All of these are things a kid should come across while growing up in a few parts of the world.
Acorn is an especially disappointing word to lose--suddenly all these things falling from the sky don't have a word. We just live in a world where things fall from the sky and are undefined.
Minnows are a bit strange to lose because it's a basic fish, for a pet or for feeding to pets or for following. But I suppose you could always learn the word when you got the pet.
Finally, did they get rid of blackberries because it was racist?
If it's found that Twitter handed the account's credentials to IS... they are gonna look pretty bad.
A major command from the US Department of Defense has a fucking Twitter account. I really don't think it could look any worse.
Yup, right about now CENTCOM brass is trying to figure why they signed up for that Twitter shit in the first place.
There are lots of legitimate reasons why they could do it. Ultimately I'm sure it was a small part of a larger strategy to do something community-relations related on page 25 of a powerpoint presentation.
Many schools have a system where students submit papers through an online submission system that checks their papers against other papers in a database for plagiarism. Personally I find it incredibly offensive and fought successfully against such a system when I was in undergrad, because it assumes that a student is guilty then runs a check to make sure he isn't.
But regardless of the ethics or morality of the process, it *relies* on the vendor profiting from each submitted paper, in that each submitted paper grows its database of papers. The database is then cross-referenced against new submitted papers to look for plagiarism.
So if companies are prohibited from profiting from the information, it may be tricky to have this business model survive.
Only in America would someone claim, with a perfectly straight face that attending a 4-6 year university is "elite". Are you really that brainwashed?
You don't understand the context. I am not saying that every 4-year university ("college" over here) is elite, but rather that by focusing on 2-year colleges, this bill does not subsidize the elite schools, which are generally liberal (left). As a result, it may have a slightly better chance of gaining conservative (right) support if the narrative around it is drawn in a certain way.
One of the things that some people on the American right dislike is the ideas of the people on the American left who come out of the country's elite colleges, and the feeling is somewhat mutual.
You don't need to worry. This proposal has ZERO chance of becoming law. There is no way that a Republican congress is going to run up the debt to fund Obama's pet project. The only reason that Obama is even proposing it is so the Republicans can reject it, and then the Dems can use it against them in 2016.
I don't know--it's community colleges, which should be relatively appealing to Republicans who like supporting hard workers. Republicans hate social welfare programs, but really like the *image* of the hardworking American. By sticking with community colleges rather than going for the elite schools, this may actually have some chance of getting Republican support.
Not sure where you were going with that, but the bridge to nowhere was sponsored by Republicans.
In this case, it doesn't matter if they're Republicans or Democrats. AT&T is a major purchaser of votes in Congress. This has no chance of passing. The people sponsoring it know that and are still doing it so they can campaign on it.
In other words, it's a dog-and-pony show.
It is beneath the dignity of the slashdot front page.
It's unbelievable that a data centre can't cope with an extra degree or two. What sort of idiot designs these places? Haven't they heard of tolerances?
They had air conditioners fail. They probably needed more redundancy, but they shut down some systems as a precaution when the AC failed.
As for the hypothetical McDonald's case - they can most certainly call the cops on you and have the cops escort you away from the premises if you're actually stopping them from entering the store, and not just trying to persuade them not to. This also applies in the U.S. You can picket - but you can't block the entry. UK law is a bit more strict and you can probably easily slip into the "disturbing the peace" clause. It is the UK after all.
Actually, you can't picket unless the state lets you, even in the United States. Governments including state governments are allowed to impose "content-neutral time, place, or manner restrictions" on free speech provided that there are sufficient "alternative channels of communication" and the regulation served a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. Hence the state can restrict speech severely with relatively little pretext, even in the abortion context. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
In most states it is also a crime to fail to obey a lawful police order, which is the favored charge for arresting protestors or pretty much anybody a cop doesn't like.
I don't know if the carriers are implementing anything, which is really where this would have to happen.
Mmmm... just spitballing, there are two things that come to mind: (1) create a more asymmetric internet or (2) significantly reduce anonymity.
If you route machines with major penalties for any connections outside of machines they have connected to in the past week or month, for example, or if you require ISP-level configuration for peer-to-peer (at least logging into your ISP's web site to enable it), you could begin to reduce the usefulness of DDoS. On the anonymity side, you can strongly prefer authenticated and digitally signed connections, until at some point you perhaps only allow them.
