But if you have more or less, *rest* of the *countries* of the world against government hacking, and only *two* countries for it, it paints a different pictures in those terms, doesn't it? Two against hundreds. Instead of it being something near-normal, it suddenly becomes what it is. An aberration. I am surprised you missed on this.
2/3rd is meaningless in itself, unless they gave us the breakup country-wise.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised that this 2/3rd advocating government spying, constituted mostly of Chinese computer users, that have been brainwashed by the Chinese government propaganda. China is the most populated country in the world after all.
And considering that even in USA, the other country with highest number of computer users, over half of the population voted in Bush for a second term and what with the war on terror propaganda. It implies that at least half the Americans will willingly and happily live in 1984, if they are told that it is necessary to "keep them terrorists away".
If you had actually bothered to read the article(I know that is not the normal practice for the idiot crowd here), you would have understood the difference.
Polygraph measures emotional response by measuring heart rate, blood pressure, sweating etc. It is near useless since if you are not guilty but are still nervous in presence of police/authority. And a skilled criminal may even control his heart rate etc while lying. Hence it is almost always inadmissible in any decent court, as evidence. At very best, it can be used as mere corroborating evidence.
P300 measures the brainwave activity related to "recognition" of an stimuli. It measures the brain waves in the areas related to categorization and recognition of events/objects. Nothing whatsoever to do with emotions and more or less impossible to control. Either you recognize object x or you don't.
See the difference? This is why courts usually brain mapping as evidence while rejecting polygraph tests. And regardless, in this case the article doesn't says they are trying to prove guilt. The aim is to FIND OUT information. The assumption is that there is already sufficient evidence to prove the subject being a terrorist. They are not trying to prove that you are a terrorist. They are trying to find out where you plan to attack and how.
That being said, the result will completely depend on whether the correct stimuli was chosen. Like the article said, it would have to be something only a terrorist would know. If they show you a aerial photo of a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, that only they have a copy of, or a terrorist trainer in the said camp who you have no business knowing, and you recognize them, they know you were linked to that camp. On the other hand, if they used a photo that was also floating around on internet, you might have seen it on the net earlier anyways.
As such, it is indeed still slightly flawed(since it depends on the tester's choice of untainted stimuli) but is still much much better than the polygraph test, when it comes to finding out concealed information.
As time goes on, it would be a shame if the cards were lost. Just because you stuck it in the safe doesn't mean that safe will always be the one you use. People move. Offices change. People die. When Joe-key-holder dies, and his coworkers don't realize what the keys are, they could easily end up in a file box marked "Joe's office stuff", and stuck in storage to be forgotten about after a few years of staff churn.
I am pretty sure if you are one of the only seven people in the world to be trusted with the responsibility of a certain item, you will just "forget" it when you move.
When you come up with outlandish theories, at least use common sense. It is perfectly possible that the card gets stolen by a burglar who doesn't realizes what it is. And even then it will at least be reported and appropriate measures taken. You seem to have picked up some curious notion that nobody had the foresight to keep a note on the whereabouts and well-being of these individuals("Where are those cards again? I dunno... some dude was supposed to have them. Not sure where they are now, or who they were... we sent them deep undercover you see, to protect them against torture from enemy agents!").
This is just a mere precaution of not keeping their eggs in one basket, since losing the key will indeed be catastrophic to DNSSEC. If anything, it is obviously just one of the many other backups they have.
It's news because unlike other countries, which just talk about it, China sets a goal of giving every user Broadband access, then DOES IT.
You don't really understand what was said, do you? Or maybe you don't really understand how ratios and percentages actually work.
Let us see. United states for example, consists of 4.5% of world population and yet consists of 12% of world internet users. China consists of 21% of world's population and yet consists of mere 20% of world internet users. Clearly the internet penetration in USA is much higher(more than twice) of that of China.
Or take the neighboring Japan for example, which accounts for mere 1.86% of world population and yet accounts for 5% of world internet users.
It is a no-brainer that over-populated China, with the highest population in the world, would also comprise the highest number of internet users in the world. But when you take the ratio of internet users to total population, China contrary to its government's big claims and boasting, is still lagging far behind and has a long way to go yet.
And we are not yet even talking of how heavily censored that internet access is, in China i.e. how exactly does the populace benefit in their daily life due to said internet, as compared to say Japan, USA or EU again? For example, the Japanese use mobile internet to search commute routes, to find addresses, for shopping deals, communications, checking weather, banking and trading etc. and online entertainment in Japan at least is usually legal and paid for, and hence beneficial for the economy.
Compare this to China, where the major usage for internet is(surprise!), entertainment. And you are welcome to take your guess how much of it is actually paid for, as opposed to stolen/pirated. Owing to unsafe security practices, online banking/shopping is not as popular, since you will end up getting hacked. Add to that, the perception of the Chinese government, of internet being a mere propaganda tool, so much so that their ultimate stated goal is to have a 100% state-controlled Chinese intranet instead, while having honest-to-goodness war plans to attack, cripple and bring down the actual free internet.
The statement in the article could also be translated, less flatteringly, to "Rest of the world has already achieved adequate penetration of internet for most of their population, while China still has long way to go".
Keep in mind that in already saturated markets, like Tania Harvey says, growth of the market becomes pretty slow. Almost everyone in Japan, for example, already uses internet on PC or their cellphones etc. The companies may get customers to switch between them, but finding new customers is much harder.
Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways. Long way to go before they catch up with the rest of the world.
Except that those people challenging the rules were the ones directly being affected. I don't recall any muslims coming and challenging the Catholic church's rules and causing the said "Enlightenment"(and what enlightenment? are you kidding me? You hardly seem very enlightened even now).
