:
"Privacy breeds terrorism. You should give up privacy."
"If you advocate privacy, you're advocating terrorism."
"You're hiding something, therefore you must be guilty. Of terrorism."
"You are an enemy combatant."
"No, you may not speak to a lawyer; you could send messages to your terrorist friends."
"No, we will not tell your family where you are. Then your terrorist friends will know we have you, figure out how we caught you, and plug their security hole."
"Mommy, why didn't daddy come home?" "Shh, dear. He was "disappeared" by the secret police. We can't talk about him anymore or they will take us, too."
But that would never happen here. Hooray Echelon.
Those who would trade freedom for... (you know the rest).
Cattlecar Galactica!
I *loved* that series when I was a kid!
I had all the episodes on Betamax!
Wheee!!!
Oh, and it wasn't a dog, it was a robot replica of a "daggit". 'Cause the kid couldn't affoard a real daggit.
Well, I expect to be disappointed, but you never know; SciFi channel rocks.
By Your Command...
(Oh, yeah--B5 was still the greatest skiffy series of all time. And I grew up on ST-TOS reruns)
I don't download ISOs or the whole source for my distro very often.
Sometimes when I do, I do it from work and burn a CD; sometimes, I point d4x at the server and let 'er rip. It'll all be there...eventually.
Now, it would be nice to have mldonkey running at a decent rate--but again, if there's something I *really* want, it'll get there...eventually.
High speed would be nice, but I wouldn't pay more than $40.00/mo for it. And I don't plan to whine to my congressman any time soon about my personal decision.
Of course I think $YOU should pay for $ME to have personal T3 access. Trouble is, I don't set the values of $YOU and $ME, and I don't trust the people who do.
Excellent point -- that is the concept of communications being a "public utility".
For this discussion, let Public Utility = something that we collectively provide for each individual to use. We collectively regulate utilities, because allowing individuals or groups of individuals (corporations) to manage them creates a liability for abuse.
Here's my question--what makes something a public utility? IANAL (or A Congresscritter), so I can only base my understanding on what I've seen in practice:
Pretty much everybody uses it
It's regarded as necessary to our way of life
It was created (at least initially) with public funds
Public does not generally have a real choice between competing providers
Because of the nature of the product/service, the de-facto monopoly is the best way to manage the it.
Entitlement
Entitlement is key: High speed internet access (and comms infrastructure in general) has a hard time becoming a public utility because we don't believe we are entitled to it.
"Entitled to it" does not mean "deserving of it".
Entitlement means the product or service is a significant part of the way of life of the dominant culture. Without the thing to which I am entitled, I am cheated out of being part of the culture I am forced to support--through taxes, obediance to the law, etc.
Entitlement means that it is somebody else's responsibility to make sure that I get the product or service.
Entitlement means that we agree we should collectively subsidize something, and that thing should be provided to each individual who is entitled to it:
As a culture, our actions show we believe we're entitled to: roads, water, electric, sewer, gas. Some people believe we are entitled the protections enumerated to us in the Constitution. Some believe we are entitled to all rights not specifically enumerated to the Federal or State Governments. For some people, entitlement also includes good food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Some believe that we should collectively assure a minimum standard of living for all, no matter what the individual chooses to contribute to the group. Some believe that each individual should succeed or fail on their own decisions.
Clearly, there is some difference of opinion (Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian, yadda yadda yadda; keep it on topic, folks.) as to exactly what we are "entitled to".
In general, we find it hard to convince ourselves that we are "entitled" to a fast internet connection. It's sort of like saying "We're entitled to low cost high quality cable TV--with no commercials" Some would say without censorship; others would say we are entitled to "good clean kid-safe entertainment". Whatever. But are we entitled to it? Is it neccesary? Necessary for what?
Personally, I'd rather do without (I mean, is dialup *really* that awful?) than say "Please provide for me, O Great and Wise Leaders, for I am Not Competent to Fend for Myself"
/$.02
How High is an Olympic Swimming pool?
on
Building the A380
·
· Score: 1
'Course it'll be easier to convince my wife to run slackware on her $150 notebook (decomissioned; bought from employer) than to part with $750 for a new one!
