The difference is, you have decided to reveal those things and in most cases had to go out of your way to make them known. The information was yours and you were able to do with it as you pleased. The people who want privacy are only asking for the same ability, but that ability is growing scarce when the shoe is on the other foot.
A separate problem is that if your information is out there, there's not much that will stop the marketers from using it as well.
A hundred or more accounts may have been accessed, rather than 'the lone e-mail address' that was approved by a secret intelligence court as part of a national security investigation.
When I read this, I wasn't wondering how that happened, or what the nature of the "glitch" was, or how many accounts were accessed. What I was wondering is WHY THE FUCK DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE A SECRET COURT OF ANY KIND?!?!. Yeah yeah, to protect the children, save the whales, stop the terrorists, keep you safe, "our intentions are pure and we're really a bunch of big-hearted individuals who care about your well-being" etc... I still don't know what is wrong with the assholes who actually believe this shit.
And hell, I want to believe we have a good, honest government. The fact is, we don't. I don't understand what being in this level of denial is supposed to do to remedy the situation. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers intended for most of our interaction with government to come from the local and state level. The only thing the federal government can do that the state & local governments cannot do is resolve disputes between states, conduct foreign policy, regulate interstate trade, oh and it can slowly become a dictatorship too. Speaking of remedies, I'm betting that nothing will happen either to the FBI as an organization or to the individuals who made this "mistake", that at most they will receive a slap-on-the-wrist.
'The bill, tentatively entitled the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2008, would not actually declare throttling illegal specifically. Instead, it would call upon the Federal Communications Commission to hold a hearing to determine whether or not throttling is a bad thing, and whether it has the right to take action to stop it.'"
So they're asking a government agency whether or not it has authority over something (how said authority will be used is a separate matter, of course). Gee, I wonder what the answer will be?
I hear things like this all of the time, and I have one question. What were you hoping for, from the Democrats, that a Libertarian would not do for you? It should be obvious by now that both of the major parties want the police state that we are headed towards and that their duopoly control of all political power has not proven to be a good idea. Typically, "independent" means "sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes I vote Republican" which won't solve this problem. I haven't heard anyone in the Green Party espousing a strict view of the Constitution or call for a reduction of the size and power of government, which is what is needed now (perhaps some of their policies would imply this, but I have never heard of it being one of their primary goals).
So, I honestly wonder: if you are going to support a minor party, why not Libertarian?
Punish them once for helping the government spy on us.
Punish them 2x that amount for seeking immunity and generally trying to excuse it. Don't just fine the company (but by all means, do that too). Seize the personal assets of every executive who supported this and put them up for auction; disperse the proceeds to a variety of charities.
Impeach and imprison for life, on the basis of treason, every politician who supported what they knew to be an unconstitutional law. Isn't it funny how someone who assists our enemies is prosecuted for treason, but the far worse threat of elected officials who knowingly erode civil liberties is generally not even recognized to be a crime? Remember that politicians are generally also lawyers; they know very well what the 4th Amendment says.
I'd like to see all of the above happen in a court of law. Yes, I can keep dreaming. None of this will ever happen. I know that. But I'd like my country back, please.
Maybe when we're all marching the goose step we will have some insight and will collectively decide "hmm, maybe a free country IS worth a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack." The politicians of course are happy to increase their power for any reason or no reason at all, but it is DISGUSTING how the public is so cowardly that they always allow this to happen whenever a little more safety is promised to them. This is such a disgrace to anyone familiar with how and why the USA became a nation.
I would be much more impressed with some method of administration that would be able to overcome purposefully missed doses in certain patients. I think a lot of the problems with missed dosages are people thinking that they are feeling better, and therefore do not need the medicines they are taking.
Any halfway decent doctor will also tell the patient that they need to completely follow the instructions given them along with whatever prescription they are taking. If someone disregards their doctor's medical advice and suffers as a result, I'm really not sure what they were expecting or what there is to complain about. This situation is not broken, nor does it have a victim. What's the point in even going to a doctor if you (very unwisely) think you know more about medicine than they do?
I foresee a silly objection, so I'll say that this entire question obviously wouldn't apply in the case of people who cannot be expected to follow instructions (say, an Alzheimer's patient) and other arrangements would have to be made.
That said, I think a huge proportion of prescribed drugs are unnecessary, and that practice should be looked into more...