Change comes from within, not without. If average muslims do not like their imams dictating what can or cannot be drawn, they will rise up and challenge it. I do not recall anyone inviting Christians or Americans to do the Islam-slapping. If you were protesting against the forced oppression of muslim women, I could at least see some logic in that, since the oppression is done systematically by the authorities and males. But once you start challenging some harmless belief of theirs that matters only to them, you are just imposing your silly beliefs over theirs. They don't want their prophet drawn. Fine. We won't die or suffer some major cataclysm if we failed to draw a religious figure that doesn't even belongs to our religion. If someone does it unintentionally, they can just apologize and soothe their ruffled feathers. Who cares, if the average muslim doesn't wants it changed?
If you don't subscribe to their beliefs, simply ensure they are not allowed and practiced within your borders. You definitely have that right. If you intend to go bitch-slap them and start a war over it, you are an idiot.
"Change all your religious beliefs that don't make sense to us, or we will provoke you and have a war, you bastards!". Yeah right!
You hardly sound any less extremist than they are.
So-called freedom of speech, doesn't really exists. It has both social and legal limitations attached to it, even in western world and especially in USA. And you readily accept and comply with those limitations. Heck, you allowed those limitations to be voted in.
For example, it is also not allowed to practice freedom of speech where state and military secrets are concerned. it is, like you said, illegal to use your freedom of speech to issue death-threats. Heck, you don't even have the freedom of speech to tell jokes about terrorists and bombs at airports anymore. Just try it, and tell me how it goes. I am sure you will get very far by telling them that any offense or threat they felt was out of their own choice(since you had no actual bomb). Yet, you happily accept those limitations because they make *your* life easier.
But you are eager for the right to intentionally offend and harass someone else, simply out of pure malice, just because you like the idea of being able to do it. GP rightly pointed out that such stuff causes you no benefit whatsoever, and in fact makes things worse by encouraging hatred. But you would rather risk it, and flex your muscles since you think those folks have no business telling you what to say. Typical bully behavior sprinkled with simple mischief-making.
The problem is, that if you are willing to accept censorship where practicality demands it(military secrets), you can hardly claim to be sticking strictly to your ideology in the first place.
You fail to explain of course, what benefit we exactly get out of violating their meaningless taboo. If they want to pratice some harmless meaningless(to us) ritual like adding an honorific to their prophet, what business is it of ours or yours? As long as they don't come telling us how to celebrate Christmas or Easter or how to pray, who cares? If you were protesting against the muslim veil or regards the plight of muslim women, at least there is some benefit to it. Feel free. But I see no reason why you would want to draw mohammed intentionally to provoke them, when there is zero benefit to anyone in doing so.
And if you are willing to compromise to your ideology of "freedom of speech" where it is impractical(military secrets), why not here as well, where it gains us no benefit except their hating us more and more?
Basically you are a moron, who would gladly and irresponsibly risk the lives of innocents over a non-issue, which hardly matters to us, and is just pure muscle-flexing. Most sensible folks, when they know there is an angry insane tiger in an area, generally avoid it, and simply go around him. You would rather go and throw stones at him. And it is not like, you are even equipped to handle their lash-back, without compromising your actual freedoms, just to preserve a so-called hypocritical freedom of speech.
Would you rather have your so-called right to offend, or would you rather have the more practical right to privacy(without your own government having an excuse to spy on you), or the right to fly without being humiliated and strip-searched at a whim?
You sir, are an epic fail, a simpleton, and a candidate for the Darwin awards. It is because of meddlesome idiots like you, that we have a terrorism problem to begin with. There are plenty of pretty well-developed countries like Japan, switzerland etc. managing just fine without muslim terrorists howling for their blood, just because they do not go provoking unnecessarily or needlessly. I blame every single death in 9/11 on the heads of idiots like you.
Why is it that always Republicans (both Ford and George Bush) who have been usually eager to subvert and corrupt existing laws, and don't even have the guts or decency to publicly accept the responsibility for doing so?
And before folks start bashing me for being a democrat troll or something, I am not even American. It just seems to me as an outsider though, that based on statistics, having a Republican President usually ensures that American Democracy is turned into a mockery. And it is definitely a grave problem for the rest of the world, when the elected(or non-elected) ruler of the nation with world's largest stockpiles of weapons/nukes decides that he just wants to do as he pleases, the laws, rules and wishes of the said American public be damned.
If US does the right thing, even for selfish motives, how does that make the said "right thing" to be wrong?
Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?
Your argument is like saying "Oh my god, that guy who pushed that child out of the way of a speeding car, is reputed to be a bully. That child should not have been saved by him! How can you guys accept this?".
If one company's ambition change China's internet rules will only prove to be ridiculous, why is a China government run news agency so frantically issuing statements on the issue?
It is just one company, right? In theory they shouldn't even be taking notice...
If they had actually expected to come out fully unscathed from this, they would have not even blinked.
China's censorship system had worked so far only because the Chinese always had options/alternatives when blocked from sites containing "dangerous ideas". The Chinese public simply accepted the government explanation. But Google, as the world's leading search engine, is something that is pretty much an inherent part of internet. Blocking a valuable internet resource requires much more rationalization, which is exactly what has the Chinese government sweating. It will be much harder to sell to the internet-using Chinese public. As such, this actually can lead to a relaxing of censorship in China. If not, it will lead to a realization on the part of Chinese public as to how they are actually visibly suffering by tolerating a non-democratic fascist state. Both are the first baby steps on the road to self-determination and freedom for the people in China.
Sadly, the said Chinese government is banking on having an alternative in competing search engines such as that of Microsoft. If Microsoft fails to follow Google's example, it will now actually be actively working to keep the seeds of democracy out of China.
Not that Microsoft, would be interested in anything apart from its profit line, considering it doesn't really believes in any kind of business ethics.
Lemme see. A president who turns democracy into a joke, and launches and supports a war that the majority does not wants. On top of that he does it without any real evidence, and blames others when caught. He did a fine job for himself???? Are you delusional?
Heck, if you are fine with democracy itself becoming such a joke, why be so concerned about the nobel prize?
