Our "practices" were meant to stop proliferation of Communism â" the most murderous (and, incidentally, homophobic) school of thought known to man...
Which is why wherever CIA went, it left unicorns shitting rainbows behind, and the locals came greet them with flowers. Just like they did the Red Army. It's funny, really; if you didn't listen to the rethoric, and judged only by actions, you'd almost think the underlaying ideology of the two empires was the same.
The idea that not giving someone your money is equivalent to silencing their right to free speech strikes me as an incredible sense of entitlement.
We aren't talking about people stopping giving Eich money. We're talking about people lobbying to get a third-party entity - Mozilla - to stop giving Eich money in the context of an employement relationship. In a society build around such relationships, where not being able to participate in them means eventual destitution, this is for all intents and purposes equivalent to holding a gun on his head. And if you tolerate this, how do you know you won't be next?
Thereâ(TM)s nothing about the right to free speech that entitles you to say anything you want without consequences of having said it.
There's never been a country on this world where you couldn't speak your mind. The only thing separating Stalinist Russia from any other place is what consequences doing so likely had. So if you claim that consequences don't matter, it follows that free speech is not a right so much as an unavoidable law of nature.
Freedom of speech means the government canâ(TM)t silence you, but that protection begins and ends with the *government*.
Power doesn't being or end with the government. Neither do rights - for example, your right to not be wrongfully imprisoned is enforced against all entities, at least in theory. So why would freedom of speech be an exception afforded only weak protection?
How any individual chooses to interact with you as a result of *your* free speech is as much a matter of *their* free speech as you being free to say it in the first place.
Again, this isn't about whether individuals interact with Eich, this is about individuals trying to force third parties to not interact with Eich.
Do you really want a world where your ability to hold a job depends on whether you conform to public opinion?
I wonder what would happen if the experiment got repeated with, say, schizoids, or other population groups distinctly different in interpersonal interaction patterns.
The same thing. Not necessarily in the same way, or even in the same situation, but in some situations and in some pathological ways. The problem isn't that people are irrational or evil, the problem is that people have limited processing capabilities, so the more objects - such as other people - they need to keep track of, the simpler the mental models need to be. In large groups and with people you don't know well or at all they become 0-dimensional stereotypes.
And what's worse, you can't always carefully consider every option at your disposal, so people use a model of themselves to pick their actions; if they're in a new role, that model can easily become dominated by these stereotypes. That's what happened in Stanford prison experiment, and for that matter in Nazi Germany (and Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, the Confederacy, too many corporate boardrooms to count, etc): the environment creates a role, people put on that role and follow it's behavioral patterns, ignoring or actively suppressing their own identity, and that helps perpetrate the role to the next generation.
Of course all this also points a way out of the trap: just create an environment that communicates positive (for whatever value of "positive") models to download.
But then again, my hope for more "self-policing" society relies on the notion of humanity getting replaced by more rational sentient beings such as possible future machines.
Rationality does not imply that everyone agrees on things like priorities.
If there was a way to guarantee this sort of "instant karma" justice then crime rates _would_ drop through the floor, trust me.
Death for petty theft is neither karma nor justice. It's just you demonstrating exactly why we need chaos, for example in the form of the ability to sometimes get away with crimes: humanity can not be trusted with perfect control.
The insert gives you a great fit, while using more traditional methods for creating the actual shoe results in a better constructed, longer-lasting product, for less.
Does it? Years ago that might have been the case. But nowadays the modus operandi of industry - not just shoe industry, but all industry - is to make cheap crap that won't last then charge slightly lower price for it and pocket the difference. Why wouldn't cutting out the middleman and printing your own cheap crap be cheaper for you?
That is the way the system is supposed to work. If they have probable cause, then there is no reason that I can see for the warrant to specifically tie the search to a geographical location, or to require separate warrants for each machine.
Really? You know no reason why a warrant meant to search Joe BadGuy's server, likely hosted in a datacenter somewhere, shouldn't be a blanket check to search through every machine in every datacenter in the US? Because that's what not being tied to a particular machine or location means, or at least it's close enough that the DOJ will use it to justify doing just that.
Car analogy: Should a search warrant for a vehicle specify that it can only be searched at the suspect's home, but not at his place of work? Should separate warrants be required for the glove compartment and trunk?