If we're going to make an effort to change anything, this would be a much more worthy target. Truly unnecessary medications would have implications that can directly and indirectly affect nearly everyone. Since you are supposed to go to your doctor for a diagnosis and let them advise the best way to treat your condition, getting rid of the commercials and other advertisements that market prescription drugs directly to the public would be a good first step.
I strongly agree that, for a variety of reasons, there is no substitute for a little RTFA. Having said that...
This is a separate issue from whether the Slashdot editor correctly represented what was in the article. That I can check other sources and cross-reference information to avoid believing an incorrect figure does not suddenly make that figure correct.
Bear in mind, these are experienced editors who earn a living doing what they do. This isn't an amateur "best effort" site. There is nothing wrong with expecting quality from them and (politely) pointing out when it is not delivered.
I read through the summary and totally missed it. Some people are better proofreaders than others. I care more about the 'editors' ability to pick decent stories than their ability to proofread nitpicky details like that.
You'll find that those two (the ability to choose good stories, and the ability to pay attention to detail) are strongly correlated, since they both come from a more general desire to "get it right."
I realize it's popular to bash such a criticism on the basis that it's too "nitpicky" since this goes a long way towards excusing one's own inability or unwillingness to pay attention to details, but being an editor is detail work. The editor knows that before they apply for the job. Additionally, the mistake was made with a quantity; it was not just a misspelled word or a less-than-ideal use of grammar. Whether "12,0000" was intended to mean "12,000" or "120,000" or neither does impact the degree of support shown by said scientists.
This is just a poor job of editing. It's not very useful to dismiss valid criticism when that criticism did not occur in a vacuum. Rather than look at the reaction to a cause, look to the cause itself if you don't like the chain of events that followed.
The obvious solution is to bribe^H^H^H^^H contribute to the campaign of enough politicians to get the Wii outlawed. Call it an "income circumvention device". Man, have Namco learned nothing? Are they that dense? Whenever your industry is threatened by new "consumer" technology, just abuse the law to protect your position in the market. Damn, this should be Business 101 in America; doesn't Japan want to be competitive in the global market?
Except for the part where Vista Home Premium costs around $200, and $100 if you get it OEM when building a new computer (or not, newegg really doesn't care). And it doesn't ruin your computer, but thanks for trolling.
To quote a Monty Python episode... "You're no fun anymore!"
Until they're unhappy enough to stop giving any money to Microsoft for any reason, this has no practical effect whatsoever. Until then, it is expedient to not be so easily fooled. This is much easier and more effective than trying to reform Microsoft or anyone else, for that matter, since lies only "work" when they are believed.
Yes, there is such a thing as ethics. You can demonstrate what ethics is all about by what you value and by the way that you live your life. However, you can't control whether someone else chooses to be ethical; therefore, the virtue of not being so naive as to believe everything you are told is not going to lose its value anytime soon.
That wasn't an idealistic statement about how I want things to be. That was a pragmatic statement based on how things are. The fact of the matter is, many large organizations lie and misrepresent, and a simple exercise of "follow-the-money" is usually sufficient to explain why. Never believe anything to be true unless you can independently verify it or it is consistent with what you already know to be true - in a world full of liars and monied interests, there is no substitute for this. Allowed or not, people lie when they think they can get away with it, and it is up to you who hears the lie to decide whether or not it is believable. People and companies generally don't lie unless they think it will work, that it will be believed. I hope this clears up the non-question of whether a company should or should not lie.
Therein lies your hubris. I'm in your shoes. I know what to look for, I know how to cross reference, I know how to consider the source, etc. What you describe as 'common sense' is a skill, whether you think you learned it or were born with it. Many people don't have it, and won't have it. Many people were not born into a family or environment that can supply it.
The unstated assumption you are making is that you are either born with something or you are forever deprived of it. This is a faulty assumption and it is not difficult to come up with counter-examples; in fact it is trivial enough that I won't bother. People can and do choose to overcome their environment. I notice one trait that all such people have in common: they don't make excuses for their failures. They take responsibility for their shortcomings and they see themselves as a work-in-progress. They don't just give up and say "oh no, this doesn't come easily, I'll have to work for something, I guess I'm fucked." When I make a mistake (be it computers or whatever), my reaction is to look at why I failed and what I can do to learn from that mistake, what I should have known but did not know. Therefore, either I learn the easy way - by observing other people to discern both why they succeeded or why they failed, or I learn the hard way - trial and error. Either way, I learn; I improve. I find this far more tasteful than playing the victim and acting like I am helpless to do something about it when I am not.