The mighty USA cannot even muster up enough resources to do what a private company can? If it was done by the government, the government will be *forced* by the opposition party to make the code/design public to maintain transparency. And if researchers can find out security flaws and exploits with such boxes when the code/design is secret, they can help fixing it sooner and faster if they were actually able to see the code/design.
Funny. They can make nuclear bombs and make the computer networks and installations controlling them secure, but can't protect the democracy itself by just making secure ballot boxes too. Must be a lot tougher than making nukes, I guess.
Many developed nations dump their own toxic e-waste to third world countries like India. There are plenty of desperadoes who simply BURN the whole she-bang and extract the silver, gold and such metals from the remains after melting it down. In India, the courts actually passed an order against such imports, but the activity continues under the guise of "recycling" used computers etc.
There are huge dumps of such toxic waste, where small children actually play. The idea of recycling is fine. But not surprisingly, developed nations use it as a cover to dump their own industrial toxic waste in other countries, counting on such desperadoes. It is difficult for any undeveloped nation to garner enough resources required to effectively monitor and prevent such practices. And understandably, the developed nations intentionally keep their export laws weak. The closest equivalent is how everyone wants cheap power/electricity but no one is generally willing to have the nuclear plants anywhere in their state.
Hardly any of the "recycled used PCs" exported to India are really actually used. There have been several reports regards this. The toxic elements from such dump sites in India, actually frequently penetrate the water table and make drinking water near-toxic. Instead, researchers tend to focus on the feel-good researches like in the article. It is easier to dump your waste in third world countries, in name of recycling.
Mass hysteria and mob panic on the other hand, are proven phenomenons.
It depends on circumstances as well. Yell bomb at an airport, and see how rational people act. You will have a guaranteed stampede/panic with everyone trying to get away. That is because the american media/government has successfully used propaganda to exaggerate a threat. There was just *one* terrorist attack 8 years ago, and less people died than have died in car accidents every year. And yet, people have been conditioned to panic so strongly, that they forget all rationality and act like a chicken with its head cut off.
In fact, the hysteria is so great, that someone is bound to tag me a troll just for correctly stating facts about your chances of dying in a road accident being greater than dying in a terrorist attack. So with that level of irrationality, why wouldn't there be a stampede if someone did actually yell bomb inside an aircraft ready to take off?
The panic level gets higher with enclosed spaces, such as inside of an aircraft about to take off, or a small theater, due to much lower chances of escaping the situation.
Similarly, if there has recently been a fire in a theater, with casualties, you can bet your ass, people will not bother to stick around to check for the actual fire at all.
I am surprised that you will actually argue against what has already happened. The law against yelling fire in theater actually does come from a real incident, if you are ignorant of it. 73 people died, despite all your nonsense about how it cannot happen. No matter how much you prefer to delude yourself and lie about it, it has already actually happened.
Are you an idiot or an ignoramus? The analogy is well-known and implies that the person yelling fire is doing so, when there is NOT any fire.
Depending on the circumstances and people involved, a stampede is generally the most likely outcome. People who are exposed to regular fire drills will walk out in an orderly fashion. People who are not used to regular fire drills, say in countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan etc. will most certainly have a stampede.
Even in USA, people are not exactly the most rational and disciplined folks.
Such a stampede could probably be understandable in case of an actual fire, in case of untrained folks. They were trying to escape a real threat. But to cause stampede deaths by sheer malice, when no actual threat even existed, is not wrong to you?
Basically all that your argument boils down to is "since those people had no experience on how to react in case of an life-threatening situation and panicked, therefore they deserved to die for their shortcoming, and I have a right to cause their deaths via my malicious prank". You are basically a prick.
Glad you are coming around somewhat, when you admit that uncooperative workers who are uninterested in long-term survival of the colony/majority are like a cancerous skin lesion and need to be kicked out.
You assumed you wouldn't need to volunteer. And if *you* were *chosen* and asked to make the trip to the comet? What will you do then? If you said "why me? choose someone else" they will just say "if not you, then who?". So will you go, if it was explained that you had the capabilities for the rocket trip and you were being asked to sacrifice yourself so that majority can survive? If you assume that all humans are selfish like you, then nobody will indeed go and you will die anyways. What if you were the best choice for such a mission? What if your cooperation was critical? If you stayed back, you will die anyways, and basically you would be just be saying that since you are going to die, you want everyone else to die with you too. *OR* you might decide that since you will die either ways if you were selfish, you might as well ensure that at least the majority survive. That is all that basically defines a hero.
Society as such needs more "heroes", and less cowards like you, who would want everyone else to die along with them or hope that someone else will die for them. And therefore society with its own "selfishness" will be correct to punish people like you in order to discourage such undesirable "cowardly" behavior.
You are being asked to sacrifice your old ways to protect the environment and ensure the long-term extended survival of the majority. You try to be careful to watch oncoming traffic even though you are aware that some day you will die anyways, but you still wish to extend your lifespan. Community/majority wants to do the same. If you do not cooperate, you are a cancerous skin lesion that needs to be cured/removed.
Actually you are the one being intellectually dishonest.
You assume that people are essentially selfish. And yet somehow I see myriads of laws that inconvenience the individual, in order to benefit the majority. For example, it would be beneficial to simply steal from others. There are others who are stupid enough to work. If people are just selfish, they should all be thieves and support stealing from one-another or those who are stupid enough to work. And yet, there are laws against thefts. People decided that it was better not to be selfish, and agree to work instead of just directly stealing from others. They decided to actually punish the selfish behavior of stealing from others. They decided to serve the long-term "selfishness" instead of the short-term one. So much for your theory and "understanding" of human nature.
And since the laws against theft etc. prove that majority of people put long-term benefits ahead of short-term selfishness, it is indeed beneficial in long term if individuals such as you are removed from society. Obviously the extremely selfish individuals such as you are far few, as evidence of most laws, supports and it would hardly be genocide. It will be merely removal of undesirable elements that are a dire potential threat to survival of the majority.
There are two kind of people. Those who value their own life, and those who value their own life but value the survival of their community even above their own.
