The point is that rights like this exist to protect people who haven't done something wrong from police (the state) who can abuse their position to harass, unreasonably punish, and generally pervert their positions for personal and political gain.
We didn't find kiddie porn, but this Anarchist Cookbook is suspect. Also, you DO seem to be the source that gave the reporter evidence against candidate X. We said we were looking for kiddie porn, but we'll mention this in our report anyway. Etc.
You'll note that the court case has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your argument. The linked case prohibits anyone from disseminating a certain type of information without prior approval. The university DOESN'T restrict students from discussing this issue.
Further, I think it's disingenuous to assume the university is taking action against this student simply because of the content of her message. I find it equally as likely that they want to avoid students, not from discussing university issues, but from bulk mailing professors for every issue they find relevant.
Unless there are policies that say that this isn't allowed. The University has policies for distributing information, and this person ignored those policies. Just because MSU offered email service doesn't mean the individual had a right to use it in any way they wanted to. There are plenty of reasons for such a policy, such as limiting the purpose for email so that professors or students can use it in a defined way. It's the right of the university to impose those restrictions.
In other news, the TSA will begin ramping up security under a new no-smiles initiative. Travelers appearing too happy while traveling through the airport will be stopped and asked to undergo an intensive search, as research has shown that terrorists might smile to get past facial recognition software.*
*I wish I didn't have to do this, but for the record, the above is satire.
Most of these MAPs are supported by dealer contracts with the manufacturer. I think the issue comes up when a none-authorized dealer gets some of the product through one channel or another and they get take-down notices from the companies mentioned above.
It isn't that everyone is a terrorist. It's simply to stop the terrorists from having easy access. You, honorable citizen that your are, have nothing to worry about because you don't have anything to hide, right? Or at least that's the mantra. Let's ignore the potential for abuse...
This is what we call a false dichotomy and is exactly the same fear tactic used by governments in several countries to justify invasive and abusive legislation and practices.
Agreed, but the buying of an advertising group isn't an abuse by itself. If they were to buy the advertising and then use their position to leverage their position, then indeed, there are significant anti-trust issues. But there should be prohibition based on a twice removed potential.
Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, and the government says that Microsoft has certain responsibilities not to abuse that monopoly. They don't have any goal to take actions to actively weaken the monopoly, and they don't have any goals to stop Microsoft from growing in other sectors (like advertising) in which they do not have a monopoly.
I think there is a common sentiment to apply terrorism laws to things that aren't terrorism. This isn't terrorism and shouldn't be punished as such. If society wants to seriously punish people who intentionally dismantle infrastructure, than harsher laws need to be passed to that effect.
As an individual learning programming I'd like to strongly agree with this. I took several introductory programming courses, most of which were in Java. It was reasonably easy to make it through the examples in the class, the difficulty came when I tried to branch out on my own and begin learning data structures and patterns. I'm now going and learning assembler and C so that hopefully the principles that are abstracted in higher level languages like Java will have a basis in something more basic like a lower level language.
Re:Yeah, and get flooded with "tech support" calls
on
Houses With Tails
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
In my experience, the people who ask others for tech help are the least likely to be willing to pay for it. And they certainly aren't willing to pay market rates.
I chose my words poorly and made it sound like an attack on your comment. I didn't want it to be. I think that we're both right. I think he values the input from all sides, and I think he'll use the access he gains from having these people around as an in to the other side when he needs it.
The Republicans were fired by the American people, although most of them hold key positions near Obama (keep your friends close, and your enemies closer).
Or maybe he's keeping qualified people with diverse opinions close so that he doesn't pigeon-hole himself with people who tell him things he already knows. Several of the background stories on him covered his period at the Harvard Law Review where he upset many people because his election to that post didn't give all the open positions to people of the same political affiliation. He's doing the same here.
The part where the earth was created before the stars is a bit hard to believe. Maybe it means that the subatomic particles that it's made of?
Or maybe it's a story made up by early tribes in the mid-east not unlike other creation myths by African tribes, Native Americans, and pretty much everywhere else there have ever been humans.
He is not our ally in ensuring we can get whatever media we want whenever we want for no cost.
I hope you are joking. If not, who is this "we" who think they should get whatever media they want whenever they want for no cost?
I'm not sure if this was the intent of the original poster it sounded a bit like satire against the slashdot community. I may be wrong though. In that light, the comments on articles like this tend to include a large number of people who admit to downloading copyrighted works. Some justify it by saying that they're "screwing the MAFIAA" or "making a point by not buying their stuff". I think a boycott loses it's teeth when the boycotters aren't actually boycotting the product, they just aren't paying for it.
If the people here want to boycott works with overly restrictive copyrights I fully support them. I do. I don't buy music published by the big labels and have, for the most part, avoided buying DVDs of the same type. But I don't think that gives this community some inherent right to go download it just because you wanted it. If it's of value, suck it up and buy it against your stance on copyright, or don't have it at all.
My point, is that asking if a submarine swims is like asking if the computer that is currently in front of me thinks. My computer does computations, and that is in many ways similar to things that the brain does. And, as I mentioned, if we go further I think that we may be able to create a machine that is a fairly accurate analog. At which point I think a great many people will want to say what the GGP said that it isn't really thinking because it's a machine, more out out discomfort for the idea than actual analysis of it.