I refuse to just be a product of my environment, and I suspect that anyone who is content to be just another product is missing out on what it means to be fully human, to truly have your own identity and take care of your own education (not to be confused with your schooling, to grossly paraphrase Samuel Clemens). I don't look down on people who can't be bothered with this; it is their life, they may (and must) do with it as they see fit. But I refuse to be their apologist when they make poor decisions and these poor decisions quite naturally yield poor results.
Therein lies your hubris. I'm in your shoes. I know what to look for, I know how to cross reference, I know how to consider the source, etc. What you describe as 'common sense' is a skill, whether you think you learned it or were born with it. Many people don't have it, and won't have it. Many people were not born into a family or environment that can supply it. When you say, in so many words, "Know what you don't know," that in and of itself is knowledge that some people don't have. You want to look down on them for that?
It's a skill that is essential; it's the only effective way to avoid self-defeating behavior that I have ever known. Never confuse "expect better of" with "look down on". You wish to talk to me of hubris? To assume that I am not somehow special or better than anyone else, that therefore they are just as capable of refining this skill as I am, is the exact opposite of hubris. Hubris or any other shade of arrogance would mean assuming that I have reached a level of excellence of which most people are simply incapable, that I am inherently better than them and therefore they will never equal my accomplishments. I find it far more arrogant to excuse mediocrity on the grounds that it's unreasonable to expect anything better from the "unwashed masses."
Methinks that you do believe you are special, and have probably been told this all of your life by well-meaning yet misguided individuals. Yes, that's an opinion and no I cannot prove it, although it does explain this need you feel to be an apologist for people who undertake a task with no understanding and quite naturally get bad results. The common sense that I advocate isn't some grand accomplishment or amazing feat of human understanding. It's an appreciation for simple, self-evident truths and a refusal to overlook them just because they don't say what you want to hear. It is really nothing, certain
I thought and thought about that, and just could not get my head around it. If there is no monopoly to fight, or evildoers to rail against, life is just too surreal to contemplate.
Henry David Thoreau once set out to live aloof of such things in order to simplify his life as much as possible and find out what there was to contemplate without such distractions. You might find Walden a most refreshing read. The picture painted there is one I find far better than the petty shit we spend so much time fighting over.
The day we use technology to unite in collective effort, disseminate intelligence and wisdom to dissolve ignorance and share a single intention then the consumer the citizen will take control as master.
They already thought of that. It's called public education. Nothing like a bunch of passive people who think that staying informed isn't very important to hinder something like that (although I would love to see it happen myself).
The campaign is described as one to 'force "consumers" to buy what clearly value enough to download by the terabyte -- corporate "content," as the Big 4 call the media that college students claim to think is all formulaic and worthless, and yet consume at an at enormous rate when it's free and easily pilferable.'
I'm not taking a position on whether downloading copyrighted music is right or wrong either way (although some fool will probably respond with an argument against the position I'm not taking) but I did want to point something out. That they will consume it at an enormous rate when it's free and easily pilferable but will not pay for it actually tends to support the premise that it's formulaic and worthless. That is, if you think something isn't worth paying for, you are not contradicting yourself by refusing to pay for it, even if you do obtain it illegitimately for free.
Being dependent on someone else for your security is a choice you make; it's that simple. It's not some inevitable progression due to specialization. Not being so dependent just means either taking care of things yourself, or seeing to it that they get taken care of (i.e. i'm not a mechanic but that doesn't mean my car runs poorly; if I haven't the skill I find someone who does, as evidenced by results). For some reason with computers people make a half-assed effort, declare it "too hard" and give up.
a) you have to be able to discern what is 'correct' information versus 'false' information, even if there is often no actual basis for proving which is which unless you're fairly familiar with the subject matter to begin with
Are you suggesting that this is a serious obstacle? Have you never researched a topic before? You discern good information from bad by applying critical thinking and by checking multiple sources and by using some good old-fashioned common sense. This takes effort, which is why it's not very popular. Most people seem to want easy answers handed to them, which is nice when available but accepting nothing else is a big reason why there's such a sorry state of network security today. That does not mean in the least that it could not be done or that there's an excuse for why the average person shouldn't have the capability.
b) if you spent 24 hours a day, 7 days a week reading, until you died, you still wouldn't have learned absolutely everything about every subject which directly affects your life and your interactions with society and nature
This is a silly and extreme example; that you had to resort to that actually tends to reinforce the point I was making. It's simple, really. If I don't want to learn the basics of correctly operating and securing a computer, my option is to either not put one on the network or see to it that someone who does have enough understanding takes a look at it from time to time. To buy a computer and place it on the network and then refuse to take responsibility for its security is real nice; when it becomes compromised and attacks other systems or contributes to the spam problem I'm sure everyone will just understand that I couldn't be bothered to do it correctly, right? My equipment = my problem. What's so hard about that?
