So now we have to be skeptical of everything? We can take nothing at face value, and not trust in anything? I think not. Your bold-faced claim that "photography is not a facsimile of reality" is what's numbed you.
Trust has to do with believing what you see is true. Altered images where the image has no disclaimer or caveat that the image has been altered after the fact (of taking it and developing it, then reproducing it) is a lie that you force me to believe, and I won't do it. Instead, if it's real-- great! If not, it needs a disclaimer indicating that it's altered reality. The '21st Century' has nothing to do with it. There are still facts, there is still the truth, and we need to seek it.
It's a "Me World", isn't it? No, you see, if you don't believe in humanity larger than yourself, then you're doomed and the rest of us suffer your pain and share it. You demean yourself and don't realize it.
If your life is a parser, and you must regale those to idiocy that you cannot understand, then you've failed. Babbling in computereze doesn't prove your point, nor make you any better a human. Go back to class, study hard, and maybe you'll understand one day of what you're allowing yourself to be robbed of in your narcissism.
It doesn't mater whether it's the 20th century or not. Deceit is still deceit. Manipulated images should carry warnings. An extension of that would be to acknowledge or tag movies whose images have been manipulated. We just want to know the truth.
We both agree that online privacy requires diligence. Yet online EULAs, ToS, and other legalese and even weasel wording denies us some of the basic premise of anonymity. Don't get me started on IPV6-- it's the essential end of privacy as it's the useful end of NAT.
You've taken the step of being anonymous, as in AC. You believe that scanbots and so on aren't dangerous to your anonymity, yet scanbots are the leading method of gaining usable email addresses to be used by spammers.
Along the way, the NSA, CIA, and other agencies are looking, too. Add into that, researchers hired by HR departments to both watch prospective new hires for embarrassing facts, but also current employers.
We have public and private lives. We should have protections at least in the private lives, which should be able to transverse public fora. In our public lives, as we walk down the real and virtual streets, we should have protection as well, but such protection has a distinction of which we're all aware but unable to deal with in social contexts because the rules are strange.
In the UK, and other societies where Big Brother watches your seeming every move, we're cowed into behavior that we should have probably had in the first place. Video cameras do solve crimes, and anonymity is based on the hope that someone doesn't see us by a pack of cigs at the local store as we're dressed in our sweats or worse. That pic isn't the one we want a prospective employer to see, or perhaps the grand jury, or perhaps a potential creditor, and so on.
The linking and unabashed commentary dissolves protections for human dignity in ways we hadn't imagined (well, a few good sci fi authors did). The practical reality is that there were several twits that once said you essentially give up your anonymity on the Internet, and because the lie was repeated so many times, people shrugged and actually gave it up. It needn't be so. Instead, we're feeding the business models of Google, Facebook, and many other organizations whose success is very much contingent on tracking --->you--- and what you do, where you go, and what you buy, and how you comment, and the frequency in which you do so.
I tried an experiment by using a new browser (a download of Opera), then went to a lot of gay sites. Think out.com, porn sites, and so on. In just days, google was offering me up gay-specific ads when I went to non-gay-specific sites. They're not stupid. And in letting them do this, you've capitulated to the lie.
Your sense of balance has to begin with respecting those that desire privacy, for whatever their reasons, first. You can be as public or exhibitionistic as you desire. You can bare your entire entity as a forever-living Facebook page. Or not.
Privacy, confidentiality, immunity from innuendo, rumor, and slander, are fundamental rights and they're elements of dignity. I choose not to use social networks, and I'm happier for it. Those that want to know me will find that I'm not a bunch of icons and widgets on a web page. I'm human. We stay in touch without advertising it to the world. I'm amused when I run across a teenage relative that's completely shocked that his/her parents have looked into their MySpace, Facebook, or other social networking pages where they 'bare their souls'. Indeed the opposite is happening.
I don't in fact have to 'adapt'. You've surrendered a battle you didn't realize you were fighting: self-respect and the ability to leave a small footprint upon the culture of your friends through the use of high-currency communications.
I would counter the photography argument for another reason: photoshop. Never before have we altered images and passed them off for what the photographer actually saw; it's deceiptful.
The recent book, _True Enough_ by Manjoo tells an interesting story about our new altered realities. It's not that our soul is stolen, rather it's altered for popular consumption and perhaps misconception via alteration on the way.
