I think we are finally beginning to see some of the endings to the technology euphoria that have developed over the past 20 years. As technology and the internet improved and people discovered all of these extra amazing ways to make different processes more efficient, it's becoming more and more obvious that certain processes simply should not be efficient. This includes government ability to collect data as well as corporate ability to do the same. When it's harder to do, it's fine because it doesn't have as strong of an effect and the mere difficult limits its use. The easier it gets the more often it will be abused or over-used because it's possible.
Essentially, just because we can build this network, doesn't mean we should. I'm giving a big nod of the head to the EU over this one.
I call bullshit. How would you like it if a middle-eastern government tricked an American woman into going to their country because she slept with a couple of their citizens while the citizens were visiting the U.S.? Under their laws, this would be a very serious offense, perhaps punishable with death. If she got there and they executed her or stoned her, then it would be within their laws.
You speak of "criminals" as if it is some absolute that applies everywhere. The law is far more complex than that and is based extensively on what people in a particular area believe. So if somebody did this to a U.S. citizen, I would be royally pissed and want the U.S. to protect its citizens and get them back!
I'm not so sure that I agree with all statements, and the concept only truly works when everyone has the time and desire to become fully informed about each decision. Anything less than that and we just have a large group of people thinking that they are making a choice when they have only been presented with one option.
As for your definition of oppression, you have that completely backwards as the oppression is an action of one being on an another. One cannot oppress his or herself. Anarchy may LEAD to oppression when one person or group begins forcing another to do something against their will, but Anarchy in its purist form is the exact opposite of oppression. I think a more appropriate word for your definition would be detrimental or damaging. Law enforcement uses a monopoly of force to oppress certain targets, since Oppression is "using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another". Arresting someone is directly oppression. It may be helpful to society to do so, and anarchy would then be detrimental to society and humanity.
My dad worked construction for the longest time and passed on some statistics about the current state of the transportation infrastructure. Well over 50% of the bridges in the US are rated "need repair soon" and a huge chunk are already far below the safety standards. The infrastructure is crumbling and the money to build it back up is not present since it has all been allocated elsewhere while the bridges were still fine. And as with all appropriation, the money will never be removed from where it was placed and redirected to repair. Instead, the government will try to say "oh, we need more money to repair that" and want to raise taxes instead.
Wrong. I like Peter Schiff's talk about this that hit YouTube (Nov 2006 he gave it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3Qefbt0n4 for the first part of it) where he explains that. The US was a major debtor country when we first start getting our ducks in a row back in the 18th century. But we took that money and used it PRODUCTIVELY by investing in factories and the like. The factories then produced the goods that we could sell back across the ocean and we became for the following 200 years the worlds largest loaner nation! The in the late 70s and onward we lost all of our manufacturing and went from being the largest loaner to the largest debtor nation and we continue the trend. If we took the money that goes into Iraq and used it to invest in productive infrastructure then it WOULD save the U.S. economy.
When it comes right down to the wire, you never know exactly what motivates another person. The closest thing you have is their actions. Not what they say or what other people say their goal is. Everyone political has some sort of goal. If they didn't then they wouldn't be motivated to do the work.
Perhaps Hitler's goal was unification of post WWI Germany so that the German people could have a better way of life. I'm sure that's what he and all his supporters were telling everyone. But if you look at the "means to an end" that he used, history has judged him to be a racist tyrant.
Whatever Bush's stated goals may be, many people are already judging him to be an incompetent ignoramus at the least and a greedy, spiteful, destructive tyrant at the worst. We have yet to see what history will judge him as, but since history is made from the present I personally would not support anyone that I judged to be so bad for the country or myself, just as anyone who stood up in support of Hitler has the grimy shadow of history leering at their back now.
I see a similar trend in just about all of the replies to this post, so I'm just picking this one to reply to.
1) Think of the children. Sure, a parent has the responsibility to provide a safe environment for their children. Let's solve this in ways that don't make generalizations and obstruct freedoms. Let's give all kids free health care. No parent wants their children to be sick, and if it's completely free for them to get help, they will give it to them (or else they have other responsibility issues). If the doctors can show that the kids lungs are being tainted by second hand smoke and it poses a health risk to them, then work with the problem from there. Don't arbitrarily say "hey, these people can't smoke because they have kids" or any other generalizations.
3) I'm wrong in the decision to risk and damage my body (even though you don't want to "mother me"). This was the entire point of my statement prior about being able to choose the risks and harms of my life for my own pleasure. I thank you for working in a hospital; honestly, helping out people when they are having some of the crappiest times of their lives is very honorable and it's not something everyone can stomach or do. I am not in denial about the risks of doing it. Any adult who has received all of the health curriculum provided by public schools is fully aware of all of these problems. I merely wish to protect my right to do it anyway and not have my decision making ability stripped from me because someone else does not agree with my decisions.
