Wikileaks is going to get a lot of people killed if they have not done so already.
The US military is killing people right now at this very moment. The Afghan freedom fighters are killing people right now at this very moment. If any of them gets the chance they will blame their future killings on WikiLeaks or somebody else. The killers are always the good guys. The bad guys from WikiLeaks et al just force them to defend the children or liberty and freedom or baby Jesus or whatever.
I think GP is talking about the Dogan Group. IIRC they accused some of Erdogan's men of being corrupt and then Erdogan fined them $3 billion dollars, Dogan's market capitalization was less than that. Happened last summer or fall. The EU -- as is expected -- condemned the actions but didn't do anything else. I don't know anything about military involvement.
Anyone who expects a service to 100% protect them from identity theft is an idiot.
Identity Theft does not exist. No one can steal an identity. At least not with today's technology. Some bank gets scammed by somebody. The bank then recovers its loss by defrauding one of their customers. The solution to this "problem" is obvious.
No actually we are not. If "somebody steals my identity" it basically always means that he manages to con a third person. The crime does not involve me at all. I only get involved because the justice system is completely broken. Fix the justice system and the "problem" will disappear overnight.
I think you'll find that 99% of us agree about 99% of important things - murder, rape, slavery.
You forgot the most important thing of all: religion. But seriously half of the people think death penalty is OK, the other half thinks it's murder. And that is just one example. 99% think that "murder", "rape", and "slavery" are bad. But they all have slightly different definitions for these words. "Thou shall not kill" is and has always been an ellipsis: Thou shall not kill X. For some values of X.
Or you can just decide on a case by case basis. That would make for a great society.
Yes, wouldn't it. Not that it'd be hard to beat one-size-fits-all zero-tolerance policies...
I agree, it kinda sucks. The only thing that would be worse are the daily witch hunts. And by the way: I'm not advocating one-size-fits-all zero-tolerance policies which to me sound as unintelligent as pure anarchy.
There's no reason a cooperative security system couldn't work, it just couldn't rely on keeping secrets if it was large.
Now only everyone has to agree what "crimes" this cooperative security system will punish and which acts are OK. I'm sure this will work out fine. Or you can just decide on a case by case basis. That would make for a great society.
Can you give me some examples of these correct predictions? (disclaimer: i know far to little about the topic to have an informed opinion so this is a honest question).
The problem with anarchy is that I do not have to buy any food at all. I just let you order your pizza and then punch you in the face until you give it to me. That's not a society you want to live in.
You need somebody to stop me from punching you in the face, that somebody has to be able to stop me so he has to have more "power" than me. Democracy is how we (try to) stop that somebody from abusing this power. Anarchy is just ignoring the problem.
The countries of the world that have the power need to flex their muscles and deny those who don't police their own traffic adequately a chance to participate.
So you suggest our great leaders should cut every country from the internet that doesn't implement the terrorist-and-child-molester-stopping three strikes law? Politicians will abuse every power that we the people give them.
Better yet: Introduce fines and prison sentences for violating the constitution and indict politicians that vote for laws that break the constitution. Wehrhafte Demokratie FTW!
So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy."
In a way he is saying just that: Google decided to retain search histories for a couple of months. This retaining allows government agencies to get a warrant and look at your search histories. Now there is probably a valid business reason for keeping these records and Google values our privacy less than those business reasons.
But at least he is honest and that is the most you can expect from a company.
I don't really have an opinion on whether Win 3.1 was usable or not. "By the time Windows was usable" implied 98SE or NT 3.5 for me. I didn't have enough experience with it to form an opinion. Maybe you're right, i don't know.
All I was arguing is that the concept "GUI" was brought to the masses by Microsoft. That concept might not have been very new then but it has been dominating computer interfaces since the early '90s so it definitely was not "the past".
Microsoft did this not by engineering the best implementation of the GUI concept or by significantly evolving it but by finding and creating the right markets and by then aggressively selling to them. Which usually is key in bringing something to the masses. So no real surprise there.
"By the time Windows was usable" implied 98SE or NT 3.5. My "early 90's" was just a bad hyperbole.
Oh and I didn't want to defend Microsoft's innovative, ahem, prowess. The Atari 520ST GUI was way ahead of what Microsoft offered for the next decade or so. And Atari was not original either.
Sorry about the science part. I misread your post.
I wasn't trying to create a false dichotomy; I didn't say anything about not following orders or rules at all. My only point was that this kind of test teaches the opposite of what a science teacher should teach.
This contains a valuable lesson indeed. After you leave school you will meet a lot of people who will tell you to do some stupid stuff because of some even more stupid reason. How do you as a science teacher prepare your students for these situations? By telling them to blindly follow the orders? Then you are not teaching science but religion. Shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
The information is needed to start the VM. Reflection is designed to be used when the VM is already running.
Wikileaks is going to get a lot of people killed if they have not done so already.
The US military is killing people right now at this very moment. The Afghan freedom fighters are killing people right now at this very moment. If any of them gets the chance they will blame their future killings on WikiLeaks or somebody else. The killers are always the good guys. The bad guys from WikiLeaks et al just force them to defend the children or liberty and freedom or baby Jesus or whatever.
