And we can't be certain if knowing that you will surely survive any catastrophe is not actually at least as strong deterrent & motivation - after all, you know you will face the consequences if that was your fault.
And what about the possibility of the remote pilot ditching and making a run for it? At least with the local pilot they'd need to parachute out of the plane. In this case, Jim takes a coffee break and never comes back.
But..but...why would our government want to spy on its own citizens???
If this happens, they can spy on me, but I can also launch a drone and spy on them. And to be truthful, the government and it's employees have a hell of a lot more to hide from me than I do from them...
How do you figure on getting parity out of this power, when no such other parity has ever existed? It isn't as if you're allowed to drive a tank to work every day, are you?
Seemed pretty cautionary to me: don't create powerful networked and potentially evil AIs with access to military killbots and manufacturing facilities.
It's good advice!
No kidding. If Terminator was not a cautionary tale, what ever was?
Not really, no, because (if for no other reason) he didn't genuinely do anything that wasn't already being done by others. Sure we'd all still be on MySpace or whatever, but those poor would still be connected in this 'new' way.
It is an interesting thought, however I don't think you can hold Robin Hood up as an example of a thief. He certainly had more in common with a rebel or freedom fighter than the more normal uses of the word.
I suppose the parallel you're trying to draw is that MZ's crimes could be being committed in the name of the greater good. But I'm not seeing it.
The proper parallel would be Robin Hood robbing from the rich, violating the rich, and letting the poor live in his palace for free - so long as they tell him all their secrets. In other words it goes beyond re-appropriation and into personal benefit.
Give me an example. please. name me one person who wanted to make the world a better place, and gave less of a fuck about money.
Buddha. Gandhi. Mother Theresa.
That's three. Google yourself some more. All of these people were successful, too. Moreso than Zuckerberg.
stop thinking with your wallet for a second, and start thinking like a human being.
Capitalist pigs and all that aside, I'm thinking with my brain. People get painted by their behaviors. MZ doesn't even admit to his crimes, let alone begin to atone for them, and you want to anoint him a saint. He has yet to do one decent thing for humanity, as far as I have seen.
You're attributing to a single slimeball the entirety of the internet's value while simultaneously blathering on about the limits of materialism.
In short you're not having a conversation, so have a nice day!
I can't tell if you're serious, or just not very funny.
for the first time in history, there exists a man who's interested in changing the world for the democratic better.
Fail. And I use that term sparingly. I'm not going to bother with examples, as this is just batshit insane.
get to know the damn kid
Like YOU know the 'damn kid'? Perhaps you've seen something the rest of us have not with your personal friendship with Zuckerberg. If so you should share. If not, well, look at the preponderance of evidence and draw your own conclusions. Meanwhile leave us free to do likewise.
maybe you'll see that SOME OF US DON'T WANT TO MAKE MONEY! but rather need to make enough to try to help others
This could well be but we're talking about Mark Zuckerberg here. Not Ghandi. Stay on topic, please.
It was my understanding that Zuckerberg was a thief at his very core. Always an opportunist looking to earn off of things he doesn't have any right to possess. This included the photos that started Harvard's Facebook, much of the original code and concept, and continues to this day with examples like the email accounts used to connect to Facebook and their password information. I think this understanding of him is probably accurate.
That being said, wouldn't being a thief preclude the label of 'philosopher'? Isn't the harm caused by theft and the social implications of a world where theft is permissible one of the earliest, simplest hurdles that a 'thinker' must cross to become noteworthy? I'm not up on the stuff, but I'm not aware of any ethos that includes 'rutheless slimeball' as a virtuous-knower of wise things.
Tell me, am I the only one who views yellow lights as a "stop if possible, proceed if committed" sign rather than a "light's about to change, hurry up!" signal?
Boy, I hope so. Yellow doesn't mean "stop if possible", it means clear the intersection.
Wouldn't that logically include not entering it in the first place?
I realize that the mod system will handle you, but I can't even parse what the hell you're trying to communicate. I'm perplexed. You darn well know the topic if you're posting on slashdot, and you've got this clearly-emotional mess of a post that you put up in order to communicate SOMETHING... Just can't tell what.
Is there such a thing as drunken slashdot posting?
No, I think it is racist in the tenor as well as the use.
They're not "Chinese" because they are from China. The term is attached to indicate that they're willing to work for long hours for little pay, that they care little about the damage they do to the world, and that their product cheapens even similar products because it is so very crappy. It mostly exists as a contrast to the home-grown varieties which are implied to be both superior in quality as well as safety.
This is the connotation applied to nearly all imports from China, so why not their gold as well?
