Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
You also need a blender. For the margaritas, of course. Then it doesn't matter if you did bring anything else, because after enough margaritas you won't remember about the other gadgets.
The whole concept of DRM is a joke, invented b/c lawmakers were unwilling or unable to draft legislation that properly dealt with online filesharing and piracy.
I vote unable - because enforcement is impossible. Even the RIAA's highly publicized campaign of sueage currently near the 40,000 suit market is just a drop in the bucket of well over 10million simultaneous users -- only 0.4% at best.
Of course I don't believe it is the politicians fault, its really the fault of the entertainment business for (a) being run by lawyers (the old every problem looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer situation) and (b) not accepting the obvious and ignoring new business models.
played a key role in sabotaging the career of CIA agent Valerie Plame to back Bush administration policy
Are you sure you aren't talking about Novak? The guy who actually published the details on Plame that Cheney was shopping around? I thought I read that Woodward specifically chose not to take Cheney's bait.
And that would be a ANOTHER strawman. I didn't say anything of the sort, I do not believe anything of the sort. I said "least harm", and I stand by it. Seeing as you disagree, make your case.
Anyone who actually believes in free speech, not just conveniently free speech knows that the cure for bad speech is not censorship, it is good speech. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in free speech, full stop.
All of your examples have been cases where you prefer to prevent short-term harm at the expense of long-term harm. So, in fact, you did say precisely that - just one of many examples would be "Now, if instead of breaking your kneeaps I show you a recording of me raping your family and breaking their kneecaps, hey, I didn't cause anything.." -- strawman it wasn't.
Make your case or walk away.
My case has always been clear and simple - if you believe in exceptions to free speech then you do not believe in free speech. Pretty much by defintion you only believe in kinda-sorta-free-speech.
I'm tired of absorbing your pointless abuse.
Don't try to co-opt the righteousness of free speech without the responsibilities that go with it and I won't insult you for it.
You think least harm is achieved with completely unrestricted speech. I don't. We disagree.
Again on the herring.
You mean least harm was all you had?
What happened to all the grandiose claims about "universal principles" - it was really just one principle?
So in fact, the way your head works, is that you believe in your version of "least harm" more than you believe in free speech. Which just happened to be my point all along.
BTW, the problem with your version of least harm is that you are clearly more interested in short term harm than long term harm. Kinda like a politician. See my original point about appearing to do something about a problem without actually fixing it.
10 years is nothing. The palestinian conflict has been going on for decades. All it takes is a small shift in the political gestalt of the extremist christian movement and they will be back to blowing up clinics.
This is the mistake I see being made by 90% of overly cautious privacy advocates. If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws.
You are assuming a 'vast conspiracy' problem. Before that stage comes the one of a bunch of little conspiracies. Like individuals in positions of authority abusing that authority for personal reasons - like harassing ex-girlfriends and their new boyfriends, or individual police officers abusing the system to manipulate courts to convict people they 'just know' are guilty, or incumbent politicians using surveillance information to gain an unfair advantage over political challengers (sort of like the way Hoover used the FBI).
Right now, those are the kinds of privacy problems we have to contend with. If we allow them to go unchecked eventually we will end up in the situation of 'vast conspiracy' where these abuses are no longer the exception, they are the rule.
Blah, blah, blah. So I trivialized what you to believe to be a subtle view and which I believe is clear-cut hypocrisy.
There is no conflict between "least harm" and free speech. By definition free speech leads to the least harm. The cure for bad speech has never been censorship. Got some other "universal" principle you want to bring up to bat?
Any set of principles which a society embraces will have conflicts. Accepting that and coping with it isn't hypocrisy and doesn't lead to fascism.
Cute twist of words, but yet another red herring. Believing that speech must be censored is what leads to fascism, not "accepting that principles will have conflicts."
I never said it was easy. Just that it is done and therefore the original poster's pricing was low because he was competing with exactly those groups.
