Figuring out who "they" are is always difficult. I think it even relates specifically to the topic in that the paranoids are seeing the government as a "they" (conscious entity) that could bend its will to oppressive ends. In the US right now, that simply does not appear to be the case.
Their paranoia does have basis in regimes around the world for certain, but the United States has not seen that form of ilk since McCarthyism -- but even that proceeded with the knowing cooperation of the fearful citizens.
Without widespread cooperation from the public, the most evil that that usually results (speaking in the framework of western patterned democracies) done is a "small" scandal or two that has no major impact on the country (See the "*gate"s of Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan, etc...)
On the upside, as long as the paranoids exist (and the rest of us at least have our ear to them in case they find something truly shocking-- laughing otherwise) the general public will not be completely sheeped into Orwellian darkness. We all know this can and has happened-- Weimar Germany being the foremost example.
This is why as much as I think the paranoids are wrong, I appreciate their existence.
On parties -- I used to be a Democrat:) Now (as I've grown to a ripe old age of 24- and I know I won't be fully grown until I'm dead =) I've decided to be unaffiliated/libertarian leaning because I found myself often preferring secular Republicans to socialist Democrats, and now my vote usually ends up split between the two parties based on candidates. I rarely vote Libertarian Party as the candidates that I've had the choice of have been often radical Libertarians (loonies) as opposed to someone who would at least be competent (even if corrupt).
Bush lost me awhile ago though-- I thought he handled 9/11 admirably, but since then I've just been less than impressed, and often dismayed.
I think we need to continue to do the job right and get to the bottom of things... but wow it takes a lot of research and thought!
Left? don't you mean Libertarian? Shame on you for prevaricating who is arguing what.
This is clearly not an issue of social freedom/economic restriction -- appears to me object to the patriot act is coming purely from the anti-totalitarian corner (ie, Libertarian).
If the Left joins on, its only as opportunists (anything against the Right-- just as the Right will sign onto anything against the Left). I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.
That being said - I consider myself Libertarian and even I think the reactionaries go too far-- the Patriot act has not ended US citizen's freedom, but it does have the potential and so I think scruitiny of reports such as this is not unfounded, but should be fully encouraged.
You are correct for the most part, but I think there is relevance here due to the Canadian system.
If the Liberal party can suppress this unfavorable information long enough to hold a new election for themselves (as this is a parlimentary system and terms are not specifically fixed), they could be already elected by the time any nasty details came out!
Its like sweeping your dirt underneath a rug until just after your relatives leave.
Great link, and the link author is certainly an expert on the matter. That being said, I'm not sure I would expect my parents/relatives to look for a non-standard IDN logo... so the spoofing problem would still exist.
His hover+IDN logo idea has merit, but I think either all the browsers would have to agree. If we're not counting on that, it would need to be something a bit more audacious (I know, I know, the link author didn't want anything too ugly). Why not have user-controllable background colors for each character set? You could default to make it so that (ahhh good to be english speaking) english has white background color and each other set has its own. That would make my parents think twice when going to paypal.com with the a having bright red background color.
Perhaps a localization pack could make it so that a particular language's main character-set's background would be white? But that's just thinking...
Using HIV's replication machinery as a vector seems risky to me as well. An adendovirus ended up deadly (1 person) as a vector in a previous trial. Imagine what could happen with a highly unreliable machinery like HIV has...
I just hope that the patient is the one holding all the keys (thinking encryption keys-- as that would prevent unauthorized access) to the information:
"The consortium also said a national health network should not include a centralized database and that patients should control their own health records, deciding whether their information can be used in studies of the effectiveness of drugs and treatments."
.. hoping that patient control means real patient control...
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, but somehow I just have the feeling it would immediately get twisted into:
Admendment X will:
a - provide for the modification of the current diction and structure of the state constitution with causation through the legislature impacting and promoting property levies b - require me to sign over my firstborn child but may give puppys a new chance at life c - nullify the unfair and previously meticulously planned sections of the state spoils allowing the absolute benevelent state executive to impact the state system of employ.
Ok... so I'm not good at obfuscation... but you know what I mean -- it would quickly be used in a partisan or bi-partisan way to try to again control who votes.
Solution? I don't really have one, as the only real solution is for everyone to think critically about everything.
Absolutely agree with you. The true cause is a different (political as opposed to a sense of justice). I'm just saying be careful what you wish for...
and more importantly that punishment should suit the crime (as long as not cruel). Namely in these cases perhaps a suitable non-cruel crime would be personal responsibility to the CEO/Decision maker/Board members involved in the fixation as opposed to fining the company.