Take for example, any tribe or country. When faced with merciless invaders, there have to be a few members who are more concerned with protecting the majority, even by sacrificing their own life. A few have to sacrifice their lives to ensure the survival of the majority. Such behavior is desirable and encouraged, and that is why such people are called "brave", while people like you are disapproved of and labeled as "gutless cowards".
In your example, you forgot that the crew on a sinking ship indeed helps the majority passengers get off first, even by risking their own life. The firefighters save lives even at risk of their own. Your "realistic conception" of other people is a misconception based on the assumption that everyone is like you, and such soldiers/firefighters are stupid and aberrations.
Since you are selfish, you assume automatically that your way of life is correct and your selfishness is justified just because you can get away with it. The purpose of life is to continue living. To survive. If a comet wipes us out, what of it? But if a car was about to crush you, will you jump out of the way if you can see it coming? or will you think "oh let me die now, since a comet may kill me anyways and my life is meaningless"?
Your apathy is rooted only in the fact that you selfishly assume that you will not have to pay yourself for your actions. And as much justifications you might throw to defend it, the fact remains that individuals such as you are undesirable for survival of the society and are useless for the community's long term survival.
Laws are framed and enforced to support and extend the survival of the community. Individuals such as you, who work against the interest of the community have to be either kicked out or punished, in order to protect the interest of the community. The community has an equal right to be selfish too. Probably more so, since it is basically more people than you. Only reason everyone is not overly-concerned by the environment damage is because they are unaware of the problem, and plus people like you actively work towards keeping them misinformed. If more people are correctly informed as to exactly how dire the problem is, they would choose to decide based on long-term view rather than short-term.
Even better analogy, one that is a near parallel. Assume that your doctor has told you that you have merely 6 months to live, if you continue smoking. You can take the short term, depressed view that since you will die anyways after 30-50 years, you might just enjoy smoking and die within 6 months, since you will die in either case. *Or* you can take the long term view and lead a more healthy life and extend your lifespan. You may still die in a car crash, but what of it? If you bother to be careful and watch both sides of the road when crossing it, and jump to avoid a car, you should accept that you are not really all that cynical and suicidal.
Everyone knows that smoking is harmful for them, but they smoke assuming that the risk is low. When the doctor actually informs them that they will die shortly, if they do not stop, the majority is non-suicidal enough to act appropriately on the warning. *You* are the equivalent of a shill of the tobacco manufacturers who are spreading misinformation regards how the risk from smoking is not really so great, and the doctor is mistaken to tell you that you have only 6 months left, just so they can make a profit.
Your indifference to others and lack of altruism is fine and natural, from your own survival point of view. But you are useless to the community's survival. And following your own selfishness principal, if you are not interested in the survival of community, there is no reason why community should provide its benefits to people such as you. A law that locks up or punishes selfish behaviour such as yours, is perfectly fine too from the selfish pov of the majority/community.
The first asinine assumption you make is that it is only murder that is undesirable and should be stopped. Do you mean that less extreme crimes such as assault, violence etc. are desirable?
And if I started listing every single incident caused by psychopaths, I would be typing for next few years at least.
I did not necessarily say that just medication should be forced by default. You assumed that was the sole option, because it helps you make that "oh my god! my rights!" pose. How about just therapy though? Courts order it all the time. Why do you see mere therapy as some form of "punishment"?
And your argument is pure nonsense. First, I said that such on-watch list should be *only* for people with such an abnormality, *if* such an abnormality is indeed a reliable indicator of potential psychopathic behavior i.e. assuming if only psychopaths alone can exhibit such an abnormality.
Are you stating that all 3 million Americans exhibit such an abnormality, and are potential psychopaths? Fine. If you say so. Can you quote some research as to how you know that all 3 million americans actually have such an abnormality?
If only 1% of population are psychopaths, and if original article is correct that only psychopaths have such an abnormality, then obviously only 1% of the 3 million will be on any such watch-list.
And why just shootings? Wouldn't you consider the 911 terrorists to be psychopaths too? How about psychopath world leaders? It seems irrational that a president or such head of nation, who has the capacity to cause millions of deaths, would not be checked for psychopathic behaviour before being accepted into power. Godwin law nonwithstanding, Would you consider hitler to be a psychopath?
Nobody is talking of jailing anyone before any crime is actually committed. But I see no reason, not to be careful, if it prevents harm to innocents. "Watch-list" does not necessarily means being put under 24-hours surveillance. It can simply mean that if even a minor act of aggression is noticed, the authorities take it more seriously. If you *know* that a person has psychopathic tendencies, and he gets caught in an assault/vandalism case, you would probably not want to let the person off with just a slap on the wrist, and some hours of community service. A watch-list can simply mean that even the *first* offense is taken seriously and mandatory therapy/medication is ordered, *if* there is a first offense. Seems like a perfect balance between one's basic freedom and rights, and safety of others.
Your point is a good one, in case someone suggests treating the abnormality, in hopes of removing the psychopathic behavior.
However, as long as the abnormality is a reasonable indicator, it does not matter whether it is the cause or the result, from the point of merely identifying potential psychopaths.
Only problem might be the usage of such identification, not the process of identification itself. It would be wrong to round up such people and lock them up without even a crime being committed, or as basis of some sort of eugenics theory.
But it may be completely reasonable to request such folks to undergo therapy or take existing medication for suppressing such potential behavior, so that they don't just "blow up" one day and go on a massacre spree. If they refuse, as is their right, authorities can merely just put them on a watch-list to ensure that they don't end up going on a columbine style shooting spree.
If a correlation can actually be established, the abnormality might work actually as a physical indicator to whether anger management therapies/medication etc. are actually having any real effect.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold managed to fool their therapists and faked their way out of being released from probation and anger management classes. If this actually works, there may be a few less columbine style massacres.
On the other hand, providing a glass of water is a known easy activity. Normally the people who make such statements, do not do it on television specifically as a challenge.