It would add significant overhead, but if every packet, or at least connection, were signed by every piece of hardware it goes through, you could send (and sign) "compromised upstream" messages. When a large enough portion of traffic from any route becomes "compromised upstream," you bandwidth-limit (or even cut off) the route, with some intelligent rules for preferred traffic from that connection. (E.g. signed by a regular customer of the destination site.) End-users get messages once a day if they are generating compromised upstream errors.
The problem is it adds a *lot* of overhead.
You could also use the same system to *stop* junk phone calls.
I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them. If you're going to hack somebody to make a political statement, it makes no sense to later deny that you were involved. Someone might be trying to make it look like North Korea, but I seriously doubt they were directly involved in this.
Wrong--Even implausible denials can be very useful in international relations. They give sympathetic expatriates and foreigners something to support and are also useful legally. The obvious example is Putin's recent doublespeak over invading Ukraine. It is only a paper shield but it helps confuse the issues slightly, delaying and discouraging organized response of any kind.
As another example, since the UN Charter as passed, open wars of aggression have been outlawed. As a result, there have been a whole lotta agressive "self-defense."
As another example, Israel-Palestine. Regardless of which side you're on, you'll see the other side doing what you think is lying about something or the other.
A real head-scratching conundrum about the universe is explaining why it's not already overrun with self-replicating robots. Because if it's possible to send self-replicating interstellar probes, all it takes is one launch, plus a few million years, to get the galaxy overrun with them. So are they not possible? nobody's launched one yet? here, but not detected? The implications boggle the mind.
It may just take them a *long* time to reach every planet. They also may, for example, have a strategy of not visiting every planet as often as possible so as to conserve fuel. They may only visit a planet when it develops detectable signs of life, knowing they command sufficient resources to utterly destroy the existing life at that point regardless of the technological sophistication of the planet. Kind of like if the rest of the world were to decide to declare war on Molokini.
Historically, being embraced by Microsoft has often been deadly...
True in the 80s and early 90s, but today Microsoft is pretty responsive to their partners and that role has more been taken on by Amazon. I hear Amazon basically data mines business partners who sell on their site to undercut prices on everything except for certain narrowly agreed products.
It's a good business model for Amazon's move to gather more market power, which will give them a near-monopoly in the end. They're definitely playing the long game. But it's not a good move for their partners.
They are trying to leverage their IP to get more people to buy or subscribe to their products. There's nothing wrong with that; it actually helps developers.
The idea is that if you make it easy for developers to do good stuff on your platform, they are more likely to do good stuff on your platform. Then end-users who want the good stuff will buy the good stuff from the developer and the platform from you.
It is a war crime and hence a crime against humanity. The customary punishment for those is a noose or a firing squad.
Actually, the customary punishment for most human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, is none. Nuremberg was a first, and only the defeated powers were prosecuted. (In a perfectly neutral world, allies would have been prosecuted for things like the fire-bombing of Dresden and the nuking of Nagasaki, and possibly the nuking of Hiroshima.)
Nuremberg was a first, the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were much more recent and were beginning some international movement toward accountability for war crimes, and the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court also took us closer, but we are *nowhere* near a place where there is a "customary punishment" for crimes against humanity.
http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison See the US Military budget is bigger than China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and India combined, you see the glaring omission don't you, where the HELL IS NEW ZEALAND mentioned, Bloody hell we have seen Lord of the Rings, we KNOW how many Orcs there are.
Yes, but the US also does more with its military than those countries combined. It is also facing different cost balloon problems than some of them--e.g. China and Russia--and has a larger portion of its budget that is declassified. China with 1/3rd of the US Military budget has a good chance of approaching par with the US Military in the next two decades, if they run an efficient program.
Yes; I was saying the problems inherent with the zeroeth law arise in one of the best scenarios we could have, and it is fraught with problems. That does not mean that that is the scenario we will have; it is more likely we will not, or will have some AI that develops that way but more that does not.
Do you live here? Have you? Or are you just voicing your prejudiced notions? When I hear this kind of statement, I'm always very curious to hear where the person making it lives...