The use of soul I think was foolish in this case. Others have mentioned that it was a word thrown in by the interviewer. More important I think is the idea that if we create a machine that is of equivalent consciousness (a value that will have to be determined later) can or should we treat that machine as an autonomous entity that has rights and responsibilities and has a rather equal place among humans. A place in the community rather than a tool or servant of humans. I argue that yes, if we create or a machine achieves an ability of thinking equal to humans than he would be no different than a visiting alien. Just because his "biology" is different from ours wouldn't mean that he isn't to be regarded on equal terms.
I don't think that's exactly accurate. I think it would be more accurate to ask, "Can we make a machine that can swim?" and the answer is yes, definitely. They've made machines that replicate the swimming action of dolphins I believe. And, while it didn't swim particularly well, I think the Mythbusters made a swimming robot for a myth. They may not swim like we or other things swim, but by all means, we can create machines that can swim.
This is important because we then need to ask, "Can we create a machine that is conscious" We'll first need to define consciousness, and I think there are definitions out there for that. That is less important than the result which will be, "Can we create a machine that works like, or is comparable to, a human brain?" If you accept the idea that the brain is merely a very complex set of cells that interact in a particular way, I think it's likely that we can eventually create a machine to replicate that.
At that point we'll have to ask some really tricky questions about how we treat this arguably conscious being that is in many ways just like us. Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and don't believe in a supernatural soul. So I think we'll also have to confront some of those ideas as well.
The argument on a more broad and far less substantiated level is that, indeed, women aren't drawn to fields like computer science and engineering, but it isn't because this is a purely natural inclination. It's because society as a whole defines certain fields as masculine or nerdy while women are supposed to be primped and popular. I think that public discussion about these ideas has been mostly good but the net effect hasn't yielded much. There is still a great deal of social pressure to not pursue these fields regardless of higher education initiatives. It looks pretty clear that women aren't as interested in computer science as men. As you mentioned, it would be foolish to push them to take on a career for the sake of getting the numbers up. But there is still work to be done on eliminating certain stigmas. I think that will involve downplaying certain social stereotypes of people who pursue these careers (nerds) and adjusting the expectation that every women dress, act, and generally be like [current female popular culture figure].
I'd be interested to see them include WinXP in the mix as well. Perhaps things like office productivity won't be affected because the OS should for the most part just be getting out of the way to let it run. Likewise for encoding, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that rights like this exist to protect people who haven't done something wrong from police (the state) who can abuse their position to harass, unreasonably punish, and generally pervert their positions for personal and political gain.
We didn't find kiddie porn, but this Anarchist Cookbook is suspect. Also, you DO seem to be the source that gave the reporter evidence against candidate X. We said we were looking for kiddie porn, but we'll mention this in our report anyway. Etc.
You'll note that the court case has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on your argument. The linked case prohibits anyone from disseminating a certain type of information without prior approval. The university DOESN'T restrict students from discussing this issue.
Further, I think it's disingenuous to assume the university is taking action against this student simply because of the content of her message. I find it equally as likely that they want to avoid students, not from discussing university issues, but from bulk mailing professors for every issue they find relevant.
Unless there are policies that say that this isn't allowed. The University has policies for distributing information, and this person ignored those policies. Just because MSU offered email service doesn't mean the individual had a right to use it in any way they wanted to. There are plenty of reasons for such a policy, such as limiting the purpose for email so that professors or students can use it in a defined way. It's the right of the university to impose those restrictions.
In other news, the TSA will begin ramping up security under a new no-smiles initiative. Travelers appearing too happy while traveling through the airport will be stopped and asked to undergo an intensive search, as research has shown that terrorists might smile to get past facial recognition software.*
*I wish I didn't have to do this, but for the record, the above is satire.
Most of these MAPs are supported by dealer contracts with the manufacturer. I think the issue comes up when a none-authorized dealer gets some of the product through one channel or another and they get take-down notices from the companies mentioned above.
It isn't that everyone is a terrorist. It's simply to stop the terrorists from having easy access. You, honorable citizen that your are, have nothing to worry about because you don't have anything to hide, right? Or at least that's the mantra. Let's ignore the potential for abuse...
This is what we call a false dichotomy and is exactly the same fear tactic used by governments in several countries to justify invasive and abusive legislation and practices.
Agreed, but the buying of an advertising group isn't an abuse by itself. If they were to buy the advertising and then use their position to leverage their position, then indeed, there are significant anti-trust issues. But there should be prohibition based on a twice removed potential.
Microsoft has a desktop monopoly, and the government says that Microsoft has certain responsibilities not to abuse that monopoly. They don't have any goal to take actions to actively weaken the monopoly, and they don't have any goals to stop Microsoft from growing in other sectors (like advertising) in which they do not have a monopoly.
I think there is a common sentiment to apply terrorism laws to things that aren't terrorism. This isn't terrorism and shouldn't be punished as such. If society wants to seriously punish people who intentionally dismantle infrastructure, than harsher laws need to be passed to that effect.