We desperately need an amendment to the US Constitution that spells out privacy, and that WE own information about ourselves, and only through specific opt-in, do we relinquish that right. The SCOTUS long ago made a distinction between public and not public figures in the quest to discern whom it was ok to slander and libel. Now, we can lie without impunity about 'public' figures and it's time that the lies stopped. The same theory goes about the privacy of people. The mindless paparrazzi that follow the supposedly famous violate (no-terrorize!) their subjects. Princess Diana died this way, and others are assaulted on a daily basis. While some might argue at-what-price-fame, there is a point where we're human and need privacy and must respect it. Today, it seems that all is fair game, right down to personal marketing based on your google searches. It's onerous, yet we let this happen to us as a price paid for convenience.
You need to understand respect for those that desire privacy. Just because you're an exhibitionist doesn't mean that we are. We can be private in our thoughts, deeds, and actions. Anonymity also insulates you against the whims of government, and organizations that don't have your best interests in mind.
I don't care if anyone knows about me or not; those that do are certainly in touch, and not under the auspices of soul-rendering EULAs from Facebook, MySpace, Plaxo, LinkedIn, or any other 'social site'.
Your broadly cast seeming truisms are indeed false, and suit you, and you and others that agree with it. There are many of us that don't. Privacy is part of liberty, and liberty an essential part of freedom. I give up neither just so that others can use a seeming social network to keep in touch with me. There's email, snail mail, and simple phone calls. Oh yeah-- the best one-- face to face visits.
A hot fab is useless unless you can get product to market, and sell into the markets you need to achieve sales goals. AMD hasn't done this.
While they have very good engineers, they're weak in so many places. An infusion of foreign capital makes no sense if you can't get the basics right.
Yes, Intel, IMHO, used illegal tactics to kill AMD at many turns. AMD needs to recruit the best and brightest and get a regime change in motion to diffuse their preyed-upon attitude. They could lead again, but not with the current regime.
Chopping the company into bits will be a distraction, not a savior.
"No it didn't. You haven't lost any money until you sell the stock, and only then if you sell it for less than what you paid for it. Bad news does not cause a stock price to stay depressed forever. If it did, the stock market would be at zero."
Uh, no. You don't get to pick when/if people sell. Assets have a value of the current price. If you lie to artificially depress the price then you've robbed people of the value between what the asset was, and what it then becomes after the lie is told, and the news directly has an effect on the stock price. Bad news can kill companies even if the information is real, and in this case, it was a fabrication.
Your opinion of risk on short term news is valid for short term traders, but many people are not. Both are affected by the lie.
Profiting on the bad news via short-selling and other methods that produce revenue from bad news is a way to make money. If the news were lies, then it's fraudulent, and robbery.
Short sales are a good thing and keep the market honest by warning CEOs that individuals are prepared to see a stock price decline because of mismanagement. "Naked shorts" or what are essentially unfunded short sales, are onerous because it's essentially a name-calling contest with the stock price and organization's integrity at stake. Short sales that are funded are a great relief valve for the stock market and in my opinion, the current bans on them are actually driving the price of the stock market today to near record collapse. That's another story.
But the cables or bus bars that connect to your car would create enough EMF to brick your cell phone. Imagine all the coulombs that would have to be dumped from some huge reservior/capacitor into your vehicle to propel that vehicle say, 60 miles. In a second? I don't think so.
The other are acknowledged fanbois (Apple spawns both admirers and detractors with a lot of obfuscation and delusion-- and market share).
There's the burden of responsibility on a 'citizen journalist' site that wouldn't be held in value if say, it was a Britney fan site. Product features and people's imagination are one thing, but declaring that a CEO has had a heart attack after that same CEO's been in the news with pancreatic cancer, is an out and out lie. There's a reason that there are libel and slander laws, and also SEC regulations about statement that affect stock prices. Rumors can build up a stock price, it's true. If you pimp something, you're not slandering it or libeling it should the price of the stock (or reputation) go up. Going the other direction causes loss, however.
>>I don't understand why their is an investigation....
Because a lie caused lots of people to lose money on Apple stock. People can think for themselves, but they do so based on facts, not lies. The SEC should get involved and the person that turned the phrase 'citizen journalism' into an oxymoron can get what they deserved for the consequences of their falsehood. I just with the SEC could punish the roadkill they call golden parachuted, ex-Wall Street CEOs.
Hallo Mr Inventor of the Internet, what've ya got to say?
Well, uh, nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Locks are for your friends, cause your enemies have pick tools. Damn straight I invented the Internet, not that Mr Green, I mean Gore. Etc.
There are seemingly innumerable protocol relationships and patches that have evolved as we get smarter about what breaks and why. It doesn't make me wonder at all.