Somebody once told me that it's not the days in your life that count, but the life in your days. Is your entire goal in life to live to the oldest age possible? If so, you should probably avoid driving cars or being near major roads, stay away from computers to prevent blindness and spend most of your day maintaining whatever the currently accepted level of aerobic exercise is.
Fuck that. Life is about having some fun too. If I enjoy inhaling toxic smoke, then maybe that is the way I want to have the fun in my life, and if me choosing what I want to do for fun doesn't match your "reason" or Big Brother's "reason" then fuck you both.
You are confusing accessibility with standardization. Have you looked through the WCAG standards (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/)? Valid markup doesn't even count toward accessibility by these standards. What you have to do instead is design very specific types of interfaces that limit how things can be done, require a much higher familiarity with the languages and tools used, and therefore cost more, both from a time perspective, and in the fact that you have to pay for a higher skilled developer.
Implying lack of computing power as incentive to let them do it is short sightedness at best. Secondly, in order to create this profile they need to be allowed to get direct, legal samples. Once they have they have the ability to do anything they want with it. They don't necessarily need to create a full analysis of everyone, just certain targets at the time. Or store the DNA sample itself until they are capable of processing all of them or need that particular one. The potential for abuse is massive, and the potential gain is not necessarily as big as some people would like you to think: http://forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/EL_dna_instr_bad.html
This is actually very interesting to me. I've played an indie MMORPG (http://www.xenimus.com) on an off for about 6 years now and some of the concepts that the creator implemented address exactly what you are talking about. First of all, when you die, you lose experience (fairly common). Secondly, you lose an item that you are wearing and everything that you are carrying. There are areas of the game that are completely safe to you if you are aligned as good (town squares offer complete protection against all damage). Towns themselves have NPC guards that are very very high levels and kill off any evil characters that go into the town. In the original set of rules in the game, you could get deleveled. Since the squares only protected the good people, and the squares were also the respawn points, if you got one person who pissed off somebody very bad, they usually have a high level in their link (guild) that will come and kill the greifer. It takes some effort to track down the greifer and keep killing them, but if you get a team together, you could delevel the character all the way back to level 3 (highest level in the game was around 70, but there was no artificially enforced maximum). So while you did have collections of greifers, there were also collections of people who fought them off. Princess Nesbianna's link was legendary for providing good protection to newbies. Since this was the first RPG I ever played, I didn't realize how awesome this rule set worked out to be until later. It provided a level of danger to the game, but also allowed the hope and ability to fight back. I'm not sure how well it would scale if it had a lot more players, but on the 500ish people that were online at any given time, it worked very well.
How does the number of dynamic libraries affect it? Linux running on a desktop is made up of thousands of smaller projects and libraries. Microsoft is able to consolidate these into fewer, larger, libraries. Does that have any advantage? In other words, could Linux benefit from combining lots of the smaller dynamic libraries into more monolithic libraries?
Interesting corollary. Essentially this system would be promoting the equivalent of binary freeware. After the copyright has expired, you would be free to send all of your friends copies of the software and install it on as many computers as you have, but you will be unable to modify the software itself.
Not an entirely dismal rule in my view. Open source software can still continue to exist and people can still have access to applications to view whatever format they got locked into if need be. It also doesn't put pressure on any one to force them to keep the original code around, so if something disappears they aren't legally required to store the code to give away later.
You dislike the Republican party right now and think that they at least had some dignity in the past; you know a candidate for the Republican party that actually DOES stand for what you want, and because he is running on a Republican ticket he has a chance of winning. And you refuse to vote for him?
Read up on what you're trying to argue before you try to postulate something. For those who want a brief summary, traffic studies have shown that traffic tends to flow at the safe speed. Raising or lowering speed limits results in only minor changes. While I have no problem with the guy going 55, and understand that he is trying his best to be a good driver even against massive peer pressure, scientific studies have proven that the limit set is erroneous and IS set to generate revenue.
Thanks for the tip, haha I was just being dyslexic;-). I meant to say case in point. Just FYI: there's no expression "probably we trying for" either.. I'm guessing u meant "probably were trying for";-). Haha.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we are finally beginning to see some of the endings to the technology euphoria that have developed over the past 20 years. As technology and the internet improved and people discovered all of these extra amazing ways to make different processes more efficient, it's becoming more and more obvious that certain processes simply should not be efficient. This includes government ability to collect data as well as corporate ability to do the same. When it's harder to do, it's fine because it doesn't have as strong of an effect and the mere difficult limits its use. The easier it gets the more often it will be abused or over-used because it's possible.
Essentially, just because we can build this network, doesn't mean we should. I'm giving a big nod of the head to the EU over this one.