One would argue that one of the many triumphs of modern democracy and western institutions is acknowledging the 'general will' of society. This permits organized and hopefully representative bodies such as government and private industry to centralize and specialize in the kinds of information and services we apparently (or more like are forced to) depend on. Of course its not perfect, but that is technology.
That there are such specialists is why ignorance is no excuse. The presence of specialists who can handle the job just makes the ignorant user more irresponsible for not consulting one. Do I expect people to be an absolute expert on computers? No. Do I expect them to know when they're out of their element and dealing with what they do not understand? Yes, I do, especially when their failures can affect other people on the network. This is true whether it's computers, cars, firearms, whatever. It's a general principle, and a sound one.
We have better tools for spreading the word, we have better tools for spreading spam. I really don't understand the desire to paint users as people who should know better. It's not a cultural problem, its simply a matter of practicality. I bet my calc teacher didn't know how to properly firewall his computer off; he was just a little too busy learning and teaching calculus, you dig?
Your calc teacher is also aware that he doesn't know how to configure the firewall. He is aware that other people do know how to do this and can either take care of it for him, or show him how. If he's sharp
Yes, because the voters are appeased when religion is appeased. Prostitution, gambling, drugs and alcohol are all vices that people have been engaged in since the dawn of man. Religion has been the **industry** (don't kid yourself, religion is an INDUSTRY) that has placed itself as an enemy of humanity's vices, its own nature, to justify its existence. Human nature won't change and the perceived need for religion will perpetuate itself for the duration of humanity's nature. And as long as people can be distracted by religion, people will continue to vote for the issues that win elections and enable laws.
What you describe is exactly why I dislike organized religion.
It's a shame it so often becomes confused with an individual's quest to find his/her place in the universe and to become a spiritual being with a sense of purpose. That is something that no group or election or law is ever going to give you. If you perceive a vice as a character weakness and decide that you don't need it to feel fulfilled and that, in fact, it would hinder you, you have achieved something that no law or other threat of punishment is ever going to accomplish. This kind of realization always occurs on a personal level and no list of "do's and don'ts" is ever going to make it happen. The best thing that an organization can bring about is a change in external behavior only; enhanced understanding of who you are does not come from external things and cannot be forced onto another person.
We live in a world with a lot of problems and dangers. We teach about a lot of things and think it's rather natural that those things we don't teach and warn people about will naturally lead to problems related to it. We've got a culture and economic system that *VERY* dependent on the public internet and the use of personal computers. We've got heavy dependence on a very weak and exploitable system. I just have to wonder how bad it has to get before the enablers are finally held responsible.
We've got a culture where people are *VERY* dependent on someone else to hand knowledge to them, even to the point of remaining ignorant of dangers for which much information has been written. I submit that this is the real problem.
Isn't is nice to see that governments rather go after internet gambling, something that really doesn't dother me at all, and completely ignore spam, something that is really annoying to us, the normal people...
It makes clear, once again, that governments are totally not 2.0-ready. They don't know about how technologies work and how to deal with it.
What surprises me is the benefit of doubt that is always given to those in power. There is much political power to be had by allowing something to become a crisis and then stepping in with "justifiable measures" to address said crisis. This is referred to by various names; the two which come to mind are Problem, Reaction, Solution and the other is Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The idea comes mainly from Hegel although I suspect it's actually older than this.
Really, don't you ever wonder why most "crises" were foreseeable events that were ignored or neglected until they became huge problems? Personally, I am not so quick to assume they just innocently "don't get it." They might or might not understand the technologies involved, but they certainly do understand what millions of people demanding that they "do something right now" can mean for their political careers.
The big issue here seems to be not the coolant itself - it seems to be a relatively good coolant to use - but the fact that the accident happened.