DOS attacks are usually relational, and mess with the nature of TCP to make machines tie up resources waiting for conversations to ensue. Simple DOS attacks exploited immature stacks and found ways to simply digest available counters in the target so that no other resources were left available in the target. The target therefore exhibits denial of service to subequent legit or not legit requests. SYN_COOKIES were designed to circumvent the prblem by registering then killing non-useful sessions quickly, thus freeing up service ports for subsequent use.
Manipulating the fix takes some talent, but apparently there are new and well-organized methods to do it. That the target then lays in a quivering pool of goo afterward is no surprise as the SYN_COOKIE fix isn't very sophisticated. But we'll fix this one, just like we fixed the others. Fortunately, it appears as though this attack can be characterized, although a pseudo-reflected attack could be more difficult to assuage.
My electricity has gone off eleven times since June 1st. Now I understand that bottled water from Lake Michigan may have PCBs in them. Already, we use filters to get rid of the local crap (heavy metals) in the tap water supply.
While your measures are indeed signs of the third world, we rapidly approach it in many measures of stature. And we continue to slide down the broadband list, among others.
It's more onerous than that. The NTIA, which has been hobbled by the Bush administration, actually is the Commerce Dept wing that's supposed to be doing something, not the FCC.
The NTIA has had more Under Secretaries than (insert bad metaphor here), all of whom have paid lip service while the telcos bring out useless new wireless 'broadband' schemes while converting the US slowly to DSL in the face of cable data competition.
While keeping track of broadband penetration and use might be nice, it's in the wrong department and not charged with doing much with the data. Instead, we can get reports that will motivate Congress to take more telecom lobbying money so that they can continue to make the same decisions that got us to third-world-country status in terms of broadband.
Slashdot Mirror
So now we have to be skeptical of everything? We can take nothing at face value, and not trust in anything? I think not. Your bold-faced claim that "photography is not a facsimile of reality" is what's numbed you.
Trust has to do with believing what you see is true. Altered images where the image has no disclaimer or caveat that the image has been altered after the fact (of taking it and developing it, then reproducing it) is a lie that you force me to believe, and I won't do it. Instead, if it's real-- great! If not, it needs a disclaimer indicating that it's altered reality. The '21st Century' has nothing to do with it. There are still facts, there is still the truth, and we need to seek it.
It's a "Me World", isn't it? No, you see, if you don't believe in humanity larger than yourself, then you're doomed and the rest of us suffer your pain and share it. You demean yourself and don't realize it.
If your life is a parser, and you must regale those to idiocy that you cannot understand, then you've failed. Babbling in computereze doesn't prove your point, nor make you any better a human. Go back to class, study hard, and maybe you'll understand one day of what you're allowing yourself to be robbed of in your narcissism.
If we're combatting spam, we're losing. If you expected the government to be helpful, that, too, was humorous.
I'll agree with the humor. But it's a sad state of affairs when genuinely interesting arguments are reduced to the drivel of a geek-form response.
And I'm therefore amused that anyone gives a second thought to pulling the plug on an artifcial life.
We're the humans, remember?
It doesn't mater whether it's the 20th century or not. Deceit is still deceit. Manipulated images should carry warnings. An extension of that would be to acknowledge or tag movies whose images have been manipulated. We just want to know the truth.
You've noticed this irony, too, eh?
We both agree that online privacy requires diligence. Yet online EULAs, ToS, and other legalese and even weasel wording denies us some of the basic premise of anonymity. Don't get me started on IPV6-- it's the essential end of privacy as it's the useful end of NAT.
You've taken the step of being anonymous, as in AC. You believe that scanbots and so on aren't dangerous to your anonymity, yet scanbots are the leading method of gaining usable email addresses to be used by spammers.
Along the way, the NSA, CIA, and other agencies are looking, too. Add into that, researchers hired by HR departments to both watch prospective new hires for embarrassing facts, but also current employers.
We have public and private lives. We should have protections at least in the private lives, which should be able to transverse public fora. In our public lives, as we walk down the real and virtual streets, we should have protection as well, but such protection has a distinction of which we're all aware but unable to deal with in social contexts because the rules are strange.
In the UK, and other societies where Big Brother watches your seeming every move, we're cowed into behavior that we should have probably had in the first place. Video cameras do solve crimes, and anonymity is based on the hope that someone doesn't see us by a pack of cigs at the local store as we're dressed in our sweats or worse. That pic isn't the one we want a prospective employer to see, or perhaps the grand jury, or perhaps a potential creditor, and so on.