How in the world can he stand 45 degree angle to somebody else ... if nobody else is around?
::
I call bullshit. How would you like it if a middle-eastern government tricked an American woman into going to their country because she slept with a couple of their citizens while the citizens were visiting the U.S.? Under their laws, this would be a very serious offense, perhaps punishable with death. If she got there and they executed her or stoned her, then it would be within their laws.
You speak of "criminals" as if it is some absolute that applies everywhere. The law is far more complex than that and is based extensively on what people in a particular area believe. So if somebody did this to a U.S. citizen, I would be royally pissed and want the U.S. to protect its citizens and get them back!
I'm not so sure that I agree with all statements, and the concept only truly works when everyone has the time and desire to become fully informed about each decision. Anything less than that and we just have a large group of people thinking that they are making a choice when they have only been presented with one option.
As for your definition of oppression, you have that completely backwards as the oppression is an action of one being on an another. One cannot oppress his or herself. Anarchy may LEAD to oppression when one person or group begins forcing another to do something against their will, but Anarchy in its purist form is the exact opposite of oppression. I think a more appropriate word for your definition would be detrimental or damaging. Law enforcement uses a monopoly of force to oppress certain targets, since Oppression is "using power to empower and/or privilege a group at the expense of disempowering, marginalizing, silencing, and subordinating another". Arresting someone is directly oppression. It may be helpful to society to do so, and anarchy would then be detrimental to society and humanity.
My dad worked construction for the longest time and passed on some statistics about the current state of the transportation infrastructure. Well over 50% of the bridges in the US are rated "need repair soon" and a huge chunk are already far below the safety standards. The infrastructure is crumbling and the money to build it back up is not present since it has all been allocated elsewhere while the bridges were still fine. And as with all appropriation, the money will never be removed from where it was placed and redirected to repair. Instead, the government will try to say "oh, we need more money to repair that" and want to raise taxes instead.
Wrong. I like Peter Schiff's talk about this that hit YouTube (Nov 2006 he gave it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6G3Qefbt0n4 for the first part of it) where he explains that. The US was a major debtor country when we first start getting our ducks in a row back in the 18th century. But we took that money and used it PRODUCTIVELY by investing in factories and the like. The factories then produced the goods that we could sell back across the ocean and we became for the following 200 years the worlds largest loaner nation! The in the late 70s and onward we lost all of our manufacturing and went from being the largest loaner to the largest debtor nation and we continue the trend. If we took the money that goes into Iraq and used it to invest in productive infrastructure then it WOULD save the U.S. economy.
No. These services set very low TTLs in their entries so because they are known to change often (hence "dynamic")
When it comes right down to the wire, you never know exactly what motivates another person. The closest thing you have is their actions. Not what they say or what other people say their goal is. Everyone political has some sort of goal. If they didn't then they wouldn't be motivated to do the work.
Perhaps Hitler's goal was unification of post WWI Germany so that the German people could have a better way of life. I'm sure that's what he and all his supporters were telling everyone. But if you look at the "means to an end" that he used, history has judged him to be a racist tyrant. Whatever Bush's stated goals may be, many people are already judging him to be an incompetent ignoramus at the least and a greedy, spiteful, destructive tyrant at the worst. We have yet to see what history will judge him as, but since history is made from the present I personally would not support anyone that I judged to be so bad for the country or myself, just as anyone who stood up in support of Hitler has the grimy shadow of history leering at their back now.
I see a similar trend in just about all of the replies to this post, so I'm just picking this one to reply to.
1) Think of the children. Sure, a parent has the responsibility to provide a safe environment for their children. Let's solve this in ways that don't make generalizations and obstruct freedoms. Let's give all kids free health care. No parent wants their children to be sick, and if it's completely free for them to get help, they will give it to them (or else they have other responsibility issues). If the doctors can show that the kids lungs are being tainted by second hand smoke and it poses a health risk to them, then work with the problem from there. Don't arbitrarily say "hey, these people can't smoke because they have kids" or any other generalizations.
2) Think of all of the other people and the environment. Dude, stop driving your car. Right now. Just don't. Walk your lazy ass to work or the store or something like that because you will be polluting the air with more toxins from your car than a dude smoking 2 packs a day. (Citation: http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17697145&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6)
3) I'm wrong in the decision to risk and damage my body (even though you don't want to "mother me"). This was the entire point of my statement prior about being able to choose the risks and harms of my life for my own pleasure. I thank you for working in a hospital; honestly, helping out people when they are having some of the crappiest times of their lives is very honorable and it's not something everyone can stomach or do. I am not in denial about the risks of doing it. Any adult who has received all of the health curriculum provided by public schools is fully aware of all of these problems. I merely wish to protect my right to do it anyway and not have my decision making ability stripped from me because someone else does not agree with my decisions.