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of slagging Cory. Do you realize how long it would take for Cory, or anyone, to talk if they had to cite the origin of every single thought they're expressing?
Off-topic, but using his name twice in a row like that, along the same thought line, shows you either know him personally or are a fanboy of some sort. There's an emotional attachment to a construction like that, and out here on the internet it seems inappropriate.
Not that we disagree. Slagging, would take a long time, all check. Just maybe without the name-dropping.
majority of them have proven themselves willing to take frivolous or evil cases
Citation???? "Majority" is a very specific word, with a specific meaning, which is not equal to "lots"
In short, this is utter bullshit. Most lawers never set foot in a courtroom and take "Cases" in the adversarial us vs them sense. They are the people who write contracts, advise clients on how to be compliant with truckloads of government regulations, etc.
Mis-quote for the flipping win!
If you stand in the service of evil, expect to be rightly derided and hated.
Compared to...
They are the people who write contracts, advise clients on how to be compliant with truckloads of government regulations, etc.
Newsflash, these types can be COMPLETELY evil as well. Have you READ a contract lately? In fact, I'd challenge you to locate a completely fair contract, toward both parties, in under 24 hours. Go for it, let me know what you find. Further, how many of these attorneys would 'be compliant' in technicality only rather than with the actual intent of the law.
Evil happens. Attorneys are generally in a group with more examples both in quantity and in bastardly-ness. This is why the good ones stand out as stars burning brightly.
If this hits close to home, good. Be one of the good guys. Fight the bad guys and convince them all to retire early. Go you!
It's one of the few bipartisan issues remaining that a sizable number of Democrats and Republicans agree on.
The issues that used to be agreed upon in a bipartisan way aren't going to continue to be universal. We're looking at more than just one party with two colors in the very near future.
But you're right, it has nothing to do with anything other that as a response to the words you wrote.
They have disagreed in the past, but be observant and see if you don't notice a change.
A lot of us are tired of the crap.
And honestly I don't think that the threat of Israel going to 'other pariah nations' is any justification for their 'goodness' as an ally.
Further, I'm not specifically advocating isolating them, per se, but their actions. If we, as a nation, are of the opinion that Israel's blockade isn't legal, for example, we can and should treat them like any other pirates on the high seas. Let us see if they will turn on this old ally as quickly as they turned on Turkey.
Your "election" is irrelevant, as nation-states will take whatever steps they deem necessary to defend themselves. As long as rockets continue to land on Israeli soil, the Israelis aren't likely to end the economic blockade of Gaza.
This is nearly true. Except that by participating in my democracy I can have an impact on how much blood is on my own hands. To date the United States has been all but complicit in Israel's behavior, good and bad. But the time for this has passed. Let them stand on their own and behave as they will without any assistance from us, at least until they return to an honorable path that we can support.
The problem is the disparity between 'Israel really wants peace' and their actual behavior.
As opposed to the behavior of the Palestinians?
Again, the Palestinians are the one that are displaced, without a military, and without any representation to the outside world. They're not using their military to oppress a body of people. Their chosen methods are frequently despicable, to be certain, but if we hope to end the conflict with anything short of genocide, we're going to have to allow some degree of violent dissent to the oppression.
I don't see it that way. I see them as doing what they have to do to defend their people.
There needs to be a limit. If anyone, anywhere can do 'what they have to do' as a practical matter, then there is no longer any such thing as 'good and evil'. I'm not going to elect to live in that world.
It's perfectly acceptable to blockade an enemy to prevent him from receiving weaponry that can be used to kill your citizens or soldiers. The United States did the same thing forty years ago. The Allies did it during both World Wars. What's the problem?
The problem is the disparity between 'Israel really wants peace' and their actual behavior.
I'm not making an international law argument here, but a moral one. If Israel believed that Hamas had a right to exist, and viewed them as a political adversary, the blockade would stop. If they viewed them as a geopolitical enemy, then attacks would begin. Instead they appear to view these people as chattel. They're not to be warred upon nor negotiated with, just boxed away until they all die off. Open war would be less cowardly, and likely would end the conflict sooner, so yes I do see this as a viable option for a sovereign nation. That isn't even close to what is happening, though.
When the last Israeli invasion happened, what did they take out? Infrastructure, right? Schools, power, water? Aren't they still banning the import of many, many, many non-missile items, including educational materials?
I'm not saying that it is impossible for Israel to do the right thing. I absolutely believe that it is. However the mere possibility doesn't obviate the fact that what they are actually doing is relatively evil.
Slashdot Mirror
And we can't be certain if knowing that you will surely survive any catastrophe is not actually at least as strong deterrent & motivation - after all, you know you will face the consequences if that was your fault.