We do come from two different viewpoints, and I stipulate that I don't usually apply a "detatched" philosophy in the heat of the moment; it's only after--when I'm trying to understand what I did, why, and whether I want to do it again that I apply this.
As far as referring to your perception of this sort of interaction as a "game", I took that from your text "...if this was the game they wanted to play..." above.
If I interpreted you a bit too literally, then I apologize.
I thought it was obvious. Since you asked politely, I will explain it to you at length:
I happen to have chosen to respect other peoples boundaries, and to recognize my own and to respect those as well. And I choose to put my own before anyone else's.
As it happened, I was dealing with a person who chose to communicate his boundaries in a competitive rather than cooperative manner. This person's chosen venue of competition was direct, low-level physical violence. Who am I to say that this person's method of communication is "Wrong".
As a matter of fact, I find this method more honorable than many employed by children (and adults!) today. Fighting was direct, confrontational, and not particularly dangerous (we both chose to put down the bats). There are many less respectable methods of defining boundaries: Workplace Harassment, Intimidation (intellectual, professional, political, physical), *ism (racism, ageism, nationalism...), murder, genocide, war.
The point here is not to get caught up in the emotion of the moment--just do what needs to be done, and leave with the situation resolved.
When I was young, a man (a Tae Kwon Do Master) taught me a very useful view of conflict in terms of self defence. There is a strong strain of Buddhist detachment in his viewpoint: Each of us does what we do, and is responsible for defending ourselves. There is no "right" or "wrong". If a bully thinks he has the right to abuse you, that's just his viewpoint. And it's just as valid as your viewpoint that you have a right not to be abused. There is no conflict of "right" or "wrong" here.
One solution is for you to submit to the bully's abuse. Perhaps you find this solution unacceptable--many other choices and the consequences thereof are available for review: Perhaps you take up arms and kill the bully and other random people, then kill yourself. Or maybe you to appeal to authority--the police or the institutional administration where this bullying takes place. You could confront the bully and ask him to stop. You could beat up your bully, thus demonstrating to him that abusing you carries an unacceptable consequence. You could pay a bigger bully to beat up your bully. You could threaten to embarrass your bully in front of his peers if he does not stop the abuse. And so on.
But the Master's point was that none of these methods are "right" or "wrong". And neither party is "right" or "wrong". We're all just folks. And we have the power to choose how we behave--which then defines what "self" is. Therefore, we have the absolute power to defend that "self". Becase it is not the bully's abuse that demeans your self.
So you had some tormentors to deal with, and you made your choice. You snapped their bones and extracted cries of pain from them. To you, this was a "game".
It is a person's submission to abuse that causes him to be the kind of person that does that. You did not choose this solution.
It is your casual contempt in the snapping bones and cries of pain from your tormentors that causes you to be the sort of person that views the pain of others as a "game".
Are you ashamed of being this sort of person? Then you have chosen to be this person of whom you are ashamed. Your tormentors only gave the opportunity to make the choice.
Are you proud to be this sort of person? Then you have chosen to be this person of whom you are proud. Again, your tormentors only gave you the opportunity to make the choice.
Who wants to bet me that any Microsoft Customers--those who pay Microsoft for mailing lists--will be named as defendants?
This is not about protecting the end user from harassment. This is about "creating value" for a Microsoft "product". That product is the user's time and attention.
The other part of it is Don't take it personal, dude
After I made him holler "uncle" so everyone could hear it (yeah, we still said "holler uncle" then), I offered my hand, helped him up, and said "we're done; no hard feelings, right?".
We shook on it, and that was that. Never spoke to him before or since.
I think this "they're envious of you because you're smart" is BS. If you tell a kid that, all it makes him is arrogant.
I used to take cr@p from kids in HS, until one day I finally snapped. (I was a real wimp up until that point, too.) One kid a grade up from me was picking on the nerds (me included), and I picked up a baseball bat and chased him around the parking lot. He picked up a bat, we looked at each other, and decided this is not a good idea.
So, don't give me this cr@p about the poor Columbine nerds that killed their friends. BS. All you have to do is think a little.
Anyhow, we agreed to fight after school and proceeded to beat the snot out of each other.