The linking and unabashed commentary dissolves protections for human dignity in ways we hadn't imagined (well, a few good sci fi authors did). The practical reality is that there were several twits that once said you essentially give up your anonymity on the Internet, and because the lie was repeated so many times, people shrugged and actually gave it up. It needn't be so. Instead, we're feeding the business models of Google, Facebook, and many other organizations whose success is very much contingent on tracking --->you--- and what you do, where you go, and what you buy, and how you comment, and the frequency in which you do so.
I tried an experiment by using a new browser (a download of Opera), then went to a lot of gay sites. Think out.com, porn sites, and so on. In just days, google was offering me up gay-specific ads when I went to non-gay-specific sites. They're not stupid. And in letting them do this, you've capitulated to the lie.
Your sense of balance has to begin with respecting those that desire privacy, for whatever their reasons, first. You can be as public or exhibitionistic as you desire. You can bare your entire entity as a forever-living Facebook page. Or not.
Privacy, confidentiality, immunity from innuendo, rumor, and slander, are fundamental rights and they're elements of dignity. I choose not to use social networks, and I'm happier for it. Those that want to know me will find that I'm not a bunch of icons and widgets on a web page. I'm human. We stay in touch without advertising it to the world. I'm amused when I run across a teenage relative that's completely shocked that his/her parents have looked into their MySpace, Facebook, or other social networking pages where they 'bare their souls'. Indeed the opposite is happening.
I don't in fact have to 'adapt'. You've surrendered a battle you didn't realize you were fighting: self-respect and the ability to leave a small footprint upon the culture of your friends through the use of high-currency communications.
I would counter the photography argument for another reason: photoshop. Never before have we altered images and passed them off for what the photographer actually saw; it's deceiptful.
The recent book, _True Enough_ by Manjoo tells an interesting story about our new altered realities. It's not that our soul is stolen, rather it's altered for popular consumption and perhaps misconception via alteration on the way.
We desperately need an amendment to the US Constitution that spells out privacy, and that WE own information about ourselves, and only through specific opt-in, do we relinquish that right. The SCOTUS long ago made a distinction between public and not public figures in the quest to discern whom it was ok to slander and libel. Now, we can lie without impunity about 'public' figures and it's time that the lies stopped. The same theory goes about the privacy of people. The mindless paparrazzi that follow the supposedly famous violate (no-terrorize!) their subjects. Princess Diana died this way, and others are assaulted on a daily basis. While some might argue at-what-price-fame, there is a point where we're human and need privacy and must respect it. Today, it seems that all is fair game, right down to personal marketing based on your google searches. It's onerous, yet we let this happen to us as a price paid for convenience.
You need to understand respect for those that desire privacy. Just because you're an exhibitionist doesn't mean that we are. We can be private in our thoughts, deeds, and actions. Anonymity also insulates you against the whims of government, and organizations that don't have your best interests in mind.
I don't care if anyone knows about me or not; those that do are certainly in touch, and not under the auspices of soul-rendering EULAs from Facebook, MySpace, Plaxo, LinkedIn, or any other 'social site'.
Your broadly cast seeming truisms are indeed false, and suit you, and you and others that agree with it. There are many of us that don't. Privacy is part of liberty, and liberty an essential part of freedom. I give up neither just so that others can use a seeming social network to keep in touch with me. There's email, snail mail, and simple phone calls. Oh yeah-- the best one-- face to face visits.
Amen, brother.
Mod parent up. In fact, crack the site, and push this one to the top.
A hot fab is useless unless you can get product to market, and sell into the markets you need to achieve sales goals. AMD hasn't done this.
While they have very good engineers, they're weak in so many places. An infusion of foreign capital makes no sense if you can't get the basics right.
Yes, Intel, IMHO, used illegal tactics to kill AMD at many turns. AMD needs to recruit the best and brightest and get a regime change in motion to diffuse their preyed-upon attitude. They could lead again, but not with the current regime.
Chopping the company into bits will be a distraction, not a savior.
Some logic problems here.
"No it didn't. You haven't lost any money until you sell the stock, and only then if you sell it for less than what you paid for it. Bad news does not cause a stock price to stay depressed forever. If it did, the stock market would be at zero."
Uh, no. You don't get to pick when/if people sell. Assets have a value of the current price. If you lie to artificially depress the price then you've robbed people of the value between what the asset was, and what it then becomes after the lie is told, and the news directly has an effect on the stock price. Bad news can kill companies even if the information is real, and in this case, it was a fabrication.