No, but it shouldn't be a blanket check to set up a checkpoint anywhere the police wants and search everyone who passes through.
No it isn't. It's leading. Like asking 'have you top beating your wife?"
That's not a leading question. That's a trick question. A leading question is one where the questioner is suggesting the desired answer ("Were you at KC's bar on the night of July 15?").
Also, it is a fair question. Whether McAfee is guilty or not, he is a fugitive from law. There's no reason to assume there's bad faith on the part of Belize officials, as McAfee has claimed - they can't all have installed McAfee, so would they care about him one way or another - so why wouldn't we go with the simplest explanation: the guy killed his neighbour and ran?
The main question is if the total accident rate has increased since cell phones became ubiquitous.
Unfortunately we'd still need to control for other variables, such as various driver-aiding subsystems. The sad fact of the matter is that the chaotic nature of reality makes establishing almost any relationship beyond "tied to" impossible.
That's right, some issues are more equal than others.
Neo-Nazis are equal to everyone else. But an organization that appoints one as its leader is still implying a lot of unpleasant things about itself, and shouldn't except them to go unchallenged by the members.
or maybe those people need to grow spines and realize that work is not the same thing as a party, where they get to choose who they associate with.
And maybe that says a lot about how (in)compatible the concept of employment in its current form - obey your master or starve - is with the concept of free society. "Know your place, shut your face" exposes the corporate structure as what it really is: a vestige of the age of dictators owning their dominion and ruling it by divine right. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt in the form of modern democracy, both for moral reasons and because its inherent inefficiency, irrationality and instability are the ultimate reason for our current economic troubles.
Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago. Even in corporate world it's those who don't think in terms of underlings and bosses but partners who receive the fullest share of people's abilities. Sadly, the sheer amount of people with a pathological fixation on wielding power over others to back their "alpha (fe)male" status keeps the market from competing them out of business, so it'll take a legal reform to fix the problem.
But fix it we must. As the world moves from Industrial Age to Information Age, an economy that treats people as a machines who's qualities superfluous to their current task must be suppressed or at least hidden is going to be hopelessly outmatched by any who don't. And an organization that doesn't listen to its rank and file when choosing its leader doesn't deserve to - and in the economy to come, won't for long - exist.
Anyone using this probably is going to type an angry reply on their DVORAK keyboard from a location directly in the center of their own little fake reality.
But unlike DVORAK, there's not even a theoretical basis here: the whole point of Information Age is that computers do data conversions of arbitrary complexity, so why would everyone need to be on the same calendar? You write the timestamp on whatever format you prefer and I read it on whatever I prefer.
Besides, the whole need to keep everyone on the same schedule was an artifact of Industrial Age, where it took a lot of coordinated labour to run a factory. As Information Age finishes automating those and the shift towards desktop manufacture accelerates, why would my sleep-wake cycle need to be linked to yours? I wrote this message on my convenience, you read it on yours.
With any luck, the whole concept of employment - in the form of current coercion-based power structures, at least - will die out, and future belongs to truly voluntary cooperation - and that means sleeping when you're tired, not when a clock says you should.
I'm not interested in the ledger because it simply records who owns what. I'm more interested in how the "what" (bitcoin in this case) came into existence.
A Bitcoin is a unit of measurement of the magnitude of an account balance (to be exact, transaction inputs and outputs) in the Bitcoin network (distributed ledger system), not a discrete object. It has no identity. Saying "I have 4 Bitcoins" is the same type of statement as saying "my speed is 65 mph".
As for how they come into existence, in the current bootstrapping phase of Bitcoin network it lets you increase the balance on one account more than another is decreased in certain situations (mining), thus increasing the total combined magnitude of all accounts. Calling this "creating" Bitcoins is misleading, but a convenient shorthand for those already familiar with the underlaying technology.
Devices with very small screens operated by touch work abysmally with 'traditional desktop environments'.
Touchscreens work abysmally with any imaginable operating system, since they're the single-button Mac mouse all over again. Except this time the keyboard is an on-screen only version, too.
The people who are pushing BTC are using economic models and thinking that were dropped decades ago.
Were they thrown out because they were proven incorrect or because economists, working for the banks and other large financial institutions, did their master's bidding? Because I can't help but notice that current economics neither prevented nor seem to be facilitating recovery from Great Depression 2.0. They have, however, done a fine job of justifying letting the infrastructure crumble to dust from lack of maintenance.