Something like - forfiture of all asset increases since the price fixation began... or perhaps more harsh -- forcing them to work as a volunteer for 15 years or something. I'm not sure Jail-time means anything to these people, whereas financial consequences might.
"We completely concede that customers' privacy must be protected"
Funny wording - 'completely conceding' is like saying:
"we really want to sell/use your information but we want to make it look like we desire to protect you", except they need to hire a better speech writer - someone who knows not to use diction like "concede" when trying to convince people that they aren't doing anything that people shouldn't like.
The theory is sound only if the resistance causes a notable decrease in survivability. The problem is that the amount of time that it will take to outcompete the other bacteria would mean that much more time the patient has to live with the dissease (and generally we're not worried about a dissease becoming resistant unless it affects humans badly enough to really want to get rid of it quickly).
In support of this theory we can look to the non-bacterial case of the Hepatitis B virus- which sometimes has in its capsid a viriod (only animal viroid actually) called Hepatitis D which competes with B and has the effect that if a person is coinfected with both, the two more or less cancel each other out and the disease does not turn into the nasty chronic form of Hepatitis B . . . however D can also make things worse if B has been in the body for awhile . . .
A more promising way to use some third party help would be to try to find bacteriophages (viruses that attack bacteria) that attack the specific virus in question. The chance that a bacteriophage would switch targets to a higher organism (such as human) is very small, and definitely a lot smaller than the chances the person would be irreversibly damaged by letting competitive bacteria grow. Only problems are finding a suitible bacteriophage that doesn't produce any nasty toxins while its killing the bacteria and finding a bacteriophage that our immune system doesn't immediately destroy - so maybe in a few decades : )
Slashdot Mirror
Figuring out who "they" are is always difficult. I think it even relates specifically to the topic in that the paranoids are seeing the government as a "they" (conscious entity) that could bend its will to oppressive ends. In the US right now, that simply does not appear to be the case.
:) Now (as I've grown to a ripe old age of 24- and I know I won't be fully grown until I'm dead =) I've decided to be unaffiliated/libertarian leaning because I found myself often preferring secular Republicans to socialist Democrats, and now my vote usually ends up split between the two parties based on candidates. I rarely vote Libertarian Party as the candidates that I've had the choice of have been often radical Libertarians (loonies) as opposed to someone who would at least be competent (even if corrupt).
Their paranoia does have basis in regimes around the world for certain, but the United States has not seen that form of ilk since McCarthyism -- but even that proceeded with the knowing cooperation of the fearful citizens.
Without widespread cooperation from the public, the most evil that that usually results (speaking in the framework of western patterned democracies) done is a "small" scandal or two that has no major impact on the country (See the "*gate"s of Clinton, Bush Sr., Regan, etc...)
On the upside, as long as the paranoids exist (and the rest of us at least have our ear to them in case they find something truly shocking-- laughing otherwise) the general public will not be completely sheeped into Orwellian darkness. We all know this can and has happened-- Weimar Germany being the foremost example.
This is why as much as I think the paranoids are wrong, I appreciate their existence.
On parties -- I used to be a Democrat
Bush lost me awhile ago though-- I thought he handled 9/11 admirably, but since then I've just been less than impressed, and often dismayed.
I think we need to continue to do the job right and get to the bottom of things... but wow it takes a lot of research and thought!
Left? don't you mean Libertarian? Shame on you for prevaricating who is arguing what.
:)
This is clearly not an issue of social freedom/economic restriction -- appears to me object to the patriot act is coming purely from the anti-totalitarian corner (ie, Libertarian).
If the Left joins on, its only as opportunists (anything against the Right-- just as the Right will sign onto anything against the Left). I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.
That being said - I consider myself Libertarian and even I think the reactionaries go too far-- the Patriot act has not ended US citizen's freedom, but it does have the potential and so I think scruitiny of reports such as this is not unfounded, but should be fully encouraged.
And I agree, the zealots are a good laugh too
You are correct for the most part, but I think there is relevance here due to the Canadian system.
If the Liberal party can suppress this unfavorable information long enough to hold a new election for themselves (as this is a parlimentary system and terms are not specifically fixed), they could be already elected by the time any nasty details came out!
Its like sweeping your dirt underneath a rug until just after your relatives leave.
Great link, and the link author is certainly an expert on the matter. That being said, I'm not sure I would expect my parents/relatives to look for a non-standard IDN logo... so the spoofing problem would still exist.