Somebody once told me that it's not the days in your life that count, but the life in your days. Is your entire goal in life to live to the oldest age possible? If so, you should probably avoid driving cars or being near major roads, stay away from computers to prevent blindness and spend most of your day maintaining whatever the currently accepted level of aerobic exercise is.
Fuck that. Life is about having some fun too. If I enjoy inhaling toxic smoke, then maybe that is the way I want to have the fun in my life, and if me choosing what I want to do for fun doesn't match your "reason" or Big Brother's "reason" then fuck you both.
You are confusing accessibility with standardization. Have you looked through the WCAG standards (http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/)? Valid markup doesn't even count toward accessibility by these standards. What you have to do instead is design very specific types of interfaces that limit how things can be done, require a much higher familiarity with the languages and tools used, and therefore cost more, both from a time perspective, and in the fact that you have to pay for a higher skilled developer.
Implying lack of computing power as incentive to let them do it is short sightedness at best. Secondly, in order to create this profile they need to be allowed to get direct, legal samples. Once they have they have the ability to do anything they want with it. They don't necessarily need to create a full analysis of everyone, just certain targets at the time. Or store the DNA sample itself until they are capable of processing all of them or need that particular one. The potential for abuse is massive, and the potential gain is not necessarily as big as some people would like you to think: http://forensic-evidence.com/site/EVID/EL_dna_instr_bad.html
This is actually very interesting to me. I've played an indie MMORPG (http://www.xenimus.com) on an off for about 6 years now and some of the concepts that the creator implemented address exactly what you are talking about. First of all, when you die, you lose experience (fairly common). Secondly, you lose an item that you are wearing and everything that you are carrying. There are areas of the game that are completely safe to you if you are aligned as good (town squares offer complete protection against all damage). Towns themselves have NPC guards that are very very high levels and kill off any evil characters that go into the town. In the original set of rules in the game, you could get deleveled. Since the squares only protected the good people, and the squares were also the respawn points, if you got one person who pissed off somebody very bad, they usually have a high level in their link (guild) that will come and kill the greifer. It takes some effort to track down the greifer and keep killing them, but if you get a team together, you could delevel the character all the way back to level 3 (highest level in the game was around 70, but there was no artificially enforced maximum). So while you did have collections of greifers, there were also collections of people who fought them off. Princess Nesbianna's link was legendary for providing good protection to newbies. Since this was the first RPG I ever played, I didn't realize how awesome this rule set worked out to be until later. It provided a level of danger to the game, but also allowed the hope and ability to fight back. I'm not sure how well it would scale if it had a lot more players, but on the 500ish people that were online at any given time, it worked very well.
What about VIA? I hear that they have cheap processors that are x86 compatible.
Haha, yes you're safe. Everyone already knows your servers are hacked O=)
But you must admit, it has served them very very well. So why stop now?
How does the number of dynamic libraries affect it? Linux running on a desktop is made up of thousands of smaller projects and libraries. Microsoft is able to consolidate these into fewer, larger, libraries. Does that have any advantage? In other words, could Linux benefit from combining lots of the smaller dynamic libraries into more monolithic libraries?
Geeze, with a record like that.... maybe those characteristics SHOULD have been used to keep him out of his position!
Interesting corollary. Essentially this system would be promoting the equivalent of binary freeware. After the copyright has expired, you would be free to send all of your friends copies of the software and install it on as many computers as you have, but you will be unable to modify the software itself.
Not an entirely dismal rule in my view. Open source software can still continue to exist and people can still have access to applications to view whatever format they got locked into if need be. It also doesn't put pressure on any one to force them to keep the original code around, so if something disappears they aren't legally required to store the code to give away later.
You dislike the Republican party right now and think that they at least had some dignity in the past; you know a candidate for the Republican party that actually DOES stand for what you want, and because he is running on a Republican ticket he has a chance of winning. And you refuse to vote for him?
And that's how black holes came about. Read your bibles people!! I quote from it:
"And God saith, I shall divide by zero.
And big black things did appear.
And God saith, I shall not do that again."
Than an open jar of java beans.
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night!
I call bullshit. Here's my proof, where's yours?
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html
Read up on what you're trying to argue before you try to postulate something. For those who want a brief summary, traffic studies have shown that traffic tends to flow at the safe speed. Raising or lowering speed limits results in only minor changes. While I have no problem with the guy going 55, and understand that he is trying his best to be a good driver even against massive peer pressure, scientific studies have proven that the limit set is erroneous and IS set to generate revenue.
Thanks for the tip, haha I was just being dyslexic ;-). I meant to say case in point. Just FYI: there's no expression "probably we trying for" either.. I'm guessing u meant "probably were trying for" ;-). Haha.