Mathematical modeling isn't speculation; it's not a guarantee, but it's a lot more than an unfounded guess, which is what the contrary position is.
A mathematical model is just an assertion about relationships of things. It may be well-founded or a completely random guess. Drawing conclusions about the correctness of an assertion just because someone bothered to write it out as a formula makes as little sense as drawing conclusions about the correctness of an assertion just because someone wrote it in english.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Economics is a science, it's not astrology.
Most of the time, economics is a marketing campaign, trying to sell a particular product (like a mortgage) or a worldview (like laissez-faire capitalism or tax cuts for the rich). Economists are as much scientists as used car salesmen are, and far less trustworthy.
Most electric carts I've used have only one pedal. When you push it, the cart moves forward. When you let go, it brakes. It makes sense to design it this way when you have regenerative braking so both acceleration and deceleration are handled by the same mechanism.
No, it doesn't make sense to design it that way because now the damn thing is constantly changing its speed, and thus wasting energy and generally disturbing traffick (not to mention your neck). Also, since there's no simple way to freewheel, it's now almost impossible to recover from loss of traction. Finally, since there's no physical connection between the brake pedal and the brake, just a computer-mediated one, a Blue Screen of Death will take a whole new meaning.
Given the picture, it should be impossible to accidentally press the gas more than the brake, so the brakes should outpower the engine with ease. So regardless of the mental abilities of the article writer, this sounds like a genuine design issue.
Living next to Russia is like being locked in a cage with a bear possessed by Satan. It demands your life (war) or your soul (puppet government). You can't sell your soul, because then you're a slave to the fine upstanding leaders Russia tends to produce, but you also can't just refuse, because then you're bear food. Your only hope is to let the monster think you'll cave in any second now, so it better focus it's attention elsewhere rather than waste it on an already-secured catch. Or you could join the hunting club (Nato) for mutual protection, but that might provoke the bear into attacking, and if it does, you're mauled, whether or not the other hunters would really risk a Doom II -scenario to avenge you.
The countries unlucky enough to be caught in this real-life horror movie have to walk a balancing act on a razor's edge to survive. It's entirely possible the former Ukraine president was told the country would be attacked if it continued flirting with the EU. Or it could be that he realized Russia was preparing to annex Crimea and did a last desperate attempt to grovel. Either way, he failed, and now it's a question of whether the rest of Ukraine will be attacked right away, or allowed another chance to agree to a deal it can't refuse.
Food, like anything, requires energy to grow and warmer means more available energy for the system as a whole to make use of.
Protip: if you argument leads you to effectively claim something is a type 2 perpetual motion machine, your argument is wrong.
In any case, at this point everyone who can be persuaded by facts or logic have been, and that's nowhere near enough to stop or even significantly slow climate change. Nor does it seem likely that we can significantly mitigate the damage due to general inability to plan beyond the next financial quarter or election, or in many cases to even acknowledge that any kind of coordination might be a good thing. So whatever the consequences are, we'll be facing them soon enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why wherever CIA went, it left unicorns shitting rainbows behind, and the locals came greet them with flowers. Just like they did the Red Army. It's funny, really; if you didn't listen to the rethoric, and judged only by actions, you'd almost think the underlaying ideology of the two empires was the same.
We aren't talking about people stopping giving Eich money. We're talking about people lobbying to get a third-party entity - Mozilla - to stop giving Eich money in the context of an employement relationship. In a society build around such relationships, where not being able to participate in them means eventual destitution, this is for all intents and purposes equivalent to holding a gun on his head. And if you tolerate this, how do you know you won't be next?
There's never been a country on this world where you couldn't speak your mind. The only thing separating Stalinist Russia from any other place is what consequences doing so likely had. So if you claim that consequences don't matter, it follows that free speech is not a right so much as an unavoidable law of nature.
Power doesn't being or end with the government. Neither do rights - for example, your right to not be wrongfully imprisoned is enforced against all entities, at least in theory. So why would freedom of speech be an exception afforded only weak protection?
Again, this isn't about whether individuals interact with Eich, this is about individuals trying to force third parties to not interact with Eich.
Do you really want a world where your ability to hold a job depends on whether you conform to public opinion?
Except the one with the bright pink background. There's just no excuse for that.