If you went on live television, and stated that you would provide a million dollar to the person who managed to find water on moon and brought a glass full of the water to you, you will indeed be taken seriously, considering that you actually seriously claimed the task to be impossible, and the other person would probably have to go to significant trouble in order to fulfill your challenge.
The guy making the statement was an idiot, but the guy who took him up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim is the douchebag.
Indeed.
And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize. The guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim, must be total douchebags!
And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals? Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too, isn't it?
What is *most* disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises, and really honor any unilateral contracts they make. Right?
Slashdot Mirror
But if you have more or less, *rest* of the *countries* of the world against government hacking, and only *two* countries for it, it paints a different pictures in those terms, doesn't it? Two against hundreds. Instead of it being something near-normal, it suddenly becomes what it is. An aberration. I am surprised you missed on this.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised that this 2/3rd advocating government spying, constituted mostly of Chinese computer users, that have been brainwashed by the Chinese government propaganda. China is the most populated country in the world after all.
And considering that even in USA, the other country with highest number of computer users, over half of the population voted in Bush for a second term and what with the war on terror propaganda. It implies that at least half the Americans will willingly and happily live in 1984, if they are told that it is necessary to "keep them terrorists away".
If you had actually bothered to read the article(I know that is not the normal practice for the idiot crowd here), you would have understood the difference.
Polygraph measures emotional response by measuring heart rate, blood pressure, sweating etc. It is near useless since if you are not guilty but are still nervous in presence of police/authority. And a skilled criminal may even control his heart rate etc while lying. Hence it is almost always inadmissible in any decent court, as evidence. At very best, it can be used as mere corroborating evidence.
P300 measures the brainwave activity related to "recognition" of an stimuli. It measures the brain waves in the areas related to categorization and recognition of events/objects. Nothing whatsoever to do with emotions and more or less impossible to control. Either you recognize object x or you don't.
See the difference? This is why courts usually brain mapping as evidence while rejecting polygraph tests. And regardless, in this case the article doesn't says they are trying to prove guilt. The aim is to FIND OUT information. The assumption is that there is already sufficient evidence to prove the subject being a terrorist. They are not trying to prove that you are a terrorist. They are trying to find out where you plan to attack and how.
That being said, the result will completely depend on whether the correct stimuli was chosen. Like the article said, it would have to be something only a terrorist would know. If they show you a aerial photo of a terrorist training camp in Pakistan, that only they have a copy of, or a terrorist trainer in the said camp who you have no business knowing, and you recognize them, they know you were linked to that camp. On the other hand, if they used a photo that was also floating around on internet, you might have seen it on the net earlier anyways.
As such, it is indeed still slightly flawed(since it depends on the tester's choice of untainted stimuli) but is still much much better than the polygraph test, when it comes to finding out concealed information.
I am pretty sure if you are one of the only seven people in the world to be trusted with the responsibility of a certain item, you will just "forget" it when you move.
When you come up with outlandish theories, at least use common sense. It is perfectly possible that the card gets stolen by a burglar who doesn't realizes what it is. And even then it will at least be reported and appropriate measures taken. You seem to have picked up some curious notion that nobody had the foresight to keep a note on the whereabouts and well-being of these individuals("Where are those cards again? I dunno... some dude was supposed to have them. Not sure where they are now, or who they were... we sent them deep undercover you see, to protect them against torture from enemy agents!").
This is just a mere precaution of not keeping their eggs in one basket, since losing the key will indeed be catastrophic to DNSSEC. If anything, it is obviously just one of the many other backups they have.
You don't really understand what was said, do you? Or maybe you don't really understand how ratios and percentages actually work.
Let us see. United states for example, consists of 4.5% of world population and yet consists of 12% of world internet users. China consists of 21% of world's population and yet consists of mere 20% of world internet users. Clearly the internet penetration in USA is much higher(more than twice) of that of China.
Or take the neighboring Japan for example, which accounts for mere 1.86% of world population and yet accounts for 5% of world internet users.
It is a no-brainer that over-populated China, with the highest population in the world, would also comprise the highest number of internet users in the world. But when you take the ratio of internet users to total population, China contrary to its government's big claims and boasting, is still lagging far behind and has a long way to go yet.
And we are not yet even talking of how heavily censored that internet access is, in China i.e. how exactly does the populace benefit in their daily life due to said internet, as compared to say Japan, USA or EU again? For example, the Japanese use mobile internet to search commute routes, to find addresses, for shopping deals, communications, checking weather, banking and trading etc. and online entertainment in Japan at least is usually legal and paid for, and hence beneficial for the economy.
Compare this to China, where the major usage for internet is(surprise!), entertainment. And you are welcome to take your guess how much of it is actually paid for, as opposed to stolen/pirated. Owing to unsafe security practices, online banking/shopping is not as popular, since you will end up getting hacked. Add to that, the perception of the Chinese government, of internet being a mere propaganda tool, so much so that their ultimate stated goal is to have a 100% state-controlled Chinese intranet instead, while having honest-to-goodness war plans to attack, cripple and bring down the actual free internet.
Keep in mind that in already saturated markets, like Tania Harvey says, growth of the market becomes pretty slow. Almost everyone in Japan, for example, already uses internet on PC or their cellphones etc. The companies may get customers to switch between them, but finding new customers is much harder.
Not to mention the "quality" of internet, one gets in China, what with half of it being blocked out/censored anyways. Long way to go before they catch up with the rest of the world.
Change comes from within, not without. If average muslims do not like their imams dictating what can or cannot be drawn, they will rise up and challenge it. I do not recall anyone inviting Christians or Americans to do the Islam-slapping. If you were protesting against the forced oppression of muslim women, I could at least see some logic in that, since the oppression is done systematically by the authorities and males. But once you start challenging some harmless belief of theirs that matters only to them, you are just imposing your silly beliefs over theirs. They don't want their prophet drawn. Fine. We won't die or suffer some major cataclysm if we failed to draw a religious figure that doesn't even belongs to our religion. If someone does it unintentionally, they can just apologize and soothe their ruffled feathers. Who cares, if the average muslim doesn't wants it changed?