I'm sure ArmoredDragon (3450605) is secretly Sandra Bullock from Crash.
Even in the best scenario, the zeroeth law of robotics applies. Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, for example, both recognized how humans as a whole make terrible decisions for themselves and their society. A benevolent AI could take us a long way toward being a better world and still take away a lot of our freedom.
I had Comcast for residential service for two years not long ago (2010-2012), and they gave me no problem with using my own modem. (They did try to charge me for not returning it when I disconnected service, but corrected their error without a hassle.)
They also still list acceptable personal modems on their website:
In the US, the powerful can be the most evil scum and commit the most heinous crimes against humanity and will have nothing to fear from "the law" at all.
To be clear, torture is a human rights violation against customary international law and treaty; it is not a crime against humanity unless it is part of widespread or systemic practice.
It is, however, widely practiced as a practical matter. Sometimes even by heads of state. This guy has personally tortured people, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law that allows the copyright holder to prevent you from, for example, buying an art book with a bunch of nice pictures in it, cutting out and framing all the pictures, and reselling the framed pictures.
I doubt that very much. Show me a case which broadly prohibits that - not some narrower interpretation tenuously connected. I don't care if the book publisher gets in trouble if I cut up the book, I signed no such agreement when I bought it off the discount rack at B&N.
No, you probably didn't, but it's a copyright law, not a contract. You are obligated to obey the law even if you didn't agree to it.
As to show you a case, the Ninth Circuit has held for Parent in a related fact-pattern, while the seventh circuit has sided more with you, so it depends where in the United States you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
In addition, the parent was talking about moral rights, which are more of a European thing. So you'd have to check their law.
consider that for a moment...only 90 years ago, the son of perhaps the most powerful and well connected man on the earth died from a blister. playing tennis.
No -- consider for a moment that we could be there again 90 years from now. Science fiction looks toward the future, and the current trend is that antibiotics are becoming useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Finally, did they get rid of blackberries because it was racist?
And isn't it racist to get rid of the blackberries?
All of these are things a kid should come across while growing up in a few parts of the world.
Acorn is an especially disappointing word to lose--suddenly all these things falling from the sky don't have a word. We just live in a world where things fall from the sky and are undefined.
Minnows are a bit strange to lose because it's a basic fish, for a pet or for feeding to pets or for following. But I suppose you could always learn the word when you got the pet.
Finally, did they get rid of blackberries because it was racist?
If it's found that Twitter handed the account's credentials to IS... they are gonna look pretty bad.
A major command from the US Department of Defense has a fucking Twitter account. I really don't think it could look any worse.
Yup, right about now CENTCOM brass is trying to figure why they signed up for that Twitter shit in the first place.
There are lots of legitimate reasons why they could do it. Ultimately I'm sure it was a small part of a larger strategy to do something community-relations related on page 25 of a powerpoint presentation.
Many schools have a system where students submit papers through an online submission system that checks their papers against other papers in a database for plagiarism. Personally I find it incredibly offensive and fought successfully against such a system when I was in undergrad, because it assumes that a student is guilty then runs a check to make sure he isn't.
But regardless of the ethics or morality of the process, it *relies* on the vendor profiting from each submitted paper, in that each submitted paper grows its database of papers. The database is then cross-referenced against new submitted papers to look for plagiarism.
So if companies are prohibited from profiting from the information, it may be tricky to have this business model survive.
Only in America would someone claim, with a perfectly straight face that attending a 4-6 year university is "elite". Are you really that brainwashed?
You don't understand the context. I am not saying that every 4-year university ("college" over here) is elite, but rather that by focusing on 2-year colleges, this bill does not subsidize the elite schools, which are generally liberal (left). As a result, it may have a slightly better chance of gaining conservative (right) support if the narrative around it is drawn in a certain way.
One of the things that some people on the American right dislike is the ideas of the people on the American left who come out of the country's elite colleges, and the feeling is somewhat mutual.
You don't need to worry. This proposal has ZERO chance of becoming law. There is no way that a Republican congress is going to run up the debt to fund Obama's pet project. The only reason that Obama is even proposing it is so the Republicans can reject it, and then the Dems can use it against them in 2016.