Maybe, hence the conditional. However, based on Bitcoin's history and prospects, I'd say we're in the despair phase.
I would. There's too much demand for sending cash over the Internet, which is what Bitcoin ultimately amounts to.
So basically, if you're willing to risk it, now is the time to get in.
Acknowledge it as a threat by said superpowers. It could hardly get better advertising.
The same thing. Not necessarily in the same way, or even in the same situation, but in some situations and in some pathological ways. The problem isn't that people are irrational or evil, the problem is that people have limited processing capabilities, so the more objects - such as other people - they need to keep track of, the simpler the mental models need to be. In large groups and with people you don't know well or at all they become 0-dimensional stereotypes.
And what's worse, you can't always carefully consider every option at your disposal, so people use a model of themselves to pick their actions; if they're in a new role, that model can easily become dominated by these stereotypes. That's what happened in Stanford prison experiment, and for that matter in Nazi Germany (and Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, the Confederacy, too many corporate boardrooms to count, etc): the environment creates a role, people put on that role and follow it's behavioral patterns, ignoring or actively suppressing their own identity, and that helps perpetrate the role to the next generation.
Of course all this also points a way out of the trap: just create an environment that communicates positive (for whatever value of "positive") models to download.
Rationality does not imply that everyone agrees on things like priorities.
Death for petty theft is neither karma nor justice. It's just you demonstrating exactly why we need chaos, for example in the form of the ability to sometimes get away with crimes: humanity can not be trusted with perfect control.
Does it? Years ago that might have been the case. But nowadays the modus operandi of industry - not just shoe industry, but all industry - is to make cheap crap that won't last then charge slightly lower price for it and pocket the difference. Why wouldn't cutting out the middleman and printing your own cheap crap be cheaper for you?
Really? You know no reason why a warrant meant to search Joe BadGuy's server, likely hosted in a datacenter somewhere, shouldn't be a blanket check to search through every machine in every datacenter in the US? Because that's what not being tied to a particular machine or location means, or at least it's close enough that the DOJ will use it to justify doing just that.
No, but it shouldn't be a blanket check to set up a checkpoint anywhere the police wants and search everyone who passes through.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication
That's not a leading question. That's a trick question. A leading question is one where the questioner is suggesting the desired answer ("Were you at KC's bar on the night of July 15?").
Also, it is a fair question. Whether McAfee is guilty or not, he is a fugitive from law. There's no reason to assume there's bad faith on the part of Belize officials, as McAfee has claimed - they can't all have installed McAfee, so would they care about him one way or another - so why wouldn't we go with the simplest explanation: the guy killed his neighbour and ran?
Unfortunately we'd still need to control for other variables, such as various driver-aiding subsystems. The sad fact of the matter is that the chaotic nature of reality makes establishing almost any relationship beyond "tied to" impossible.
Neo-Nazis are equal to everyone else. But an organization that appoints one as its leader is still implying a lot of unpleasant things about itself, and shouldn't except them to go unchallenged by the members.
And maybe that says a lot about how (in)compatible the concept of employment in its current form - obey your master or starve - is with the concept of free society. "Know your place, shut your face" exposes the corporate structure as what it really is: a vestige of the age of dictators owning their dominion and ruling it by divine right. It needs to be torn down and rebuilt in the form of modern democracy, both for moral reasons and because its inherent inefficiency, irrationality and instability are the ultimate reason for our current economic troubles.
Hierarchical model of masters and servants has been discredited long ago. Even in corporate world it's those who don't think in terms of underlings and bosses but partners who receive the fullest share of people's abilities. Sadly, the sheer amount of people with a pathological fixation on wielding power over others to back their "alpha (fe)male" status keeps the market from competing them out of business, so it'll take a legal reform to fix the problem.
But fix it we must. As the world moves from Industrial Age to Information Age, an economy that treats people as a machines who's qualities superfluous to their current task must be suppressed or at least hidden is going to be hopelessly outmatched by any who don't. And an organization that doesn't listen to its rank and file when choosing its leader doesn't deserve to - and in the economy to come, won't for long - exist.
But unlike DVORAK, there's not even a theoretical basis here: the whole point of Information Age is that computers do data conversions of arbitrary complexity, so why would everyone need to be on the same calendar? You write the timestamp on whatever format you prefer and I read it on whatever I prefer.
