Wow! It's hard to believe that someone else on/. realizes that the logistics preclude "watching everyone". Even though/.r's claim to be able to "compute" data.
"...which has to be asked, and which you can refuse..."
What a bunch of bullshit.
If you refuse to show it, you're detained. Then, they open up your wallet/purse and look. All you did was delay everyone somewhat and create trouble for yourself with no real difference between they're waving you over or pointing a device.
Puh-lease. All learning is not copying. The idea that we "should" copy is just a primitive manifestation of the deranged idea that stealing other's ideas and presenting them as one's own is success.
I note that not a single phrase of Shakespeare's occurred in your post.
Perhaps this lack of understanding is the crux of your outlook.
Then you misread the books on the various revolutions. Political change is a minor component.
Re:I'd put more money on the animals...
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
"The problem is that unbalanced copyright laws mean that you *can't* hack all you want, or even close to it."
Really? Please explain -- exactly -- how copyright laws prevent you from taking anything you want apart in your own home, figuring out how to hack it, hacking it, and not do anything to distribute that hack.
Hack all you want, just don't disseminate.
Re:Now if hackers could just learn to hack the gov
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"The common man does not care about the things that hackers care about, his needs are simpler..."
What pray tell, made you decide that you were more complex than the common man? Indeed, what prey tell, made you decide that you weren't just another common man?
That's a ridiculously pompous statement. Meant or not.
It's not just him. While the thunderstorm might be a nice metaphor, the false granting of some superior political/social sense to a bunch of kiddies who can't seem to relate in any meaningful way with other humans is the part that was stretched beyond believablility.
what the U of C's attitude would be toward someone who hacked into their computers to, you know, just experiment and gain knowledge? Maybe up their grades or look at other peoples information?
I really don't mean to sound so incredulous, but do you actually not understand gunshells? And, if not, is thie the state of the/rs here that are karping so much?
Had they known what those fundamentalists were going to do with those airliners, do you think for a moment that the U.S. wouldn't have shot them down? And, yes, it would have been a good thing to do so, even with our own people on board.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow! It's hard to believe that someone else on /. realizes that the logistics preclude "watching everyone". Even though /.r's claim to be able to "compute" data.
"...which has to be asked, and which you can refuse..."
What a bunch of bullshit.
If you refuse to show it, you're detained. Then, they open up your wallet/purse and look. All you did was delay everyone somewhat and create trouble for yourself with no real difference between they're waving you over or pointing a device.
An utterly false sense of "control" you gots.
Puh-lease. All learning is not copying. The idea that we "should" copy is just a primitive manifestation of the deranged idea that stealing other's ideas and presenting them as one's own is success.
I note that not a single phrase of Shakespeare's occurred in your post.
Perhaps this lack of understanding is the crux of your outlook.
Then you misread the books on the various revolutions. Political change is a minor component.
"The problem is that unbalanced copyright laws mean that you *can't* hack all you want, or even close to it."
Really? Please explain -- exactly -- how copyright laws prevent you from taking anything you want apart in your own home, figuring out how to hack it, hacking it, and not do anything to distribute that hack.
Hack all you want, just don't disseminate.
"The common man does not care about the things that hackers care about, his needs are simpler..."
What pray tell, made you decide that you were more complex than the common man? Indeed, what prey tell, made you decide that you weren't just another common man?
That's a ridiculously pompous statement. Meant or not.
It's not just him. While the thunderstorm might be a nice metaphor, the false granting of some superior political/social sense to a bunch of kiddies who can't seem to relate in any meaningful way with other humans is the part that was stretched beyond believablility.
"Over time, the system gets squirrely enough that nobody really understands it, which increases the cost of change and increases risk."
One of the biggest arguments against EP.
This can only happen when changes are undocumented and there was probably little or shoddy overall design doc in the first place.
If you have an adequate communication device and keep it updated, you cannot reach a level where "nobody really understands it".
Sometime AFTER said equipment leaves the movie screen and enters reality.
"The world's not going to pollute itself!";
Ignorance of environmental history on display.
Have you ever heard of the iron catastropy?
It's a friggin' riot. People who are scandalized by the thought of indirect modification of the environment are willing to directly modify same.
And, I should listen to anything those people have to say, why?
Population is the lynch-pin. All else depends from that. Now take a look at where the population problems are. Here's some help.
http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html
By the way, comparing water usage of desert and temporate peoples is straw.
what the U of C's attitude would be toward someone who hacked into their computers to, you know, just experiment and gain knowledge? Maybe up their grades or look at other peoples information?
Just wondering if the shoe fits the other foot.
This was a much more typical death here before the 70's. Try bouncing a '40's Ford off a tree.
If you lived 1.5 hours away from the nearest brick and mortar book store, would your opinion be the same?
You're "fudging" a bit.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/players/veto.html
From 1946-2002:
Russia/USSR - 121
US - 76
Not quite "BY FAR", is it?
Lessee. We're empirialists out to make everyone do what we want them to, but we're slacking for not "steering the UN".
The "And we've got other problems." seems to be a cop-out for non-action.
"I must have missed the news..."
Nor read the article.
I really don't mean to sound so incredulous, but do you actually not understand gunshells? And, if not, is thie the state of the /rs here that are karping so much?
They won't.
You should perhaps read about the correlation of gun ownership and crime. The actual statistics, not M.Moore stuff.
And, just how effective was it in school for the geek to meekly try to make friends with the sadistic jocks?
In fact, the fourth plane didn't make it because the people on board realized that shift in rules.
Had they known what those fundamentalists were going to do with those airliners, do you think for a moment that the U.S. wouldn't have shot them down? And, yes, it would have been a good thing to do so, even with our own people on board.
1) Happens all the time. The PC'rs are doing a fine job curtailing freedom of speech.
2) Al Qeida was in those countries long before we started striking back at them.
3) Yep, elections coming up. Read?
4) Simply a lie.
5) That is perhaps the end result of civilized people getting tired of allowing despots to control countries, yes.
6) That's probably a push.