Obviously, the person whose machine was freed from the bondages of malware is better off than they were before, but maybe the botnet operators should file a lawsuit.
But that's not what you originally proposed. You said that we have nothing to lose by assuming that it is legitimate from the outset. Doing so taints your efforts to determine whether the claims are true or not, because in the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, your assumption would still stand. The stronger your assumptions are to start with, the more evidence to the contrary you'll require to change your opinion, possibly as far as the point where you'll be regarded as a crackpot for your refusal to believe substantial clear evidence against your position.
UFOs, the moon landing, and 9/11 are all supposedly huge U.S. government cover-ups as well, despite ample evidence to the contrary, yet people still believe in them. They wanted to believe that those things were true, for whatever reason, and have therefore refused to see that evidence for what it is. The credibility of those people is marginalized because of that.
If you think these claims deserve further investigation, then go right ahead. But don't start by assuming that the rather unlikely answer of massive nefarious government spying is the truth, because then you'll just keep on looking through the haystack for a needle that may not even exist.
a new place 15 miles away for my convenience and to better serve me
There was a Pizza Hut not too far from here that changed locations a few years ago. At the time, they posted a sign at their old store that read, "For your convenience, we've moved!" Sadly, they provided no indication on the sign where they actually moved to.
I'm gonna go with Last Battle for the Genesis on this one. Beefy guys with huge bodies and puny, puny heads standing at the end of monotonous levels whining about "I want to be a hero" and other such comedy gems. It's almost worth playing just to see what stupid thing the characters will say next.
Some interesting thought experiments regarding consciousness are these:
Suppose that, one day, we develop the technology required to scan and emulate the human brain with total precision. Now, this means that we can shove your head into the scanner, and presto, some amount of time later, we have a computer running a simulation of your brain. It's pretty clear that your consciousness stays in the same place, especially if anesthesia is not required for the scanning process. Yet there is a copy of your brain running on that computer. From its perspective, does it have the same sort of consciousness that you still do?
Suppose that instead of just scanning your brain to make a copy, we instead put you under, scan your brain, start the simulation running, and kill your old body. We wake up your simulated brain. What happens to your consciousness? Have you achieved a mortality unencumbered by the failure of your biological body by doing this? From the perspective of your simulated brain, did you fall asleep and wake up running on the computer? What about from the perspective of your now dead physical body?
Suppose that instead of scanning your brain, we can replace a portion of your brain with equivalent nanotech. For all purposes, this nanotech behaves exactly as your old neurons behave. The nanotech can be implanted gradually, neuron by neuron, on the fly - as each neuron is replaced and killed, the nanotech neuron takes its place and picks up exactly where the old neuron left off. So, we perform this procedure on you, and ultimately, your brain is replaced with its nanotech equivalent. What happens to your consciousness in this process? Is this sort of gradual process necessary for your consciousness to survive the transition from your old wetware to your new hardware?
Is your consciousness an expression of a dynamical state - perhaps even including state variables we haven't detected yet - in your brain that must be preserved in order to survive any such transition, or do your memories suffice to keep your perception of consciousness continuous, even if most of that dynamical state is temporarily lost?
Generally, that's true when you post details about your own company. Moreover, the issue isn't so much posting such statements publicly, as it is providing insider info privately but not disseminating such information publicly.
I think the SEC's conclusion was that this isn't a problem when you post details about someone else's company.
The sheer quantity of data collected limits the feasibility of everyone being "stalked by the government", as you say. There just aren't enough humans to keep track of all that stuff unless there's an event connected with your movements that makes it worthwhile to dig up that data (like, say, you knock over a convenience store).
Besides, the cops have never needed court approval to stake out someone's house or put a tail on them. This pretty much does the same thing, only it does it after the fact, and it goes backwards from a crime instead of going forwards from one.
As far as civil liberties go, isn't the reduced likelihood of false prosecution a benefit worth giving up some privacy that we don't actually have?
Better than slapping "defectivebydesign" on it, considering that Defective by Design refers to the inclusion of DRM in a product intentionally, rather than just writing software that accidentally sucks.
Leela: No, over here! (reads headline) Flying saucer captured! Bender: That's no flying saucer! That's my ass! Fry: My God! This means the flying saucer that crashed in Roswell... was us! Farnsworth: And the alien they captured was... was...
Cut to aircraft hangar, where soldiers pry open a crate, revealing....
Zoidberg: Hello! General: Eegh! Zoidberg: So what are you guys doing tonight? I'm up for whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, the person whose machine was freed from the bondages of malware is better off than they were before, but maybe the botnet operators should file a lawsuit.
In Soviet Russia, criminals sue you!
Instead of keeping the squirrels, they should have replaced the surveillance gear with tiny little bomb vests and let them go.
If necessary, they could also indoctrinate the squirrels with rumors of 72 virgin squirrels awaiting them in the afterlife.
But that's not what you originally proposed. You said that we have nothing to lose by assuming that it is legitimate from the outset. Doing so taints your efforts to determine whether the claims are true or not, because in the absence of clear evidence one way or the other, your assumption would still stand. The stronger your assumptions are to start with, the more evidence to the contrary you'll require to change your opinion, possibly as far as the point where you'll be regarded as a crackpot for your refusal to believe substantial clear evidence against your position.