No more fights after that, and nobody was picking on me, either.
One of my teachers later confided to my mother that she was proud of me (for standing up for myself).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see 10% share of the desktop as an improbable situation. Maybe it'll happen before an SSSCA clone is passed and the game is over for all of us.
If the intended audience is the general public or your average collection of drunken frat-boys then stupid arguments are pretty convincing. It's not through chance that the unethical use FUD.
If, however, the intended audience are our just and wise leaders--those who consider every issue in a careful, logical, and unbiased manner, then your complaint is relevant.
For our leaders would never use such arguments to pacify the public and justify their own interests. Our leaders have the interests of justice and the public good at heart. The protection of moneyed interests is insignificant. Especially when seen in the light of that sacred and holy commitment that each of our leaders has made--to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States of America.
P.S. I have some swamp^H^H^H^H^Hland in Florida for only $400/acre if you're interested.
Until then, you're not.
The folly of relativism... Okay--just got back from freshman philosophy class? You define truth as absolute. Next you state that if truth is not absolute, it is meaningless. Then you offer this as support for the statement that relativism is folly. Go talk to your professor and ask the meanings of the terms "tautology" and "non sequitur"
But truth, in this context is not absolute.
It is not the fact that people die in war, people are losing jobs, votes were miscounted, etc. that one wishes to hide. The facts will eventually come out. But they will be presented at a time and in a manner that supports the agendas of the presenters.
It is "the truths" that war is justified, we should spend money on new trucks, and GWB is our just and wise leader that are of interest.
Don't get caught up arguing semantics. What is going on is the control of the hearts and minds of the people. This is achieved through emotion, religion, fear, greed, salesmanship, torture... These are methods that have nothing to do with empirically provable facts.
To control "the truth" is not to hide the facts, but to convince people that only the facts you like are relevant. Anyone who campaigns against this view threatens that control of "the truth"
Those who wish to control "the truth" often state their truths as dogma, and legislate against contravening statements or even privately held views.
In many situations, sedition, heresy, treason by word are crimes. Remember the witch hunts--in the 1600s and the 1950s. Same process; different details. There is a very legitimate concern that those in power--in order to maintain power--will criminalize speech (in any form) that threatens their control.
This is why the first amendment to the US Consititution is the first amendment. It's that important.
BTW, the full text of the above referenced document is available at Thomas. It's an enlightening read if you haven't already. The original text is only 14-15 pages long; check it out!
That said, a lot of folks with a lot of resources are probably going to try to find out who did this.
If/When this person is identifiec, I'll be very interested to see exactly how that happens.
How often do these stores update their mirrors?
Are there corkboards and sticky notes so you can post bugs?
Do the developers hang out in back, or do they work from home?
Interesting you should bring up up crystal radio sets in a discussion about wireless power...
Hey, it would be effective! Just don't freakin' park there--what's the problem?
Let's take your hypothetical situation: Half-full inkjet cartridges. Who gets screwed by them? People who have figured out that the printer (with "free" cartridges) actually costs less than a new set of cartridges. Or maybe folks that see cartridges at flybynight.com for half the price offered by missupply.com Hmmm... "I can get something for nothing, they say". Greed ON; Critical thinking OFF.
You wanna see examples of people getting screwed by their own greed? Search deja for discount camera store ripoff stories. Everybody has a sob story. And every followup says the same thing: "If it's too good to be true, it isn't true."
Being smart is not enough to keep you from getting ripped off. These people who got ripped off are not necessarily stupid, either. What they are is greedy.
P.T. Barnum knew that. You'll figure it out, too.
Go hang out with some old dudes; They have something to teach you.
That is all.
It's a nice pic, but not the sort of thing I'd like my Client to walk in and get a glimpse of.
'Course all the developers here probably read /. so they've seen it.
The potential for abuse of echelon is still great and that's what, IMO, makes echelon dangerous.
It's not too hard to imagine a world where unrestricted police authority would result in the capture of more criminals.
Do we want to live in this world? (Or, "Do we want to admit we are becoming this world?") Why not?
It's significant that the supporters of such totalitarian policies have now become this bold. The conversation goes something like this:
"Privacy breeds terrorism. You should give up privacy."