If you don't subscribe to their beliefs, simply ensure they are not allowed and practiced within your borders. You definitely have that right. If you intend to go bitch-slap them and start a war over it, you are an idiot.
"Change all your religious beliefs that don't make sense to us, or we will provoke you and have a war, you bastards!". Yeah right!
You hardly sound any less extremist than they are.
So-called freedom of speech, doesn't really exists. It has both social and legal limitations attached to it, even in western world and especially in USA. And you readily accept and comply with those limitations. Heck, you allowed those limitations to be voted in.
For example, it is also not allowed to practice freedom of speech where state and military secrets are concerned. it is, like you said, illegal to use your freedom of speech to issue death-threats. Heck, you don't even have the freedom of speech to tell jokes about terrorists and bombs at airports anymore. Just try it, and tell me how it goes. I am sure you will get very far by telling them that any offense or threat they felt was out of their own choice(since you had no actual bomb). Yet, you happily accept those limitations because they make *your* life easier.
But you are eager for the right to intentionally offend and harass someone else, simply out of pure malice, just because you like the idea of being able to do it. GP rightly pointed out that such stuff causes you no benefit whatsoever, and in fact makes things worse by encouraging hatred. But you would rather risk it, and flex your muscles since you think those folks have no business telling you what to say. Typical bully behavior sprinkled with simple mischief-making.
The problem is, that if you are willing to accept censorship where practicality demands it(military secrets), you can hardly claim to be sticking strictly to your ideology in the first place.
You fail to explain of course, what benefit we exactly get out of violating their meaningless taboo. If they want to pratice some harmless meaningless(to us) ritual like adding an honorific to their prophet, what business is it of ours or yours? As long as they don't come telling us how to celebrate Christmas or Easter or how to pray, who cares? If you were protesting against the muslim veil or regards the plight of muslim women, at least there is some benefit to it. Feel free. But I see no reason why you would want to draw mohammed intentionally to provoke them, when there is zero benefit to anyone in doing so. And if you are willing to compromise to your ideology of "freedom of speech" where it is impractical(military secrets), why not here as well, where it gains us no benefit except their hating us more and more?
Basically you are a moron, who would gladly and irresponsibly risk the lives of innocents over a non-issue, which hardly matters to us, and is just pure muscle-flexing. Most sensible folks, when they know there is an angry insane tiger in an area, generally avoid it, and simply go around him. You would rather go and throw stones at him. And it is not like, you are even equipped to handle their lash-back, without compromising your actual freedoms, just to preserve a so-called hypocritical freedom of speech.
Would you rather have your so-called right to offend, or would you rather have the more practical right to privacy(without your own government having an excuse to spy on you), or the right to fly without being humiliated and strip-searched at a whim?
You sir, are an epic fail, a simpleton, and a candidate for the Darwin awards. It is because of meddlesome idiots like you, that we have a terrorism problem to begin with. There are plenty of pretty well-developed countries like Japan, switzerland etc. managing just fine without muslim terrorists howling for their blood, just because they do not go provoking unnecessarily or needlessly. I blame every single death in 9/11 on the heads of idiots like you.
Why is it that always Republicans (both Ford and George Bush) who have been usually eager to subvert and corrupt existing laws, and don't even have the guts or decency to publicly accept the responsibility for doing so?
And before folks start bashing me for being a democrat troll or something, I am not even American. It just seems to me as an outsider though, that based on statistics, having a Republican President usually ensures that American Democracy is turned into a mockery. And it is definitely a grave problem for the rest of the world, when the elected(or non-elected) ruler of the nation with world's largest stockpiles of weapons/nukes decides that he just wants to do as he pleases, the laws, rules and wishes of the said American public be damned.
If US does the right thing, even for selfish motives, how does that make the said "right thing" to be wrong?
Since when did the right to self-determination, freedom of expression and thought, freedom to not be oppressed by a fascist state, become wrong?
Your argument is like saying "Oh my god, that guy who pushed that child out of the way of a speeding car, is reputed to be a bully. That child should not have been saved by him! How can you guys accept this?".
Notice the flaw in such an argument?
It is just one company, right? In theory they shouldn't even be taking notice...
If they had actually expected to come out fully unscathed from this, they would have not even blinked.
China's censorship system had worked so far only because the Chinese always had options/alternatives when blocked from sites containing "dangerous ideas". The Chinese public simply accepted the government explanation. But Google, as the world's leading search engine, is something that is pretty much an inherent part of internet. Blocking a valuable internet resource requires much more rationalization, which is exactly what has the Chinese government sweating. It will be much harder to sell to the internet-using Chinese public. As such, this actually can lead to a relaxing of censorship in China. If not, it will lead to a realization on the part of Chinese public as to how they are actually visibly suffering by tolerating a non-democratic fascist state. Both are the first baby steps on the road to self-determination and freedom for the people in China.
Sadly, the said Chinese government is banking on having an alternative in competing search engines such as that of Microsoft. If Microsoft fails to follow Google's example, it will now actually be actively working to keep the seeds of democracy out of China.
Not that Microsoft, would be interested in anything apart from its profit line, considering it doesn't really believes in any kind of business ethics.
Heck, if you are fine with democracy itself becoming such a joke, why be so concerned about the nobel prize?
It is moot whether Obama deserves it or not. Bush definitely deserves this! ;)
One question.
Why a company at all in the first place?
The mighty USA cannot even muster up enough resources to do what a private company can? If it was done by the government, the government will be *forced* by the opposition party to make the code/design public to maintain transparency. And if researchers can find out security flaws and exploits with such boxes when the code/design is secret, they can help fixing it sooner and faster if they were actually able to see the code/design.