FWIW, my experience is that if you are the go-to guy among the army of consultants than you can be the go-to guy for the client directly and that while you lose some minor logistical back-up from the rest of the army, you and the client both gain because as a freelancer your goals are much more closely aligned with your client's and that increases the level of trust the client can have in you.
No, the debate is whether or not one can truthfully claim they believe in free speech and yet be perfectly happy to censor speech they don't like.
All of your examples are attempts to prove that the world is full of hypocrisy so therefore your particular hypocrisy must be truth rather than hypocrisy.
When I talk about fascism I am pointing out to you where your particular brand of hypocrisy leads in societies that have embraced it.
An associate of mine bills $350/hr for SAP consulting but gets paid much less than 50% of that.
$150/hour is about right for short-term private contractors.
It all depends on how you sell yourself. I compete against the corporate consulting services, so I price myself in their ballpark and I take it all home. I guess it helps that I used to be one of those corporate consultants until I realized that I didn't have to give away 75% of the bill rate.
Not only have you failed to think through the ramifications of your belief, you have also failed to think through even your own trivial example.
Everyone can exercise free will when they vote. Yet they only have a handful of choices of what they may vote for.
False. It is called voting for a write-in. In an election you have the right to vote for anyone you please or no one at all. You have no right to how anyone else votes, which ironically would be the case if your theory of collective responsibility were true.
Seems like every time you make an analogy it falls down in the face of a few seconds of critical thought.
Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices, but their choices are limited, and stacked.
Limited by circumstances only. Your whole tangent about being elections being 'stacked' is an absolute red-herring. You sure do love the herring though, this is like your fourth one so far. You are all over the map and all it does is show that you are reaching for straws to support an untenable contradiction.
In the case of hate speech, you would be foolish to argue that people's choice in actions ever excludes NOT ACTING. And you've gone so far abroad from possession and distribution of child porn that what you've written doesn't even apply as justification for claiming a belief in free speech but only for whatever you consider to be 'good speech.'
What exactly do you think fascism means?
In this case, primarily collectivism. Followed by social authoritarianism, totalitarianism and a command economy. All philosophies that draw on the belief that people are not 100% responsible for their own actions and thus the state is required to take responsibility and control for them.
"Cheaper" should not have more weight than "secure".
It is a trade off. Everything costs money - failures cost money, security costs money, redundant engineering costs money. Since we do not have an infinite supply of money the goal is to get a handle on all of the risks involved and pick the combination that reduces total cost.
The hard part is to properly evaluate those risks (and then re-evaluate them as circumstances change).
The choice minds make is altered by speech that came before it. When its at the point that they choose what YOU chose to maliciously influence them to choose you share responsibility for the action.
You really haven't thought your belief through. Malice has nothing to do with it. Its all about responsibility and your belief distributes responsibility for a person's actions to anyone they have ever interacted with which is antithetical to the concept of free will and democracy and thus leads directly to fascism.
The fact that they're not releasing the explicit details suurrounding the "breach" seems to suggest that they still investigating the source of the "breach" and quite possibly have law enforcement involved.
If that were the case, then they would have no excuse not to tell you that was the case and that full details would be forthcoming once it was no longer necessary to keep them secret.
Since they did not do that, it seems to suggest that your hypothesis is false.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is so well supported, why is it that the best you could do to demonstrate such support is a ''joke?''
that's why the astronauts didn't use a pencil, right? Don't answer that
Why don't you want anyone to answer that?
Could it be that you know that it is not true?
Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
You also need a blender.
For the margaritas, of course.
Then it doesn't matter if you did bring anything else, because after enough margaritas you won't remember about the other gadgets.
The whole concept of DRM is a joke, invented b/c lawmakers were unwilling or unable to draft legislation that properly dealt with online filesharing and piracy.
I vote unable - because enforcement is impossible. Even the RIAA's highly publicized campaign of sueage currently near the 40,000 suit market is just a drop in the bucket of well over 10million simultaneous users -- only 0.4% at best.