I don't know--it's community colleges, which should be relatively appealing to Republicans who like supporting hard workers. Republicans hate social welfare programs, but really like the *image* of the hardworking American. By sticking with community colleges rather than going for the elite schools, this may actually have some chance of getting Republican support.
Not sure where you were going with that, but the bridge to nowhere was sponsored by Republicans.
In this case, it doesn't matter if they're Republicans or Democrats. AT&T is a major purchaser of votes in Congress. This has no chance of passing. The people sponsoring it know that and are still doing it so they can campaign on it.
In other words, it's a dog-and-pony show.
It is beneath the dignity of the slashdot front page.
No, really.
It's unbelievable that a data centre can't cope with an extra degree or two. What sort of idiot designs these places? Haven't they heard of tolerances?
They had air conditioners fail. They probably needed more redundancy, but they shut down some systems as a precaution when the AC failed.
As for the hypothetical McDonald's case - they can most certainly call the cops on you and have the cops escort you away from the premises if you're actually stopping them from entering the store, and not just trying to persuade them not to. This also applies in the U.S. You can picket - but you can't block the entry. UK law is a bit more strict and you can probably easily slip into the "disturbing the peace" clause. It is the UK after all.
Actually, you can't picket unless the state lets you, even in the United States. Governments including state governments are allowed to impose "content-neutral time, place, or manner restrictions" on free speech provided that there are sufficient "alternative channels of communication" and the regulation served a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. Hence the state can restrict speech severely with relatively little pretext, even in the abortion context. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
In most states it is also a crime to fail to obey a lawful police order, which is the favored charge for arresting protestors or pretty much anybody a cop doesn't like.
I don't know if the carriers are implementing anything, which is really where this would have to happen.
Mmmm... just spitballing, there are two things that come to mind: (1) create a more asymmetric internet or (2) significantly reduce anonymity.
If you route machines with major penalties for any connections outside of machines they have connected to in the past week or month, for example, or if you require ISP-level configuration for peer-to-peer (at least logging into your ISP's web site to enable it), you could begin to reduce the usefulness of DDoS. On the anonymity side, you can strongly prefer authenticated and digitally signed connections, until at some point you perhaps only allow them.
It would add significant overhead, but if every packet, or at least connection, were signed by every piece of hardware it goes through, you could send (and sign) "compromised upstream" messages. When a large enough portion of traffic from any route becomes "compromised upstream," you bandwidth-limit (or even cut off) the route, with some intelligent rules for preferred traffic from that connection. (E.g. signed by a regular customer of the destination site.) End-users get messages once a day if they are generating compromised upstream errors.
The problem is it adds a *lot* of overhead.
You could also use the same system to *stop* junk phone calls.
I was suspicious of the U.S. allegations that the North Korean government was behind it when the North Koreans denied it was them. If you're going to hack somebody to make a political statement, it makes no sense to later deny that you were involved. Someone might be trying to make it look like North Korea, but I seriously doubt they were directly involved in this.
Wrong--Even implausible denials can be very useful in international relations. They give sympathetic expatriates and foreigners something to support and are also useful legally. The obvious example is Putin's recent doublespeak over invading Ukraine. It is only a paper shield but it helps confuse the issues slightly, delaying and discouraging organized response of any kind.
As another example, since the UN Charter as passed, open wars of aggression have been outlawed. As a result, there have been a whole lotta agressive "self-defense."
As another example, Israel-Palestine. Regardless of which side you're on, you'll see the other side doing what you think is lying about something or the other.
Ah, so he's an idiot.
Nah, he has just decided to fight for the environment... by printing lots and lots of plastic.
A real head-scratching conundrum about the universe is explaining why it's not already overrun with self-replicating robots. Because if it's possible to send self-replicating interstellar probes, all it takes is one launch, plus a few million years, to get the galaxy overrun with them. So are they not possible? nobody's launched one yet? here, but not detected? The implications boggle the mind.
It may just take them a *long* time to reach every planet. They also may, for example, have a strategy of not visiting every planet as often as possible so as to conserve fuel. They may only visit a planet when it develops detectable signs of life, knowing they command sufficient resources to utterly destroy the existing life at that point regardless of the technological sophistication of the planet. Kind of like if the rest of the world were to decide to declare war on Molokini.
Historically, being embraced by Microsoft has often been deadly...