And what about the possibility of the remote pilot ditching and making a run for it? At least with the local pilot they'd need to parachute out of the plane. In this case, Jim takes a coffee break and never comes back.
But..but...why would our government want to spy on its own citizens???
If this happens, they can spy on me, but I can also launch a drone and spy on them. And to be truthful, the government and it's employees have a hell of a lot more to hide from me than I do from them...
How do you figure on getting parity out of this power, when no such other parity has ever existed? It isn't as if you're allowed to drive a tank to work every day, are you?
Terminator was not a cautionary tale.
Seemed pretty cautionary to me: don't create powerful networked and potentially evil AIs with access to military killbots and manufacturing facilities.
It's good advice!
No kidding. If Terminator was not a cautionary tale, what ever was?
Sure, sure, but what about out-and-out theft?
Not really, no, because (if for no other reason) he didn't genuinely do anything that wasn't already being done by others. Sure we'd all still be on MySpace or whatever, but those poor would still be connected in this 'new' way.
Nope not really, only peripherally.
Was she a thief?
It is an interesting thought, however I don't think you can hold Robin Hood up as an example of a thief. He certainly had more in common with a rebel or freedom fighter than the more normal uses of the word.
I suppose the parallel you're trying to draw is that MZ's crimes could be being committed in the name of the greater good. But I'm not seeing it.
The proper parallel would be Robin Hood robbing from the rich, violating the rich, and letting the poor live in his palace for free - so long as they tell him all their secrets. In other words it goes beyond re-appropriation and into personal benefit.
Give me an example. please. name me one person who wanted to make the world a better place, and gave less of a fuck about money.
Buddha. Gandhi. Mother Theresa.
That's three. Google yourself some more. All of these people were successful, too. Moreso than Zuckerberg.
stop thinking with your wallet for a second, and start thinking like a human being.
Capitalist pigs and all that aside, I'm thinking with my brain. People get painted by their behaviors. MZ doesn't even admit to his crimes, let alone begin to atone for them, and you want to anoint him a saint. He has yet to do one decent thing for humanity, as far as I have seen.
You're attributing to a single slimeball the entirety of the internet's value while simultaneously blathering on about the limits of materialism.
In short you're not having a conversation, so have a nice day!
I can't tell if you're serious, or just not very funny.
for the first time in history, there exists a man who's interested in changing the world for the democratic better.
Fail. And I use that term sparingly. I'm not going to bother with examples, as this is just batshit insane.
get to know the damn kid
Like YOU know the 'damn kid'? Perhaps you've seen something the rest of us have not with your personal friendship with Zuckerberg. If so you should share. If not, well, look at the preponderance of evidence and draw your own conclusions. Meanwhile leave us free to do likewise.
maybe you'll see that SOME OF US DON'T WANT TO MAKE MONEY! but rather need to make enough to try to help others
This could well be but we're talking about Mark Zuckerberg here. Not Ghandi. Stay on topic, please.
It was my understanding that Zuckerberg was a thief at his very core. Always an opportunist looking to earn off of things he doesn't have any right to possess. This included the photos that started Harvard's Facebook, much of the original code and concept, and continues to this day with examples like the email accounts used to connect to Facebook and their password information. I think this understanding of him is probably accurate.
That being said, wouldn't being a thief preclude the label of 'philosopher'? Isn't the harm caused by theft and the social implications of a world where theft is permissible one of the earliest, simplest hurdles that a 'thinker' must cross to become noteworthy? I'm not up on the stuff, but I'm not aware of any ethos that includes 'rutheless slimeball' as a virtuous-knower of wise things.
Boy, I hope so. Yellow doesn't mean "stop if possible", it means clear the intersection.
Wouldn't that logically include not entering it in the first place?
I must be in a bad mood, but why name-drop the iPad?
I realize that the mod system will handle you, but I can't even parse what the hell you're trying to communicate. I'm perplexed. You darn well know the topic if you're posting on slashdot, and you've got this clearly-emotional mess of a post that you put up in order to communicate SOMETHING... Just can't tell what.
Is there such a thing as drunken slashdot posting?
No, I think it is racist in the tenor as well as the use.
They're not "Chinese" because they are from China. The term is attached to indicate that they're willing to work for long hours for little pay, that they care little about the damage they do to the world, and that their product cheapens even similar products because it is so very crappy. It mostly exists as a contrast to the home-grown varieties which are implied to be both superior in quality as well as safety.
This is the connotation applied to nearly all imports from China, so why not their gold as well?
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of slagging Cory. Do you realize how long it would take for Cory, or anyone, to talk if they had to cite the origin of every single thought they're expressing?