Of course I don't believe it is the politicians fault, its really the fault of the entertainment business for (a) being run by lawyers (the old every problem looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer situation) and (b) not accepting the obvious and ignoring new business models.
it's easy enough to spy on the USB port and get the protocol
Your definition of easy isn't the same as mine!
http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/downloads/usb_protocol_analyzer_software/
There are a few more than just those, at least one of which is completely $$-free, I'm just too lazy to dig them up.
played a key role in sabotaging the career of CIA agent Valerie Plame to back Bush administration policy
Are you sure you aren't talking about Novak? The guy who actually published the details on Plame that Cheney was shopping around? I thought I read that Woodward specifically chose not to take Cheney's bait.
They were always vicious borderline insane fanatics (you'd have to be to go running to Iraq to support your cause.
I was going to point out that when a similar group of people went running to afghanistan to push Russia out, they were hailed as heroes.
But then when I quoted your statement I realized that on its own, it is hard to tell which side of the conflict in Iraq it applies to.
Or Vietnam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY
And that would be a ANOTHER strawman. I didn't say anything of the sort, I do not believe anything of the sort. I said "least harm", and I stand by it. Seeing as you disagree, make your case.
Anyone who actually believes in free speech, not just conveniently free speech knows that the cure for bad speech is not censorship, it is good speech. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in free speech, full stop.
All of your examples have been cases where you prefer to prevent short-term harm at the expense of long-term harm. So, in fact, you did say precisely that - just one of many examples would be "Now, if instead of breaking your kneeaps I show you a recording of me raping your family and breaking their kneecaps, hey, I didn't cause anything.." -- strawman it wasn't.
Make your case or walk away.
My case has always been clear and simple - if you believe in exceptions to free speech then you do not believe in free speech. Pretty much by defintion you only believe in kinda-sorta-free-speech.
I'm tired of absorbing your pointless abuse.
Don't try to co-opt the righteousness of free speech without the responsibilities that go with it and I won't insult you for it.
You think least harm is achieved with completely unrestricted speech. I don't. We disagree.
Again on the herring.
You mean least harm was all you had?
What happened to all the grandiose claims about "universal principles" - it was really just one principle?
So in fact, the way your head works, is that you believe in your version of "least harm" more than you believe in free speech. Which just happened to be my point all along.
BTW, the problem with your version of least harm is that you are clearly more interested in short term harm than long term harm. Kinda like a politician. See my original point about appearing to do something about a problem without actually fixing it.
10 years is nothing. The palestinian conflict has been going on for decades. All it takes is a small shift in the political gestalt of the extremist christian movement and they will be back to blowing up clinics.
This is the mistake I see being made by 90% of overly cautious privacy advocates. If you're concerned about the government knowing where you are and hauling your ass off to some secret prison to torture you without a trial... then the the country is in far more dire straights than can be fixed with a couple of privacy laws.
You are assuming a 'vast conspiracy' problem. Before that stage comes the one of a bunch of little conspiracies. Like individuals in positions of authority abusing that authority for personal reasons - like harassing ex-girlfriends and their new boyfriends, or individual police officers abusing the system to manipulate courts to convict people they 'just know' are guilty, or incumbent politicians using surveillance information to gain an unfair advantage over political challengers (sort of like the way Hoover used the FBI).
Right now, those are the kinds of privacy problems we have to contend with. If we allow them to go unchecked eventually we will end up in the situation of 'vast conspiracy' where these abuses are no longer the exception, they are the rule.
I obviously disagree.
But are unable to explain your belief without relying on misdirection.
Nobody said merely 'not liking it' is sufficient.
Blah, blah, blah. So I trivialized what you to believe to be a subtle view and which I believe is clear-cut hypocrisy.
There is no conflict between "least harm" and free speech. By definition free speech leads to the least harm. The cure for bad speech has never been censorship. Got some other "universal" principle you want to bring up to bat?
Any set of principles which a society embraces will have conflicts. Accepting that and coping with it isn't hypocrisy and doesn't lead to fascism.
Cute twist of words, but yet another red herring. Believing that speech must be censored is what leads to fascism, not "accepting that principles will have conflicts."