"If you advocate privacy, you're advocating terrorism."
"You're hiding something, therefore you must be guilty. Of terrorism."
"You are an enemy combatant."
"No, you may not speak to a lawyer; you could send messages to your terrorist friends."
"No, we will not tell your family where you are. Then your terrorist friends will know we have you, figure out how we caught you, and plug their security hole."
"Mommy, why didn't daddy come home?" "Shh, dear. He was "disappeared" by the secret police. We can't talk about him anymore or they will take us, too."
But that would never happen here. Hooray Echelon.
Those who would trade freedom for... (you know the rest).
Cattlecar Galactica! I *loved* that series when I was a kid! I had all the episodes on Betamax! Wheee!!! Oh, and it wasn't a dog, it was a robot replica of a "daggit". 'Cause the kid couldn't affoard a real daggit. Well, I expect to be disappointed, but you never know; SciFi channel rocks. By Your Command... (Oh, yeah--B5 was still the greatest skiffy series of all time. And I grew up on ST-TOS reruns)
Sometimes when I do, I do it from work and burn a CD; sometimes, I point d4x at the server and let 'er rip. It'll all be there...eventually.
Now, it would be nice to have mldonkey running at a decent rate--but again, if there's something I *really* want, it'll get there...eventually.
High speed would be nice, but I wouldn't pay more than $40.00/mo for it. And I don't plan to whine to my congressman any time soon about my personal decision.
Of course I think $YOU should pay for $ME to have personal T3 access. Trouble is, I don't set the values of $YOU and $ME, and I don't trust the people who do.
For this discussion, let Public Utility = something that we collectively provide for each individual to use. We collectively regulate utilities, because allowing individuals or groups of individuals (corporations) to manage them creates a liability for abuse.
Here's my question--what makes something a public utility? IANAL (or A Congresscritter), so I can only base my understanding on what I've seen in practice:
Pretty much everybody uses it
It's regarded as necessary to our way of life
It was created (at least initially) with public funds
Public does not generally have a real choice between competing providers
Because of the nature of the product/service, the de-facto monopoly is the best way to manage the it.
Entitlement
Entitlement is key: High speed internet access (and comms infrastructure in general) has a hard time becoming a public utility because we don't believe we are entitled to it.
"Entitled to it" does not mean "deserving of it".
Entitlement means the product or service is a significant part of the way of life of the dominant culture. Without the thing to which I am entitled, I am cheated out of being part of the culture I am forced to support--through taxes, obediance to the law, etc.
Entitlement means that it is somebody else's responsibility to make sure that I get the product or service.
Entitlement means that we agree we should collectively subsidize something, and that thing should be provided to each individual who is entitled to it:
As a culture, our actions show we believe we're entitled to: roads, water, electric, sewer, gas. Some people believe we are entitled the protections enumerated to us in the Constitution. Some believe we are entitled to all rights not specifically enumerated to the Federal or State Governments. For some people, entitlement also includes good food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Some believe that we should collectively assure a minimum standard of living for all, no matter what the individual chooses to contribute to the group. Some believe that each individual should succeed or fail on their own decisions.
Clearly, there is some difference of opinion (Liberal/Conservative/Libertarian, yadda yadda yadda; keep it on topic, folks.) as to exactly what we are "entitled to".
In general, we find it hard to convince ourselves that we are "entitled" to a fast internet connection. It's sort of like saying "We're entitled to low cost high quality cable TV--with no commercials" Some would say without censorship; others would say we are entitled to "good clean kid-safe entertainment". Whatever. But are we entitled to it? Is it neccesary? Necessary for what?
Personally, I'd rather do without (I mean, is dialup *really* that awful?) than say "Please provide for me, O Great and Wise Leaders, for I am Not Competent to Fend for Myself"
No, how high is a Mountain in China?
Yes...
'Course it was only big enough to carry one passenger.
I don't think the hamster even bothered to look out.
And, yes, he was nice and dry when the sub resurfaced. Probably didn't even notice what was going on. He did poop in it, though.
Easier being a relative term ;)
We do come from two different viewpoints, and I stipulate that I don't usually apply a "detatched" philosophy in the heat of the moment; it's only after--when I'm trying to understand what I did, why, and whether I want to do it again that I apply this.