Off-topic, but using his name twice in a row like that, along the same thought line, shows you either know him personally or are a fanboy of some sort. There's an emotional attachment to a construction like that, and out here on the internet it seems inappropriate.
Not that we disagree. Slagging, would take a long time, all check. Just maybe without the name-dropping.
Some people still have souls.
Everyone started with one. Sad but true.
majority of them have proven themselves willing to take frivolous or evil cases
Citation???? "Majority" is a very specific word, with a specific meaning, which is not equal to "lots"
In short, this is utter bullshit. Most lawers never set foot in a courtroom and take "Cases" in the adversarial us vs them sense. They are the people who write contracts, advise clients on how to be compliant with truckloads of government regulations, etc.
Mis-quote for the flipping win!
If you stand in the service of evil, expect to be rightly derided and hated.
Compared to...
They are the people who write contracts, advise clients on how to be compliant with truckloads of government regulations, etc.
Newsflash, these types can be COMPLETELY evil as well. Have you READ a contract lately? In fact, I'd challenge you to locate a completely fair contract, toward both parties, in under 24 hours. Go for it, let me know what you find. Further, how many of these attorneys would 'be compliant' in technicality only rather than with the actual intent of the law.
Evil happens. Attorneys are generally in a group with more examples both in quantity and in bastardly-ness. This is why the good ones stand out as stars burning brightly.
If this hits close to home, good. Be one of the good guys. Fight the bad guys and convince them all to retire early. Go you!
I'll drink to that!
Dude. Seriously.
It's one of the few bipartisan issues remaining that a sizable number of Democrats and Republicans agree on.
The issues that used to be agreed upon in a bipartisan way aren't going to continue to be universal. We're looking at more than just one party with two colors in the very near future.
But you're right, it has nothing to do with anything other that as a response to the words you wrote.
Well, understand also that incumbents aren't doing so very well these days.
They have disagreed in the past, but be observant and see if you don't notice a change.
A lot of us are tired of the crap.
And honestly I don't think that the threat of Israel going to 'other pariah nations' is any justification for their 'goodness' as an ally.
Further, I'm not specifically advocating isolating them, per se, but their actions. If we, as a nation, are of the opinion that Israel's blockade isn't legal, for example, we can and should treat them like any other pirates on the high seas. Let us see if they will turn on this old ally as quickly as they turned on Turkey.
Your "election" is irrelevant, as nation-states will take whatever steps they deem necessary to defend themselves. As long as rockets continue to land on Israeli soil, the Israelis aren't likely to end the economic blockade of Gaza.
This is nearly true. Except that by participating in my democracy I can have an impact on how much blood is on my own hands. To date the United States has been all but complicit in Israel's behavior, good and bad. But the time for this has passed. Let them stand on their own and behave as they will without any assistance from us, at least until they return to an honorable path that we can support.
Yes, I definitely believe that it is. As I said, I'm confident there are many unsung examples of this going on all around the world.
The problem is the disparity between 'Israel really wants peace' and their actual behavior.
As opposed to the behavior of the Palestinians?
Again, the Palestinians are the one that are displaced, without a military, and without any representation to the outside world. They're not using their military to oppress a body of people. Their chosen methods are frequently despicable, to be certain, but if we hope to end the conflict with anything short of genocide, we're going to have to allow some degree of violent dissent to the oppression.
I don't see it that way. I see them as doing what they have to do to defend their people.
There needs to be a limit. If anyone, anywhere can do 'what they have to do' as a practical matter, then there is no longer any such thing as 'good and evil'. I'm not going to elect to live in that world.
It's perfectly acceptable to blockade an enemy to prevent him from receiving weaponry that can be used to kill your citizens or soldiers. The United States did the same thing forty years ago. The Allies did it during both World Wars. What's the problem?
The problem is the disparity between 'Israel really wants peace' and their actual behavior.
I'm not making an international law argument here, but a moral one. If Israel believed that Hamas had a right to exist, and viewed them as a political adversary, the blockade would stop. If they viewed them as a geopolitical enemy, then attacks would begin. Instead they appear to view these people as chattel. They're not to be warred upon nor negotiated with, just boxed away until they all die off. Open war would be less cowardly, and likely would end the conflict sooner, so yes I do see this as a viable option for a sovereign nation. That isn't even close to what is happening, though.
When the last Israeli invasion happened, what did they take out? Infrastructure, right? Schools, power, water? Aren't they still banning the import of many, many, many non-missile items, including educational materials?
I'm not saying that it is impossible for Israel to do the right thing. I absolutely believe that it is. However the mere possibility doesn't obviate the fact that what they are actually doing is relatively evil.