Funny. They can make nuclear bombs and make the computer networks and installations controlling them secure, but can't protect the democracy itself by just making secure ballot boxes too. Must be a lot tougher than making nukes, I guess.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/919958.stm
Many developed nations dump their own toxic e-waste to third world countries like India. There are plenty of desperadoes who simply BURN the whole she-bang and extract the silver, gold and such metals from the remains after melting it down. In India, the courts actually passed an order against such imports, but the activity continues under the guise of "recycling" used computers etc.
There are huge dumps of such toxic waste, where small children actually play. The idea of recycling is fine. But not surprisingly, developed nations use it as a cover to dump their own industrial toxic waste in other countries, counting on such desperadoes. It is difficult for any undeveloped nation to garner enough resources required to effectively monitor and prevent such practices. And understandably, the developed nations intentionally keep their export laws weak. The closest equivalent is how everyone wants cheap power/electricity but no one is generally willing to have the nuclear plants anywhere in their state.
Hardly any of the "recycled used PCs" exported to India are really actually used. There have been several reports regards this. The toxic elements from such dump sites in India, actually frequently penetrate the water table and make drinking water near-toxic. Instead, researchers tend to focus on the feel-good researches like in the article. It is easier to dump your waste in third world countries, in name of recycling.
It depends on circumstances as well. Yell bomb at an airport, and see how rational people act. You will have a guaranteed stampede/panic with everyone trying to get away. That is because the american media/government has successfully used propaganda to exaggerate a threat. There was just *one* terrorist attack 8 years ago, and less people died than have died in car accidents every year. And yet, people have been conditioned to panic so strongly, that they forget all rationality and act like a chicken with its head cut off.
In fact, the hysteria is so great, that someone is bound to tag me a troll just for correctly stating facts about your chances of dying in a road accident being greater than dying in a terrorist attack. So with that level of irrationality, why wouldn't there be a stampede if someone did actually yell bomb inside an aircraft ready to take off?
The panic level gets higher with enclosed spaces, such as inside of an aircraft about to take off, or a small theater, due to much lower chances of escaping the situation.
Similarly, if there has recently been a fire in a theater, with casualties, you can bet your ass, people will not bother to stick around to check for the actual fire at all.
I am surprised that you will actually argue against what has already happened. The law against yelling fire in theater actually does come from a real incident, if you are ignorant of it. 73 people died, despite all your nonsense about how it cannot happen. No matter how much you prefer to delude yourself and lie about it, it has already actually happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Hall_disaster
Depending on the circumstances and people involved, a stampede is generally the most likely outcome. People who are exposed to regular fire drills will walk out in an orderly fashion. People who are not used to regular fire drills, say in countries like Bangladesh or Pakistan etc. will most certainly have a stampede.
Even in USA, people are not exactly the most rational and disciplined folks.
Such a stampede could probably be understandable in case of an actual fire, in case of untrained folks. They were trying to escape a real threat. But to cause stampede deaths by sheer malice, when no actual threat even existed, is not wrong to you?
Basically all that your argument boils down to is "since those people had no experience on how to react in case of an life-threatening situation and panicked, therefore they deserved to die for their shortcoming, and I have a right to cause their deaths via my malicious prank". You are basically a prick.
You assumed you wouldn't need to volunteer. And if *you* were *chosen* and asked to make the trip to the comet? What will you do then? If you said "why me? choose someone else" they will just say "if not you, then who?". So will you go, if it was explained that you had the capabilities for the rocket trip and you were being asked to sacrifice yourself so that majority can survive? If you assume that all humans are selfish like you, then nobody will indeed go and you will die anyways. What if you were the best choice for such a mission? What if your cooperation was critical? If you stayed back, you will die anyways, and basically you would be just be saying that since you are going to die, you want everyone else to die with you too. *OR* you might decide that since you will die either ways if you were selfish, you might as well ensure that at least the majority survive. That is all that basically defines a hero.
Society as such needs more "heroes", and less cowards like you, who would want everyone else to die along with them or hope that someone else will die for them. And therefore society with its own "selfishness" will be correct to punish people like you in order to discourage such undesirable "cowardly" behavior.
You are being asked to sacrifice your old ways to protect the environment and ensure the long-term extended survival of the majority. You try to be careful to watch oncoming traffic even though you are aware that some day you will die anyways, but you still wish to extend your lifespan. Community/majority wants to do the same. If you do not cooperate, you are a cancerous skin lesion that needs to be cured/removed.
You assume that people are essentially selfish. And yet somehow I see myriads of laws that inconvenience the individual, in order to benefit the majority. For example, it would be beneficial to simply steal from others. There are others who are stupid enough to work. If people are just selfish, they should all be thieves and support stealing from one-another or those who are stupid enough to work. And yet, there are laws against thefts. People decided that it was better not to be selfish, and agree to work instead of just directly stealing from others. They decided to actually punish the selfish behavior of stealing from others. They decided to serve the long-term "selfishness" instead of the short-term one. So much for your theory and "understanding" of human nature.
And since the laws against theft etc. prove that majority of people put long-term benefits ahead of short-term selfishness, it is indeed beneficial in long term if individuals such as you are removed from society. Obviously the extremely selfish individuals such as you are far few, as evidence of most laws, supports and it would hardly be genocide. It will be merely removal of undesirable elements that are a dire potential threat to survival of the majority.
Take for example, any tribe or country. When faced with merciless invaders, there have to be a few members who are more concerned with protecting the majority, even by sacrificing their own life. A few have to sacrifice their lives to ensure the survival of the majority. Such behavior is desirable and encouraged, and that is why such people are called "brave", while people like you are disapproved of and labeled as "gutless cowards".
In your example, you forgot that the crew on a sinking ship indeed helps the majority passengers get off first, even by risking their own life. The firefighters save lives even at risk of their own. Your "realistic conception" of other people is a misconception based on the assumption that everyone is like you, and such soldiers/firefighters are stupid and aberrations.
Since you are selfish, you assume automatically that your way of life is correct and your selfishness is justified just because you can get away with it. The purpose of life is to continue living. To survive. If a comet wipes us out, what of it? But if a car was about to crush you, will you jump out of the way if you can see it coming? or will you think "oh let me die now, since a comet may kill me anyways and my life is meaningless"?