As far as referring to your perception of this sort of interaction as a "game", I took that from your text "...if this was the game they wanted to play..." above.
If I interpreted you a bit too literally, then I apologize.
Cheers
Karl Pizzolatto
I happen to have chosen to respect other peoples boundaries, and to recognize my own and to respect those as well. And I choose to put my own before anyone else's.
As it happened, I was dealing with a person who chose to communicate his boundaries in a competitive rather than cooperative manner. This person's chosen venue of competition was direct, low-level physical violence. Who am I to say that this person's method of communication is "Wrong".
As a matter of fact, I find this method more honorable than many employed by children (and adults!) today. Fighting was direct, confrontational, and not particularly dangerous (we both chose to put down the bats). There are many less respectable methods of defining boundaries: Workplace Harassment, Intimidation (intellectual, professional, political, physical), *ism (racism, ageism, nationalism...), murder, genocide, war.
The point here is not to get caught up in the emotion of the moment--just do what needs to be done, and leave with the situation resolved.
When I was young, a man (a Tae Kwon Do Master) taught me a very useful view of conflict in terms of self defence. There is a strong strain of Buddhist detachment in his viewpoint: Each of us does what we do, and is responsible for defending ourselves. There is no "right" or "wrong". If a bully thinks he has the right to abuse you, that's just his viewpoint. And it's just as valid as your viewpoint that you have a right not to be abused. There is no conflict of "right" or "wrong" here.
One solution is for you to submit to the bully's abuse. Perhaps you find this solution unacceptable--many other choices and the consequences thereof are available for review: Perhaps you take up arms and kill the bully and other random people, then kill yourself. Or maybe you to appeal to authority--the police or the institutional administration where this bullying takes place. You could confront the bully and ask him to stop. You could beat up your bully, thus demonstrating to him that abusing you carries an unacceptable consequence. You could pay a bigger bully to beat up your bully. You could threaten to embarrass your bully in front of his peers if he does not stop the abuse. And so on.
But the Master's point was that none of these methods are "right" or "wrong". And neither party is "right" or "wrong". We're all just folks. And we have the power to choose how we behave--which then defines what "self" is. Therefore, we have the absolute power to defend that "self". Becase it is not the bully's abuse that demeans your self.
So you had some tormentors to deal with, and you made your choice. You snapped their bones and extracted cries of pain from them. To you, this was a "game".
It is a person's submission to abuse that causes him to be the kind of person that does that. You did not choose this solution.
It is your casual contempt in the snapping bones and cries of pain from your tormentors that causes you to be the sort of person that views the pain of others as a "game".
Are you ashamed of being this sort of person? Then you have chosen to be this person of whom you are ashamed. Your tormentors only gave the opportunity to make the choice.
Are you proud to be this sort of person? Then you have chosen to be this person of whom you are proud. Again, your tormentors only gave you the opportunity to make the choice.
This is not about protecting the end user from harassment. This is about "creating value" for a Microsoft "product". That product is the user's time and attention.
The other part of it is Don't take it personal, dude
After I made him holler "uncle" so everyone could hear it (yeah, we still said "holler uncle" then), I offered my hand, helped him up, and said "we're done; no hard feelings, right?".
We shook on it, and that was that. Never spoke to him before or since.
I think this "they're envious of you because you're smart" is BS. If you tell a kid that, all it makes him is arrogant.
I used to take cr@p from kids in HS, until one day I finally snapped. (I was a real wimp up until that point, too.) One kid a grade up from me was picking on the nerds (me included), and I picked up a baseball bat and chased him around the parking lot. He picked up a bat, we looked at each other, and decided this is not a good idea.
So, don't give me this cr@p about the poor Columbine nerds that killed their friends. BS. All you have to do is think a little.
Anyhow, we agreed to fight after school and proceeded to beat the snot out of each other. No more fights after that, and nobody was picking on me, either.
One of my teachers later confided to my mother that she was proud of me (for standing up for myself).
Now, all we have to do is get the super spamfilter to think that all the reply-to addresses are JacksonRoyKirk@ufp.mil