The big issue here is not that an accident happened -- accidents have a way of doing that from time to time. Things go wrong, the best plans have flaws, people make mistakes. This is true of... well, all non-trivial human endeavors. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, especially considering that no one in their right mind is going to deny that a nuclear reactor is a complex device with a non-zero risk of something going wrong.
The big issue here is that the government lied to its people and the fact that they lied was covered up. We need more stories like this of governments around the world because it might just put a dent in the (very dangerous) "government is your friend" mentality that is especially prevalant in the USA.
Personally I wish the definition of treason were expanded to include "issuing false statements to the people with the intent to deceive when done by any government official" or something to that effect. Meaning, you can make an honest mistake and it's no big deal; deliberately lie to the people and you get removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Does that sound harsh? Perhaps, but they don't seem to think so when they "make an example" of us, as we have seen with the War on (Some) Drugs and are now seeing with copyright law. Not to mention, almost any concept I have of "harsh" goes out the window when talking of wrongdoing on the part of people who consider themselves our masters.
This isn't Athens where people were chosen for public office by lottery. These are people who seek power and have worked very hard to get it. What's wrong with giving them a reason to be cautions with how they use it?
First off, let me state that I am an inactive (retired) lawyer so that nothing I say here is legal advice.
Just a side comment. Unless you make a positive and unambiguous claim that you are giving legal advice, then nothing you say should ever be construed as such. That it does not seem to work this way is one reason why the system is so fucked up. While giving such a disclaimer is probably a very smart move on your part, the idea that you would need one is very stupid. Everything anyone says should be "just their personal opinion and nothing more" unless they specifically state otherwise. It's the same deal with those disclaimers that state that "the opinions given here are not intended to represent my employer." Well no shit. If I don't see something along the lines of "Hi, I'm a spokesperson for Company X and this is our official statement" then there is no reason to think that it's a company position. People can believe whatever they want to believe; it does not automatically make that belief true.
The way things are right now seems designed to discourage critical thinking. If someone takes a statement as legal advice that was never positively represented as such, and suffers a loss because of it, that should be considered 100% their fault for failure to perform due diligence. Honestly I'm really tired of the way we seem to collectively protect and coddle stupidity when it is supposed to be painful by its very nature.
Again I don't blame you in the slightest for giving such a disclaimer, as it probably serves to protect you from just this sort of idiocy. What I don't understand is how we arrived at such a sorry state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is, you have decided to reveal those things and in most cases had to go out of your way to make them known. The information was yours and you were able to do with it as you pleased. The people who want privacy are only asking for the same ability, but that ability is growing scarce when the shoe is on the other foot.
A separate problem is that if your information is out there, there's not much that will stop the marketers from using it as well.
When I read this, I wasn't wondering how that happened, or what the nature of the "glitch" was, or how many accounts were accessed. What I was wondering is WHY THE FUCK DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE A SECRET COURT OF ANY KIND?!?!. Yeah yeah, to protect the children, save the whales, stop the terrorists, keep you safe, "our intentions are pure and we're really a bunch of big-hearted individuals who care about your well-being" etc... I still don't know what is wrong with the assholes who actually believe this shit.
And hell, I want to believe we have a good, honest government. The fact is, we don't. I don't understand what being in this level of denial is supposed to do to remedy the situation. There is a very good reason why the founding fathers intended for most of our interaction with government to come from the local and state level. The only thing the federal government can do that the state & local governments cannot do is resolve disputes between states, conduct foreign policy, regulate interstate trade, oh and it can slowly become a dictatorship too. Speaking of remedies, I'm betting that nothing will happen either to the FBI as an organization or to the individuals who made this "mistake", that at most they will receive a slap-on-the-wrist.
So they're asking a government agency whether or not it has authority over something (how said authority will be used is a separate matter, of course). Gee, I wonder what the answer will be?
I hear things like this all of the time, and I have one question. What were you hoping for, from the Democrats, that a Libertarian would not do for you? It should be obvious by now that both of the major parties want the police state that we are headed towards and that their duopoly control of all political power has not proven to be a good idea. Typically, "independent" means "sometimes I vote Democrat, sometimes I vote Republican" which won't solve this problem. I haven't heard anyone in the Green Party espousing a strict view of the Constitution or call for a reduction of the size and power of government, which is what is needed now (perhaps some of their policies would imply this, but I have never heard of it being one of their primary goals).