I think GP is talking about the Dogan Group. IIRC they accused some of Erdogan's men of being corrupt and then Erdogan fined them $3 billion dollars, Dogan's market capitalization was less than that. Happened last summer or fall. The EU -- as is expected -- condemned the actions but didn't do anything else. I don't know anything about military involvement.
Anyone who expects a service to 100% protect them from identity theft is an idiot.
Identity Theft does not exist. No one can steal an identity. At least not with today's technology. Some bank gets scammed by somebody. The bank then recovers its loss by defrauding one of their customers. The solution to this "problem" is obvious.
1930 called. They want their protectionist economic theory back.
--
American political debate in C: while (1) { printf("Left wing talking point\nRight wing talking point\n"); }
What is irony?
The victims ... are all of us
No actually we are not. If "somebody steals my identity" it basically always means that he manages to con a third person. The crime does not involve me at all. I only get involved because the justice system is completely broken. Fix the justice system and the "problem" will disappear overnight.
I think you'll find that 99% of us agree about 99% of important things - murder, rape, slavery.
You forgot the most important thing of all: religion. But seriously half of the people think death penalty is OK, the other half thinks it's murder. And that is just one example. 99% think that "murder", "rape", and "slavery" are bad. But they all have slightly different definitions for these words. "Thou shall not kill" is and has always been an ellipsis: Thou shall not kill X. For some values of X.
Or you can just decide on a case by case basis. That would make for a great society.
Yes, wouldn't it. Not that it'd be hard to beat one-size-fits-all zero-tolerance policies...
I agree, it kinda sucks. The only thing that would be worse are the daily witch hunts. And by the way: I'm not advocating one-size-fits-all zero-tolerance policies which to me sound as unintelligent as pure anarchy.
Interesting read. Thanks.
There's no reason a cooperative security system couldn't work, it just couldn't rely on keeping secrets if it was large.
Now only everyone has to agree what "crimes" this cooperative security system will punish and which acts are OK. I'm sure this will work out fine. Or you can just decide on a case by case basis. That would make for a great society.
So far, their predictions are correct.
Can you give me some examples of these correct predictions? (disclaimer: i know far to little about the topic to have an informed opinion so this is a honest question).
The problem with anarchy is that I do not have to buy any food at all. I just let you order your pizza and then punch you in the face until you give it to me. That's not a society you want to live in.
You need somebody to stop me from punching you in the face, that somebody has to be able to stop me so he has to have more "power" than me. Democracy is how we (try to) stop that somebody from abusing this power. Anarchy is just ignoring the problem.
no one is confusing a 1911 .45ACP for a "toy" any time soon
Yeah, right. I'm sure all 3 year old kids know the difference.
The countries of the world that have the power need to flex their muscles and deny those who don't police their own traffic adequately a chance to participate.
So you suggest our great leaders should cut every country from the internet that doesn't implement the terrorist-and-child-molester-stopping three strikes law? Politicians will abuse every power that we the people give them.
Why shouldn't he sign it? If the clause "I'm allowed to shoot your dog" is void according to your local law then it simply doesn't matter.
Better yet: Introduce fines and prison sentences for violating the constitution and indict politicians that vote for laws that break the constitution. Wehrhafte Demokratie FTW!
Bribing is illegal. In a free democracy only lobbying is acceptable.
So he's not saying, "screw you, I don't value your privacy."
In a way he is saying just that: Google decided to retain search histories for a couple of months. This retaining allows government agencies to get a warrant and look at your search histories. Now there is probably a valid business reason for keeping these records and Google values our privacy less than those business reasons.
But at least he is honest and that is the most you can expect from a company.
My response was not that serious either. Was it that non-obvious?
I don't really have an opinion on whether Win 3.1 was usable or not. "By the time Windows was usable" implied 98SE or NT 3.5 for me. I didn't have enough experience with it to form an opinion. Maybe you're right, i don't know.
All I was arguing is that the concept "GUI" was brought to the masses by Microsoft. That concept might not have been very new then but it has been dominating computer interfaces since the early '90s so it definitely was not "the past".
Microsoft did this not by engineering the best implementation of the GUI concept or by significantly evolving it but by finding and creating the right markets and by then aggressively selling to them. Which usually is key in bringing something to the masses. So no real surprise there.
"By the time Windows was usable" implied 98SE or NT 3.5. My "early 90's" was just a bad hyperbole.
Oh and I didn't want to defend Microsoft's innovative, ahem, prowess. The Atari 520ST GUI was way ahead of what Microsoft offered for the next decade or so. And Atari was not original either.
In konsole, terminal, xshell, putty, or cmd.exe?
I concur that it wasn't "the future". I just said that it wasn't "the past" either. False dichotomy.
The past? So you've stopped using GUIs in the early 90's?
Sorry about the science part. I misread your post. I wasn't trying to create a false dichotomy; I didn't say anything about not following orders or rules at all. My only point was that this kind of test teaches the opposite of what a science teacher should teach.
This contains a valuable lesson indeed. After you leave school you will meet a lot of people who will tell you to do some stupid stuff because of some even more stupid reason. How do you as a science teacher prepare your students for these situations? By telling them to blindly follow the orders? Then you are not teaching science but religion. Shame on you.