His hover+IDN logo idea has merit, but I think either all the browsers would have to agree. If we're not counting on that, it would need to be something a bit more audacious (I know, I know, the link author didn't want anything too ugly). Why not have user-controllable background colors for each character set? You could default to make it so that (ahhh good to be english speaking) english has white background color and each other set has its own. That would make my parents think twice when going to paypal.com with the a having bright red background color.
Perhaps a localization pack could make it so that a particular language's main character-set's background would be white? But that's just thinking...
Using HIV's replication machinery as a vector seems risky to me as well. An adendovirus ended up deadly (1 person) as a vector in a previous trial. Imagine what could happen with a highly unreliable machinery like HIV has...
I think the point of the parent was not that a little plastic card is more secure, but rather that a card is not permanent.
If a credit card gets stolen... you get a new card (with new numbers). If your fingerprint gets stolen... do you get new fingerprints???
I thought the most significant programming language of them all was TI-82 programming language.
Oh wait.. that's least significant.
I just hope that the patient is the one holding all the keys (thinking encryption keys-- as that would prevent unauthorized access) to the information:
.. hoping that patient control means real patient control...
"The consortium also said a national health network should not include a centralized database and that patients should control their own health records, deciding whether their information can be used in studies of the effectiveness of drugs and treatments."
Or depending on how you look at it:
Electronic Arts imitating life imitates non-life. (Assuming that viruses are still considered not-alive).
Yeah, that sounds like a good idea, but somehow I just have the feeling it would immediately get twisted into:
:).
Admendment X will:
a - provide for the modification of the current diction and structure of the state constitution with causation through the legislature impacting and promoting property levies
b - require me to sign over my firstborn child but may give puppys a new chance at life
c - nullify the unfair and previously meticulously planned sections of the state spoils allowing the absolute benevelent state executive to impact the state system of employ.
Ok... so I'm not good at obfuscation... but you know what I mean -- it would quickly be used in a partisan or bi-partisan way to try to again control who votes.
Solution? I don't really have one, as the only real solution is for everyone to think critically about everything.
Sorry for the criticism
Absolutely agree with you. The true cause is a different (political as opposed to a sense of justice). I'm just saying be careful what you wish for...
and more importantly that punishment should suit the crime (as long as not cruel). Namely in these cases perhaps a suitable non-cruel crime would be personal responsibility to the CEO/Decision maker/Board members involved in the fixation as opposed to fining the company.
Something like - forfiture of all asset increases since the price fixation began... or perhaps more harsh -- forcing them to work as a volunteer for 15 years or something. I'm not sure Jail-time means anything to these people, whereas financial consequences might.
There is the other side of the coin of course, as I found the article I had first read on the execution of four bankers:
l /china_banks.reut/?cnn=yes
http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/14/news/internationa
Best line in it is: 'Legal experts have proposed what they call a "kill fewer, kill carefully" policy for nonviolent crimes.'
Gives me the warm fuzzies all over.
Well, they do punish white collar crime in China!
& sid=aMZ0siUWgs8k&refer=asia
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080
I saw this somewhere else that had a really good quote as well... I'll try and find it.
"We completely concede that customers' privacy must be protected"
Funny wording - 'completely conceding' is like saying:
"we really want to sell/use your information but we want to make it look like we desire to protect you",
except they need to hire a better speech writer - someone who knows not to use diction like "concede" when trying to convince people that they aren't doing anything that people shouldn't like.
The theory is sound only if the resistance causes a notable decrease in survivability. The problem is that the amount of time that it will take to outcompete the other bacteria would mean that much more time the patient has to live with the dissease (and generally we're not worried about a dissease becoming resistant unless it affects humans badly enough to really want to get rid of it quickly). In support of this theory we can look to the non-bacterial case of the Hepatitis B virus- which sometimes has in its capsid a viriod (only animal viroid actually) called Hepatitis D which competes with B and has the effect that if a person is coinfected with both, the two more or less cancel each other out and the disease does not turn into the nasty chronic form of Hepatitis B . . . however D can also make things worse if B has been in the body for awhile . . . A more promising way to use some third party help would be to try to find bacteriophages (viruses that attack bacteria) that attack the specific virus in question. The chance that a bacteriophage would switch targets to a higher organism (such as human) is very small, and definitely a lot smaller than the chances the person would be irreversibly damaged by letting competitive bacteria grow. Only problems are finding a suitible bacteriophage that doesn't produce any nasty toxins while its killing the bacteria and finding a bacteriophage that our immune system doesn't immediately destroy - so maybe in a few decades : )