So, I honestly wonder: if you are going to support a minor party, why not Libertarian?
Punish them once for helping the government spy on us.
Punish them 2x that amount for seeking immunity and generally trying to excuse it. Don't just fine the company (but by all means, do that too). Seize the personal assets of every executive who supported this and put them up for auction; disperse the proceeds to a variety of charities.
Impeach and imprison for life, on the basis of treason, every politician who supported what they knew to be an unconstitutional law. Isn't it funny how someone who assists our enemies is prosecuted for treason, but the far worse threat of elected officials who knowingly erode civil liberties is generally not even recognized to be a crime? Remember that politicians are generally also lawyers; they know very well what the 4th Amendment says.
I'd like to see all of the above happen in a court of law. Yes, I can keep dreaming. None of this will ever happen. I know that. But I'd like my country back, please.
Maybe when we're all marching the goose step we will have some insight and will collectively decide "hmm, maybe a free country IS worth a miniscule risk of dying in a terrorist attack." The politicians of course are happy to increase their power for any reason or no reason at all, but it is DISGUSTING how the public is so cowardly that they always allow this to happen whenever a little more safety is promised to them. This is such a disgrace to anyone familiar with how and why the USA became a nation.
Any halfway decent doctor will also tell the patient that they need to completely follow the instructions given them along with whatever prescription they are taking. If someone disregards their doctor's medical advice and suffers as a result, I'm really not sure what they were expecting or what there is to complain about. This situation is not broken, nor does it have a victim. What's the point in even going to a doctor if you (very unwisely) think you know more about medicine than they do?
I foresee a silly objection, so I'll say that this entire question obviously wouldn't apply in the case of people who cannot be expected to follow instructions (say, an Alzheimer's patient) and other arrangements would have to be made.
If we're going to make an effort to change anything, this would be a much more worthy target. Truly unnecessary medications would have implications that can directly and indirectly affect nearly everyone. Since you are supposed to go to your doctor for a diagnosis and let them advise the best way to treat your condition, getting rid of the commercials and other advertisements that market prescription drugs directly to the public would be a good first step.
I strongly agree that, for a variety of reasons, there is no substitute for a little RTFA. Having said that ...
This is a separate issue from whether the Slashdot editor correctly represented what was in the article. That I can check other sources and cross-reference information to avoid believing an incorrect figure does not suddenly make that figure correct.
Bear in mind, these are experienced editors who earn a living doing what they do. This isn't an amateur "best effort" site. There is nothing wrong with expecting quality from them and (politely) pointing out when it is not delivered.
You'll find that those two (the ability to choose good stories, and the ability to pay attention to detail) are strongly correlated, since they both come from a more general desire to "get it right."
I realize it's popular to bash such a criticism on the basis that it's too "nitpicky" since this goes a long way towards excusing one's own inability or unwillingness to pay attention to details, but being an editor is detail work. The editor knows that before they apply for the job. Additionally, the mistake was made with a quantity; it was not just a misspelled word or a less-than-ideal use of grammar. Whether "12,0000" was intended to mean "12,000" or "120,000" or neither does impact the degree of support shown by said scientists.
This is just a poor job of editing. It's not very useful to dismiss valid criticism when that criticism did not occur in a vacuum. Rather than look at the reaction to a cause, look to the cause itself if you don't like the chain of events that followed.
The obvious solution is to bribe^H^H^H^^H contribute to the campaign of enough politicians to get the Wii outlawed. Call it an "income circumvention device". Man, have Namco learned nothing? Are they that dense? Whenever your industry is threatened by new "consumer" technology, just abuse the law to protect your position in the market. Damn, this should be Business 101 in America; doesn't Japan want to be competitive in the global market?
To quote a Monty Python episode
Until they're unhappy enough to stop giving any money to Microsoft for any reason, this has no practical effect whatsoever. Until then, it is expedient to not be so easily fooled. This is much easier and more effective than trying to reform Microsoft or anyone else, for that matter, since lies only "work" when they are believed.
Yes, there is such a thing as ethics. You can demonstrate what ethics is all about by what you value and by the way that you live your life. However, you can't control whether someone else chooses to be ethical; therefore, the virtue of not being so naive as to believe everything you are told is not going to lose its value anytime soon.