True in the 80s and early 90s, but today Microsoft is pretty responsive to their partners and that role has more been taken on by Amazon. I hear Amazon basically data mines business partners who sell on their site to undercut prices on everything except for certain narrowly agreed products.
It's a good business model for Amazon's move to gather more market power, which will give them a near-monopoly in the end. They're definitely playing the long game. But it's not a good move for their partners.
They are trying to leverage their IP to get more people to buy or subscribe to their products. There's nothing wrong with that; it actually helps developers.
The idea is that if you make it easy for developers to do good stuff on your platform, they are more likely to do good stuff on your platform. Then end-users who want the good stuff will buy the good stuff from the developer and the platform from you.
This is a federal judge, not a federal appellate panel. The company will pay to have amazing representation on appeal and is much more likely to win.
It is a war crime and hence a crime against humanity. The customary punishment for those is a noose or a firing squad.
Actually, the customary punishment for most human rights violations, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, is none. Nuremberg was a first, and only the defeated powers were prosecuted. (In a perfectly neutral world, allies would have been prosecuted for things like the fire-bombing of Dresden and the nuking of Nagasaki, and possibly the nuking of Hiroshima.)
Nuremberg was a first, the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda were much more recent and were beginning some international movement toward accountability for war crimes, and the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court also took us closer, but we are *nowhere* near a place where there is a "customary punishment" for crimes against humanity.
http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0053_defense-comparison
See the US Military budget is bigger than
China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan and India combined, you see the glaring omission don't you, where the HELL IS NEW ZEALAND mentioned, Bloody hell we have seen Lord of the Rings, we KNOW how many Orcs there are.
Yes, but the US also does more with its military than those countries combined. It is also facing different cost balloon problems than some of them--e.g. China and Russia--and has a larger portion of its budget that is declassified. China with 1/3rd of the US Military budget has a good chance of approaching par with the US Military in the next two decades, if they run an efficient program.
Yes; I was saying the problems inherent with the zeroeth law arise in one of the best scenarios we could have, and it is fraught with problems. That does not mean that that is the scenario we will have; it is more likely we will not, or will have some AI that develops that way but more that does not.
Do you live here? Have you? Or are you just voicing your prejudiced notions? When I hear this kind of statement, I'm always very curious to hear where the person making it lives...
I'm sure ArmoredDragon (3450605) is secretly Sandra Bullock from Crash.
Even in the best scenario, the zeroeth law of robotics applies. Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke, for example, both recognized how humans as a whole make terrible decisions for themselves and their society. A benevolent AI could take us a long way toward being a better world and still take away a lot of our freedom.
I had Comcast for residential service for two years not long ago (2010-2012), and they gave me no problem with using my own modem. (They did try to charge me for not returning it when I disconnected service, but corrected their error without a hassle.)
They also still list acceptable personal modems on their website:
http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.ne...
In the US, the powerful can be the most evil scum and commit the most heinous crimes against humanity and will have nothing to fear from "the law" at all.
To be clear, torture is a human rights violation against customary international law and treaty; it is not a crime against humanity unless it is part of widespread or systemic practice.
It is, however, widely practiced as a practical matter. Sometimes even by heads of state. This guy has personally tortured people, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law that allows the copyright holder to prevent you from, for example, buying an art book with a bunch of nice pictures in it, cutting out and framing all the pictures, and reselling the framed pictures.
I doubt that very much. Show me a case which broadly prohibits that - not some narrower interpretation tenuously connected. I don't care if the book publisher gets in trouble if I cut up the book, I signed no such agreement when I bought it off the discount rack at B&N.
No, you probably didn't, but it's a copyright law, not a contract. You are obligated to obey the law even if you didn't agree to it.
As to show you a case, the Ninth Circuit has held for Parent in a related fact-pattern, while the seventh circuit has sided more with you, so it depends where in the United States you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
In addition, the parent was talking about moral rights, which are more of a European thing. So you'd have to check their law.
consider that for a moment...only 90 years ago, the son of perhaps the most powerful and well connected man on the earth died from a blister. playing tennis.
No -- consider for a moment that we could be there again 90 years from now. Science fiction looks toward the future, and the current trend is that antibiotics are becoming useless.