I never said it was easy. Just that it is done and therefore the original poster's pricing was low because he was competing with exactly those groups.
FWIW, my experience is that if you are the go-to guy among the army of consultants than you can be the go-to guy for the client directly and that while you lose some minor logistical back-up from the rest of the army, you and the client both gain because as a freelancer your goals are much more closely aligned with your client's and that increases the level of trust the client can have in you.
No, the debate is whether or not one can truthfully claim they believe in free speech and yet be perfectly happy to censor speech they don't like.
All of your examples are attempts to prove that the world is full of hypocrisy so therefore your particular hypocrisy must be truth rather than hypocrisy.
When I talk about fascism I am pointing out to you where your particular brand of hypocrisy leads in societies that have embraced it.
An associate of mine bills $350/hr for SAP consulting but gets paid much less than 50% of that.
$150/hour is about right for short-term private contractors.
It all depends on how you sell yourself. I compete against the corporate consulting services, so I price myself in their ballpark and I take it all home. I guess it helps that I used to be one of those corporate consultants until I realized that I didn't have to give away 75% of the bill rate.
No joke. You'll pay $300+/hr for a top guy from a place like IBM Global Services or HP's technical consulting group.
A trivial example would be a US election.
Not only have you failed to think through the ramifications of your belief, you have also failed to think through even your own trivial example.
Everyone can exercise free will when they vote. Yet they only have a handful of choices of what they may vote for.
False. It is called voting for a write-in.
In an election you have the right to vote for anyone you please or no one at all. You have no right to how anyone else votes, which ironically would be the case if your theory of collective responsibility were true.
Seems like every time you make an analogy it falls down in the face of a few seconds of critical thought.
Everyone has the freedom to make their own choices, but their choices are limited, and stacked.
Limited by circumstances only. Your whole tangent about being elections being 'stacked' is an absolute red-herring. You sure do love the herring though, this is like your fourth one so far. You are all over the map and all it does is show that you are reaching for straws to support an untenable contradiction.
In the case of hate speech, you would be foolish to argue that people's choice in actions ever excludes NOT ACTING. And you've gone so far abroad from possession and distribution of child porn that what you've written doesn't even apply as justification for claiming a belief in free speech but only for whatever you consider to be 'good speech.'
What exactly do you think fascism means?
In this case, primarily collectivism. Followed by social authoritarianism, totalitarianism and a command economy. All philosophies that draw on the belief that people are not 100% responsible for their own actions and thus the state is required to take responsibility and control for them.
"Cheaper" should not have more weight than "secure".
It is a trade off. Everything costs money - failures cost money, security costs money, redundant engineering costs money. Since we do not have an infinite supply of money the goal is to get a handle on all of the risks involved and pick the combination that reduces total cost.
The hard part is to properly evaluate those risks (and then re-evaluate them as circumstances change).
The choice minds make is altered by speech that came before it. When its at the point that they choose what YOU chose to maliciously influence them to choose you share responsibility for the action.
You really haven't thought your belief through. Malice has nothing to do with it. Its all about responsibility and your belief distributes responsibility for a person's actions to anyone they have ever interacted with which is antithetical to the concept of free will and democracy and thus leads directly to fascism.
Life just isn't that simple.
Yes it is and your little diagram made it obvious:
speech -> influences minds -> minds choose -> compels the body to act
You showed that it is a serial process and that the last step is "minds choose"
In your diagram nothing happens without "minds choose."
You are also responsible for the actions of others if you influenced them.
Again with the fascism.
The fact that they're not releasing the explicit details suurrounding the "breach" seems to suggest that they still investigating the source of the "breach" and quite possibly have law enforcement involved.
If that were the case, then they would have no excuse not to tell you that was the case and that full details would be forthcoming once it was no longer necessary to keep them secret.
Since they did not do that, it seems to suggest that your hypothesis is false.
Everything is a human construct. The only laws that never change and that constantly kill us are the laws of nature.
So? What is your point? Real scarcity is a law of nature just a surely as is gravity.
Either you are responsible for your actions or you are not. It is a binary state.