That wasn't an idealistic statement about how I want things to be. That was a pragmatic statement based on how things are. The fact of the matter is, many large organizations lie and misrepresent, and a simple exercise of "follow-the-money" is usually sufficient to explain why. Never believe anything to be true unless you can independently verify it or it is consistent with what you already know to be true - in a world full of liars and monied interests, there is no substitute for this. Allowed or not, people lie when they think they can get away with it, and it is up to you who hears the lie to decide whether or not it is believable. People and companies generally don't lie unless they think it will work, that it will be believed. I hope this clears up the non-question of whether a company should or should not lie.
The unstated assumption you are making is that you are either born with something or you are forever deprived of it. This is a faulty assumption and it is not difficult to come up with counter-examples; in fact it is trivial enough that I won't bother. People can and do choose to overcome their environment. I notice one trait that all such people have in common: they don't make excuses for their failures. They take responsibility for their shortcomings and they see themselves as a work-in-progress. They don't just give up and say "oh no, this doesn't come easily, I'll have to work for something, I guess I'm fucked." When I make a mistake (be it computers or whatever), my reaction is to look at why I failed and what I can do to learn from that mistake, what I should have known but did not know. Therefore, either I learn the easy way - by observing other people to discern both why they succeeded or why they failed, or I learn the hard way - trial and error. Either way, I learn; I improve. I find this far more tasteful than playing the victim and acting like I am helpless to do something about it when I am not.
I refuse to just be a product of my environment, and I suspect that anyone who is content to be just another product is missing out on what it means to be fully human, to truly have your own identity and take care of your own education (not to be confused with your schooling, to grossly paraphrase Samuel Clemens). I don't look down on people who can't be bothered with this; it is their life, they may (and must) do with it as they see fit. But I refuse to be their apologist when they make poor decisions and these poor decisions quite naturally yield poor results.
It's a skill that is essential; it's the only effective way to avoid self-defeating behavior that I have ever known. Never confuse "expect better of" with "look down on". You wish to talk to me of hubris? To assume that I am not somehow special or better than anyone else, that therefore they are just as capable of refining this skill as I am, is the exact opposite of hubris. Hubris or any other shade of arrogance would mean assuming that I have reached a level of excellence of which most people are simply incapable, that I am inherently better than them and therefore they will never equal my accomplishments. I find it far more arrogant to excuse mediocrity on the grounds that it's unreasonable to expect anything better from the "unwashed masses."
Methinks that you do believe you are special, and have probably been told this all of your life by well-meaning yet misguided individuals. Yes, that's an opinion and no I cannot prove it, although it does explain this need you feel to be an apologist for people who undertake a task with no understanding and quite naturally get bad results. The common sense that I advocate isn't some grand accomplishment or amazing feat of human understanding. It's an appreciation for simple, self-evident truths and a refusal to overlook them just because they don't say what you want to hear. It is really nothing, certain
Henry David Thoreau once set out to live aloof of such things in order to simplify his life as much as possible and find out what there was to contemplate without such distractions. You might find Walden a most refreshing read. The picture painted there is one I find far better than the petty shit we spend so much time fighting over.
For that matter, why does anyone expect truth from any party with a vested interest? Microsoft isn't special in that regard.
Someone gets it. Please mod this up!
They already thought of that. It's called public education. Nothing like a bunch of passive people who think that staying informed isn't very important to hinder something like that (although I would love to see it happen myself).
I'm not taking a position on whether downloading copyrighted music is right or wrong either way (although some fool will probably respond with an argument against the position I'm not taking) but I did want to point something out. That they will consume it at an enormous rate when it's free and easily pilferable but will not pay for it actually tends to support the premise that it's formulaic and worthless. That is, if you think something isn't worth paying for, you are not contradicting yourself by refusing to pay for it, even if you do obtain it illegitimately for free.
Are you suggesting that this is a serious obstacle? Have you never researched a topic before? You discern good information from bad by applying critical thinking and by checking multiple sources and by using some good old-fashioned common sense. This takes effort, which is why it's not very popular. Most people seem to want easy answers handed to them, which is nice when available but accepting nothing else is a big reason why there's such a sorry state of network security today. That does not mean in the least that it could not be done or that there's an excuse for why the average person shouldn't have the capability.
This is a silly and extreme example; that you had to resort to that actually tends to reinforce the point I was making. It's simple, really. If I don't want to learn the basics of correctly operating and securing a computer, my option is to either not put one on the network or see to it that someone who does have enough understanding takes a look at it from time to time. To buy a computer and place it on the network and then refuse to take responsibility for its security is real nice; when it becomes compromised and attacks other systems or contributes to the spam problem I'm sure everyone will just understand that I couldn't be bothered to do it correctly, right? My equipment = my problem. What's so hard about that?