Your apathy is rooted only in the fact that you selfishly assume that you will not have to pay yourself for your actions. And as much justifications you might throw to defend it, the fact remains that individuals such as you are undesirable for survival of the society and are useless for the community's long term survival.
Laws are framed and enforced to support and extend the survival of the community. Individuals such as you, who work against the interest of the community have to be either kicked out or punished, in order to protect the interest of the community. The community has an equal right to be selfish too. Probably more so, since it is basically more people than you. Only reason everyone is not overly-concerned by the environment damage is because they are unaware of the problem, and plus people like you actively work towards keeping them misinformed. If more people are correctly informed as to exactly how dire the problem is, they would choose to decide based on long-term view rather than short-term.
Even better analogy, one that is a near parallel. Assume that your doctor has told you that you have merely 6 months to live, if you continue smoking. You can take the short term, depressed view that since you will die anyways after 30-50 years, you might just enjoy smoking and die within 6 months, since you will die in either case. *Or* you can take the long term view and lead a more healthy life and extend your lifespan. You may still die in a car crash, but what of it? If you bother to be careful and watch both sides of the road when crossing it, and jump to avoid a car, you should accept that you are not really all that cynical and suicidal.
Everyone knows that smoking is harmful for them, but they smoke assuming that the risk is low. When the doctor actually informs them that they will die shortly, if they do not stop, the majority is non-suicidal enough to act appropriately on the warning. *You* are the equivalent of a shill of the tobacco manufacturers who are spreading misinformation regards how the risk from smoking is not really so great, and the doctor is mistaken to tell you that you have only 6 months left, just so they can make a profit.
Your indifference to others and lack of altruism is fine and natural, from your own survival point of view. But you are useless to the community's survival. And following your own selfishness principal, if you are not interested in the survival of community, there is no reason why community should provide its benefits to people such as you. A law that locks up or punishes selfish behaviour such as yours, is perfectly fine too from the selfish pov of the majority/community.
The first asinine assumption you make is that it is only murder that is undesirable and should be stopped. Do you mean that less extreme crimes such as assault, violence etc. are desirable?
And if I started listing every single incident caused by psychopaths, I would be typing for next few years at least.
I did not necessarily say that just medication should be forced by default. You assumed that was the sole option, because it helps you make that "oh my god! my rights!" pose. How about just therapy though? Courts order it all the time. Why do you see mere therapy as some form of "punishment"?
And your argument is pure nonsense. First, I said that such on-watch list should be *only* for people with such an abnormality, *if* such an abnormality is indeed a reliable indicator of potential psychopathic behavior i.e. assuming if only psychopaths alone can exhibit such an abnormality.
Are you stating that all 3 million Americans exhibit such an abnormality, and are potential psychopaths? Fine. If you say so. Can you quote some research as to how you know that all 3 million americans actually have such an abnormality?
If only 1% of population are psychopaths, and if original article is correct that only psychopaths have such an abnormality, then obviously only 1% of the 3 million will be on any such watch-list.
And why just shootings? Wouldn't you consider the 911 terrorists to be psychopaths too? How about psychopath world leaders? It seems irrational that a president or such head of nation, who has the capacity to cause millions of deaths, would not be checked for psychopathic behaviour before being accepted into power. Godwin law nonwithstanding, Would you consider hitler to be a psychopath?
Nobody is talking of jailing anyone before any crime is actually committed. But I see no reason, not to be careful, if it prevents harm to innocents. "Watch-list" does not necessarily means being put under 24-hours surveillance. It can simply mean that if even a minor act of aggression is noticed, the authorities take it more seriously. If you *know* that a person has psychopathic tendencies, and he gets caught in an assault/vandalism case, you would probably not want to let the person off with just a slap on the wrist, and some hours of community service. A watch-list can simply mean that even the *first* offense is taken seriously and mandatory therapy/medication is ordered, *if* there is a first offense. Seems like a perfect balance between one's basic freedom and rights, and safety of others.
Your point is a good one, in case someone suggests treating the abnormality, in hopes of removing the psychopathic behavior. However, as long as the abnormality is a reasonable indicator, it does not matter whether it is the cause or the result, from the point of merely identifying potential psychopaths.
Only problem might be the usage of such identification, not the process of identification itself. It would be wrong to round up such people and lock them up without even a crime being committed, or as basis of some sort of eugenics theory.
But it may be completely reasonable to request such folks to undergo therapy or take existing medication for suppressing such potential behavior, so that they don't just "blow up" one day and go on a massacre spree. If they refuse, as is their right, authorities can merely just put them on a watch-list to ensure that they don't end up going on a columbine style shooting spree.
If a correlation can actually be established, the abnormality might work actually as a physical indicator to whether anger management therapies/medication etc. are actually having any real effect.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold managed to fool their therapists and faked their way out of being released from probation and anger management classes. If this actually works, there may be a few less columbine style massacres.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract
Texaco would disagree with you, and they have a lost case of 11.1 billion USD to show for it.
On the other hand, providing a glass of water is a known easy activity. Normally the people who make such statements, do not do it on television specifically as a challenge.
If you went on live television, and stated that you would provide a million dollar to the person who managed to find water on moon and brought a glass full of the water to you, you will indeed be taken seriously, considering that you actually seriously claimed the task to be impossible, and the other person would probably have to go to significant trouble in order to fulfill your challenge.
And similarly who would believe that any idiot would offer 10 million dollars as reward to the first non-government organization completing a challenge to launch a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansari_X_Prize. The guys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites who took them up on an obviously idiotic and ridiculous claim, must be total douchebags!
And what is with all the awards for information on kidnapping crimes and criminals? Police and parents trying to provide profit for providing such info is really disgusting too, isn't it?
What is *most* disgusting is the idea that people should be actually expected to keep their promises, and really honor any unilateral contracts they make. Right?