UFOs, the moon landing, and 9/11 are all supposedly huge U.S. government cover-ups as well, despite ample evidence to the contrary, yet people still believe in them. They wanted to believe that those things were true, for whatever reason, and have therefore refused to see that evidence for what it is. The credibility of those people is marginalized because of that.
If you think these claims deserve further investigation, then go right ahead. But don't start by assuming that the rather unlikely answer of massive nefarious government spying is the truth, because then you'll just keep on looking through the haystack for a needle that may not even exist.
Now get the hell off my lawn.
We have nothing to lose by assuming this is legitimate
Except, perhaps, your credibility?
Never attribute to malice what you can attribute to zombies.
a new place 15 miles away for my convenience and to better serve me
There was a Pizza Hut not too far from here that changed locations a few years ago. At the time, they posted a sign at their old store that read, "For your convenience, we've moved!" Sadly, they provided no indication on the sign where they actually moved to.
The company also confirmed that it is considering a subscription model to complement Windows
The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more desktops will slip through your fingers.
BEEEEP You are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.
I'm gonna go with Last Battle for the Genesis on this one. Beefy guys with huge bodies and puny, puny heads standing at the end of monotonous levels whining about "I want to be a hero" and other such comedy gems. It's almost worth playing just to see what stupid thing the characters will say next.
See also the review at Something Awful.
Hold on, now. We're talking about Michael Pachter here, not Derek Smart.
Some interesting thought experiments regarding consciousness are these:
Suppose that, one day, we develop the technology required to scan and emulate the human brain with total precision. Now, this means that we can shove your head into the scanner, and presto, some amount of time later, we have a computer running a simulation of your brain. It's pretty clear that your consciousness stays in the same place, especially if anesthesia is not required for the scanning process. Yet there is a copy of your brain running on that computer. From its perspective, does it have the same sort of consciousness that you still do?
Suppose that instead of just scanning your brain to make a copy, we instead put you under, scan your brain, start the simulation running, and kill your old body. We wake up your simulated brain. What happens to your consciousness? Have you achieved a mortality unencumbered by the failure of your biological body by doing this? From the perspective of your simulated brain, did you fall asleep and wake up running on the computer? What about from the perspective of your now dead physical body?
Suppose that instead of scanning your brain, we can replace a portion of your brain with equivalent nanotech. For all purposes, this nanotech behaves exactly as your old neurons behave. The nanotech can be implanted gradually, neuron by neuron, on the fly - as each neuron is replaced and killed, the nanotech neuron takes its place and picks up exactly where the old neuron left off. So, we perform this procedure on you, and ultimately, your brain is replaced with its nanotech equivalent. What happens to your consciousness in this process? Is this sort of gradual process necessary for your consciousness to survive the transition from your old wetware to your new hardware?
Is your consciousness an expression of a dynamical state - perhaps even including state variables we haven't detected yet - in your brain that must be preserved in order to survive any such transition, or do your memories suffice to keep your perception of consciousness continuous, even if most of that dynamical state is temporarily lost?
Unfortunately, it's better for you to get a patent for X than it is for you to allow company Y to patent your X and then sue your S off.
"X is a #%@!in mess," or "Y is unmanageable and really should be rewritten."
I see those all the time as comments in my own code.
Remember when the Bush Camp tried to shut down Jib Jab over the copyright of "This land is my land?"
I think you're thinking of the Scientologists.
</sarcasm>
Generally, that's true when you post details about your own company. Moreover, the issue isn't so much posting such statements publicly, as it is providing insider info privately but not disseminating such information publicly.
I think the SEC's conclusion was that this isn't a problem when you post details about someone else's company.
The article also omits to mention the cost of enforcement which can be tremendously high.
Mitigated, of course, by not requiring enforcement on any work older than 14 years.
In other words, the US election system sucks because we don't just vote for a supreme overlord and be done with it?
Although, if there were a box on my ballot labeled, "I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords," I'd probably check it.
Ironically, most extra virgins don't have to worry about slowing down the spread of HIV in their bodies.
The sheer quantity of data collected limits the feasibility of everyone being "stalked by the government", as you say. There just aren't enough humans to keep track of all that stuff unless there's an event connected with your movements that makes it worthwhile to dig up that data (like, say, you knock over a convenience store).
Besides, the cops have never needed court approval to stake out someone's house or put a tail on them. This pretty much does the same thing, only it does it after the fact, and it goes backwards from a crime instead of going forwards from one.
As far as civil liberties go, isn't the reduced likelihood of false prosecution a benefit worth giving up some privacy that we don't actually have?
You must have been AFK the last two times we had that discussion.
Nice tip! I'll have to remember that one. I usually just pound the left side of my keyboard in frustration until the task manager pops up.
Better than slapping "defectivebydesign" on it, considering that Defective by Design refers to the inclusion of DRM in a product intentionally, rather than just writing software that accidentally sucks.
...Netcraft confirms it!
Sorry, 'tweren't me.
Leela: No, over here! (reads headline) Flying saucer captured!
Bender: That's no flying saucer! That's my ass!
Fry: My God! This means the flying saucer that crashed in Roswell... was us!
Farnsworth: And the alien they captured was... was...
Cut to aircraft hangar, where soldiers pry open a crate, revealing....
Zoidberg: Hello!
General: Eegh!
Zoidberg: So what are you guys doing tonight? I'm up for whatever.