That there are such specialists is why ignorance is no excuse. The presence of specialists who can handle the job just makes the ignorant user more irresponsible for not consulting one. Do I expect people to be an absolute expert on computers? No. Do I expect them to know when they're out of their element and dealing with what they do not understand? Yes, I do, especially when their failures can affect other people on the network. This is true whether it's computers, cars, firearms, whatever. It's a general principle, and a sound one.
Your calc teacher is also aware that he doesn't know how to configure the firewall. He is aware that other people do know how to do this and can either take care of it for him, or show him how. If he's sharp
What you describe is exactly why I dislike organized religion.
It's a shame it so often becomes confused with an individual's quest to find his/her place in the universe and to become a spiritual being with a sense of purpose. That is something that no group or election or law is ever going to give you. If you perceive a vice as a character weakness and decide that you don't need it to feel fulfilled and that, in fact, it would hinder you, you have achieved something that no law or other threat of punishment is ever going to accomplish. This kind of realization always occurs on a personal level and no list of "do's and don'ts" is ever going to make it happen. The best thing that an organization can bring about is a change in external behavior only; enhanced understanding of who you are does not come from external things and cannot be forced onto another person.
We've got a culture where people are *VERY* dependent on someone else to hand knowledge to them, even to the point of remaining ignorant of dangers for which much information has been written. I submit that this is the real problem.
What surprises me is the benefit of doubt that is always given to those in power. There is much political power to be had by allowing something to become a crisis and then stepping in with "justifiable measures" to address said crisis. This is referred to by various names; the two which come to mind are Problem, Reaction, Solution and the other is Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. The idea comes mainly from Hegel although I suspect it's actually older than this.
Really, don't you ever wonder why most "crises" were foreseeable events that were ignored or neglected until they became huge problems? Personally, I am not so quick to assume they just innocently "don't get it." They might or might not understand the technologies involved, but they certainly do understand what millions of people demanding that they "do something right now" can mean for their political careers.
The big issue here is not that an accident happened -- accidents have a way of doing that from time to time. Things go wrong, the best plans have flaws, people make mistakes. This is true of
The big issue here is that the government lied to its people and the fact that they lied was covered up. We need more stories like this of governments around the world because it might just put a dent in the (very dangerous) "government is your friend" mentality that is especially prevalant in the USA.
Personally I wish the definition of treason were expanded to include "issuing false statements to the people with the intent to deceive when done by any government official" or something to that effect. Meaning, you can make an honest mistake and it's no big deal; deliberately lie to the people and you get removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Does that sound harsh? Perhaps, but they don't seem to think so when they "make an example" of us, as we have seen with the War on (Some) Drugs and are now seeing with copyright law. Not to mention, almost any concept I have of "harsh" goes out the window when talking of wrongdoing on the part of people who consider themselves our masters.
This isn't Athens where people were chosen for public office by lottery. These are people who seek power and have worked very hard to get it. What's wrong with giving them a reason to be cautions with how they use it?
Did you even read what I said? I addressed this point.
Just a side comment. Unless you make a positive and unambiguous claim that you are giving legal advice, then nothing you say should ever be construed as such. That it does not seem to work this way is one reason why the system is so fucked up. While giving such a disclaimer is probably a very smart move on your part, the idea that you would need one is very stupid. Everything anyone says should be "just their personal opinion and nothing more" unless they specifically state otherwise. It's the same deal with those disclaimers that state that "the opinions given here are not intended to represent my employer." Well no shit. If I don't see something along the lines of "Hi, I'm a spokesperson for Company X and this is our official statement" then there is no reason to think that it's a company position. People can believe whatever they want to believe; it does not automatically make that belief true.
The way things are right now seems designed to discourage critical thinking. If someone takes a statement as legal advice that was never positively represented as such, and suffers a loss because of it, that should be considered 100% their fault for failure to perform due diligence. Honestly I'm really tired of the way we seem to collectively protect and coddle stupidity when it is supposed to be painful by its very nature.
Again I don't blame you in the slightest for giving such a disclaimer, as it probably serves to protect you from just this sort of idiocy. What I don't understand is how we arrived at such a sorry state of affairs.