As an individual learning programming I'd like to strongly agree with this. I took several introductory programming courses, most of which were in Java. It was reasonably easy to make it through the examples in the class, the difficulty came when I tried to branch out on my own and begin learning data structures and patterns. I'm now going and learning assembler and C so that hopefully the principles that are abstracted in higher level languages like Java will have a basis in something more basic like a lower level language.
In my experience, the people who ask others for tech help are the least likely to be willing to pay for it. And they certainly aren't willing to pay market rates.
Hmm...I wonder if you were chiding Sad and Miserable as mutually redundant or Easter and Sad.
I chose my words poorly and made it sound like an attack on your comment. I didn't want it to be. I think that we're both right. I think he values the input from all sides, and I think he'll use the access he gains from having these people around as an in to the other side when he needs it.
The Republicans were fired by the American people, although most of them hold key positions near Obama (keep your friends close, and your enemies closer).
Or maybe he's keeping qualified people with diverse opinions close so that he doesn't pigeon-hole himself with people who tell him things he already knows. Several of the background stories on him covered his period at the Harvard Law Review where he upset many people because his election to that post didn't give all the open positions to people of the same political affiliation. He's doing the same here.
For the kids of course.
*sigh*...if you insist
XKCD
The part where the earth was created before the stars is a bit hard to believe. Maybe it means that the subatomic particles that it's made of?
Or maybe it's a story made up by early tribes in the mid-east not unlike other creation myths by African tribes, Native Americans, and pretty much everywhere else there have ever been humans.
I need a religious right comment to make sure, but it sounds like he is talking about replublicans.
I hope you are joking. If not, who is this "we" who think they should get whatever media they want whenever they want for no cost?
I'm not sure if this was the intent of the original poster it sounded a bit like satire against the slashdot community. I may be wrong though. In that light, the comments on articles like this tend to include a large number of people who admit to downloading copyrighted works. Some justify it by saying that they're "screwing the MAFIAA" or "making a point by not buying their stuff". I think a boycott loses it's teeth when the boycotters aren't actually boycotting the product, they just aren't paying for it.
If the people here want to boycott works with overly restrictive copyrights I fully support them. I do. I don't buy music published by the big labels and have, for the most part, avoided buying DVDs of the same type. But I don't think that gives this community some inherent right to go download it just because you wanted it. If it's of value, suck it up and buy it against your stance on copyright, or don't have it at all.
My point, is that asking if a submarine swims is like asking if the computer that is currently in front of me thinks. My computer does computations, and that is in many ways similar to things that the brain does. And, as I mentioned, if we go further I think that we may be able to create a machine that is a fairly accurate analog. At which point I think a great many people will want to say what the GGP said that it isn't really thinking because it's a machine, more out out discomfort for the idea than actual analysis of it.
The use of soul I think was foolish in this case. Others have mentioned that it was a word thrown in by the interviewer. More important I think is the idea that if we create a machine that is of equivalent consciousness (a value that will have to be determined later) can or should we treat that machine as an autonomous entity that has rights and responsibilities and has a rather equal place among humans. A place in the community rather than a tool or servant of humans. I argue that yes, if we create or a machine achieves an ability of thinking equal to humans than he would be no different than a visiting alien. Just because his "biology" is different from ours wouldn't mean that he isn't to be regarded on equal terms.
I don't think that's exactly accurate. I think it would be more accurate to ask, "Can we make a machine that can swim?" and the answer is yes, definitely. They've made machines that replicate the swimming action of dolphins I believe. And, while it didn't swim particularly well, I think the Mythbusters made a swimming robot for a myth. They may not swim like we or other things swim, but by all means, we can create machines that can swim.
This is important because we then need to ask, "Can we create a machine that is conscious" We'll first need to define consciousness, and I think there are definitions out there for that. That is less important than the result which will be, "Can we create a machine that works like, or is comparable to, a human brain?" If you accept the idea that the brain is merely a very complex set of cells that interact in a particular way, I think it's likely that we can eventually create a machine to replicate that.
At that point we'll have to ask some really tricky questions about how we treat this arguably conscious being that is in many ways just like us. Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and don't believe in a supernatural soul. So I think we'll also have to confront some of those ideas as well.
The argument on a more broad and far less substantiated level is that, indeed, women aren't drawn to fields like computer science and engineering, but it isn't because this is a purely natural inclination. It's because society as a whole defines certain fields as masculine or nerdy while women are supposed to be primped and popular. I think that public discussion about these ideas has been mostly good but the net effect hasn't yielded much. There is still a great deal of social pressure to not pursue these fields regardless of higher education initiatives. It looks pretty clear that women aren't as interested in computer science as men. As you mentioned, it would be foolish to push them to take on a career for the sake of getting the numbers up. But there is still work to be done on eliminating certain stigmas. I think that will involve downplaying certain social stereotypes of people who pursue these careers (nerds) and adjusting the expectation that every women dress, act, and generally be like [current female popular culture figure].
I'd be interested to see them include WinXP in the mix as well. Perhaps things like office productivity won't be affected because the OS should for the most part just be getting out of the way to let it run. Likewise for encoding, etc.