Your opinion of risk on short term news is valid for short term traders, but many people are not. Both are affected by the lie.
Profiting on the bad news via short-selling and other methods that produce revenue from bad news is a way to make money. If the news were lies, then it's fraudulent, and robbery.
Short sales are a good thing and keep the market honest by warning CEOs that individuals are prepared to see a stock price decline because of mismanagement. "Naked shorts" or what are essentially unfunded short sales, are onerous because it's essentially a name-calling contest with the stock price and organization's integrity at stake. Short sales that are funded are a great relief valve for the stock market and in my opinion, the current bans on them are actually driving the price of the stock market today to near record collapse. That's another story.
That's why brass balls are better than steel balls.
But the cables or bus bars that connect to your car would create enough EMF to brick your cell phone. Imagine all the coulombs that would have to be dumped from some huge reservior/capacitor into your vehicle to propel that vehicle say, 60 miles. In a second? I don't think so.
Onboard fission generator? Now we're talking.
Consider the sources.
One is a CNN 'citizen journalist site'.
The other are acknowledged fanbois (Apple spawns both admirers and detractors with a lot of obfuscation and delusion-- and market share).
There's the burden of responsibility on a 'citizen journalist' site that wouldn't be held in value if say, it was a Britney fan site. Product features and people's imagination are one thing, but declaring that a CEO has had a heart attack after that same CEO's been in the news with pancreatic cancer, is an out and out lie. There's a reason that there are libel and slander laws, and also SEC regulations about statement that affect stock prices. Rumors can build up a stock price, it's true. If you pimp something, you're not slandering it or libeling it should the price of the stock (or reputation) go up. Going the other direction causes loss, however.
>>I don't understand why their is an investigation....
Because a lie caused lots of people to lose money on Apple stock. People can think for themselves, but they do so based on facts, not lies. The SEC should get involved and the person that turned the phrase 'citizen journalism' into an oxymoron can get what they deserved for the consequences of their falsehood. I just with the SEC could punish the roadkill they call golden parachuted, ex-Wall Street CEOs.
I'm with you. It's a flimsy excuse, as cited up-thread.
Sadly, someone will buy the excuse at a level of government where that excuse will be accepted.
And we'll lose further faith in electronic voting capabilities, because they are so rife for fudging.
Hey, Vint, that Guaridan hack is here.
Oh, right.
Hallo Mr Inventor of the Internet, what've ya got to say?
Well, uh, nothing is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
Locks are for your friends, cause your enemies have pick tools.
Damn straight I invented the Internet, not that Mr Green, I mean Gore.
Etc.
Nothing to see here. Sadly.
No Swarchild radii around here.....
There are seemingly innumerable protocol relationships and patches that have evolved as we get smarter about what breaks and why. It doesn't make me wonder at all.
DOS attacks are usually relational, and mess with the nature of TCP to make machines tie up resources waiting for conversations to ensue. Simple DOS attacks exploited immature stacks and found ways to simply digest available counters in the target so that no other resources were left available in the target. The target therefore exhibits denial of service to subequent legit or not legit requests. SYN_COOKIES were designed to circumvent the prblem by registering then killing non-useful sessions quickly, thus freeing up service ports for subsequent use.
Manipulating the fix takes some talent, but apparently there are new and well-organized methods to do it. That the target then lays in a quivering pool of goo afterward is no surprise as the SYN_COOKIE fix isn't very sophisticated. But we'll fix this one, just like we fixed the others. Fortunately, it appears as though this attack can be characterized, although a pseudo-reflected attack could be more difficult to assuage.
My electricity has gone off eleven times since June 1st. Now I understand that bottled water from Lake Michigan may have PCBs in them. Already, we use filters to get rid of the local crap (heavy metals) in the tap water supply.
While your measures are indeed signs of the third world, we rapidly approach it in many measures of stature. And we continue to slide down the broadband list, among others.
It's more onerous than that. The NTIA, which has been hobbled by the Bush administration, actually is the Commerce Dept wing that's supposed to be doing something, not the FCC.
The NTIA has had more Under Secretaries than (insert bad metaphor here), all of whom have paid lip service while the telcos bring out useless new wireless 'broadband' schemes while converting the US slowly to DSL in the face of cable data competition.
While keeping track of broadband penetration and use might be nice, it's in the wrong department and not charged with doing much with the data. Instead, we can get reports that will motivate Congress to take more telecom lobbying money so that they can continue to make the same decisions that got us to third-world-country status in terms of broadband.
Vote in November.