Besides, the whole need to keep everyone on the same schedule was an artifact of Industrial Age, where it took a lot of coordinated labour to run a factory. As Information Age finishes automating those and the shift towards desktop manufacture accelerates, why would my sleep-wake cycle need to be linked to yours? I wrote this message on my convenience, you read it on yours.
With any luck, the whole concept of employment - in the form of current coercion-based power structures, at least - will die out, and future belongs to truly voluntary cooperation - and that means sleeping when you're tired, not when a clock says you should.
Of course, a kind of person who puts $5 million into Bitcoin mining equipment might consider risk to be a good thing.
A Bitcoin is a unit of measurement of the magnitude of an account balance (to be exact, transaction inputs and outputs) in the Bitcoin network (distributed ledger system), not a discrete object. It has no identity. Saying "I have 4 Bitcoins" is the same type of statement as saying "my speed is 65 mph".
As for how they come into existence, in the current bootstrapping phase of Bitcoin network it lets you increase the balance on one account more than another is decreased in certain situations (mining), thus increasing the total combined magnitude of all accounts. Calling this "creating" Bitcoins is misleading, but a convenient shorthand for those already familiar with the underlaying technology.
Touchscreens work abysmally with any imaginable operating system, since they're the single-button Mac mouse all over again. Except this time the keyboard is an on-screen only version, too.
Aaaaand we have the real reason for the ban.
Were they thrown out because they were proven incorrect or because economists, working for the banks and other large financial institutions, did their master's bidding? Because I can't help but notice that current economics neither prevented nor seem to be facilitating recovery from Great Depression 2.0. They have, however, done a fine job of justifying letting the infrastructure crumble to dust from lack of maintenance.
A mathematical model is just an assertion about relationships of things. It may be well-founded or a completely random guess. Drawing conclusions about the correctness of an assertion just because someone bothered to write it out as a formula makes as little sense as drawing conclusions about the correctness of an assertion just because someone wrote it in english.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Most of the time, economics is a marketing campaign, trying to sell a particular product (like a mortgage) or a worldview (like laissez-faire capitalism or tax cuts for the rich). Economists are as much scientists as used car salesmen are, and far less trustworthy.
No, it doesn't make sense to design it that way because now the damn thing is constantly changing its speed, and thus wasting energy and generally disturbing traffick (not to mention your neck). Also, since there's no simple way to freewheel, it's now almost impossible to recover from loss of traction. Finally, since there's no physical connection between the brake pedal and the brake, just a computer-mediated one, a Blue Screen of Death will take a whole new meaning.
Seriously, that is a horrible idea. Don't do it.
Given the picture, it should be impossible to accidentally press the gas more than the brake, so the brakes should outpower the engine with ease. So regardless of the mental abilities of the article writer, this sounds like a genuine design issue.
Perhaps he was.
Living next to Russia is like being locked in a cage with a bear possessed by Satan. It demands your life (war) or your soul (puppet government). You can't sell your soul, because then you're a slave to the fine upstanding leaders Russia tends to produce, but you also can't just refuse, because then you're bear food. Your only hope is to let the monster think you'll cave in any second now, so it better focus it's attention elsewhere rather than waste it on an already-secured catch. Or you could join the hunting club (Nato) for mutual protection, but that might provoke the bear into attacking, and if it does, you're mauled, whether or not the other hunters would really risk a Doom II -scenario to avenge you.
The countries unlucky enough to be caught in this real-life horror movie have to walk a balancing act on a razor's edge to survive. It's entirely possible the former Ukraine president was told the country would be attacked if it continued flirting with the EU. Or it could be that he realized Russia was preparing to annex Crimea and did a last desperate attempt to grovel. Either way, he failed, and now it's a question of whether the rest of Ukraine will be attacked right away, or allowed another chance to agree to a deal it can't refuse.
tl;dr: http://satwcomic.com/the-boogeyman-comes-at-night
Protip: if you argument leads you to effectively claim something is a type 2 perpetual motion machine, your argument is wrong.
In any case, at this point everyone who can be persuaded by facts or logic have been, and that's nowhere near enough to stop or even significantly slow climate change. Nor does it seem likely that we can significantly mitigate the damage due to general inability to plan beyond the next financial quarter or election, or in many cases to even acknowledge that any kind of coordination might be a good thing. So whatever the consequences are, we'll be facing them soon enough.