Sovereignty means the country establishes the rules within their boundaries. If the US doesn't like it, they can always go to war with China.
I agree with you, but it doesn't jive with the current way the Fed deals with foreign businesses. Do you remember when they arrested CEOs of foreign gambling sites whose servers were overseas and legal in the nations they operated in?
Same could be said about what is happening here. Of course they aren't going to go to war with China or even bring it up with Chinese leaders when they come and visit, but you can bet they'll tar and feather anyone at Yahoo they can and they'll be in a legal right (of course "legal" is quite questionable these days) to do so if the Yahoo person happen to be on US soil.
Hell... There are plenty of trade laws that will get a US citizen in federal prison for legal activity on foreign soil. How about those Cuban cigars?
Yahoo! China has to follow the laws of that country, just as we expect Yahoo! U.S. to do so.
What if the law in the US says you cannot follow the law in China?
There are plenty of laws that US citizens are supposed to follow while overseas even though the activity may be quite legal in the country they are dealing with. Mostly tax and sedition laws... But I suppose if they really wanted to, US congress could pass a law to outlaw doing business with people who don't respect human rights or democracy. Oh wait...
No, but they are well regulated and access is guaranteed.
Actually, if you live in Philadelphia you already pay an income tax whether you like it or not. At least trash pickup is free. Water is cheap as well as gas and electric companies are well regulated enough to keep their prices down.
The thing about those industries is that there are physical quantities of matter being moved and cost money each time to deliver. With internet connectivity the majority of the cost is the initial infrastructure and as long as bandwidth is not over exceeded the cost of maintainence is very nil compared to the rest of the project.
I don't see why a city can't use its budget to finance a free system albeit slow system that only supports port 80 and/or ports for emails. Of course it would be useless for torrents and gaming, but I would think that is some one wanted such a service they should pay for it through a normal company.
However, I think Philadelphia failed in that by trying to provide too much of a service at too high of a price and with a technology that doesn't work and is hard to use. Most of the forums about Earthlink broad band is that when it works it doesn't work that great and it costs about as much as DSL.
I mean I wouldn't mind some of the tax money going to a free service that had ok speeds but didn't allow you to do anything than port 80 and SSL that anyone in the city could use.
The telephone company cannot legally deny you free 911 service.
Of course I'm not sure what the equivalent of a 911 call on the internet is.
Though, I believed the lines and content should be provided by two different companies and the company that owns the lines be a well regulated non-profit company devoted to giving everyone the ability to have internet. If they want it, they'll have to pay for it between competing content providers etc etc.
Ok how about a picture and a caption that says "Here is Jeff, my friend from (insert city) getting drunk and shortly before touching the bar maid and then getting thrown out into the street!"
Of course, I don't know if that would fall under your scenario, but what is preventing others from posting such information.
Just because you don't doesn't mean it happens. You could never leave the house, not have any friends, and yell at strangers when they photograph you when you are forced to leave the house but the majority of people out there do things they'd rather not everyone else know about.
Of course I'm not absolving those who take pictures of them doing it and then posted for the world to see, but the real question about a facebook society is when everyone does it and you are participating whether you like it or not unless you don't leave the house and all your communication with the outside world is encrypted.
I think my only qualm with Gamestop is the need for a sales person. Why should the customer be constantly reminded for a pre-order? If you want it that bad, they'll pre-order it. I go to Gamestop pretty much to see if they have anything interesting used. Beyond that, I answer any questions they have without listening with a "No!"
Of course I've learned that at all places... Any cashier asks you any question, no matter what it is, you say no. No protection plan, no zip code, no date of birth, no pre-orders, no nothing other than maybe my license when I purchase something with a credit card (and some places are pretty slack on that)
Yeah... I'm sorry you'll get fired if you don't get your numbers, but you work for a company who has an annoying business plan then you are going to deal with irate people.
As far as new games goes... If I happen to be in Gamestop/EB and see a new game I want... I'll go to a local comic shop that has them or Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart who is always cheaper.
Again... I'm pretty sure the only reason to be to Gamestop is the used games. Stop pushing and people won't push back.
You can search Myspace, Facebook, and so on, you'll never find anything about me. I don't have a page, don't want a page. I just don't participate in that part of the Internet.
Are you so sure? What is stopping friends, relatives, and enemies from posting pictures of you on any of those sites.
Don't want something known widely? Don't post it on a public web site.
And for gods sake... If someone else posts it, don't send them a DMCA takedown notice or it will be the top downloaded torrent in 1 hour.
But seriously, I don't have a face book account but I think there are pictures of me out there (I got mistaken for an anime character at con once I think). I suppose I could threaten those accounts for having a pic of me standing in a crowd, but that isnt' really worth it the effort.
Still... I suppose an employer with facial recognition technology would one day find me on someones face book attending a convention.
I have nothing against the PS3, but it seems we are nearing some sort of graphical barrier here.
From my understanding, no game uses more than 30% of the PS3s processing power at this point. Of course it might be that the PS3 is hard to program for multi-core, but the potential is there for exponentially better looking games.
I, too, doubt the judge would make an example of them. It will probably be a fine and some community service, along with the stain on their records for being convicted of a crime, which would doubtfully make a positive impression upon prospective employers, unless Enron and Arthur Anderson were still in business.
At the same time, I don't think giving someone the same sentence as a rapist or armed robber for changing their grades is quite fair. The difference is like a burglar breaking into your home and stealing your possessions versus a burglar breaking into your home, stabbing you to death, and then stealing your possessions.
They both broke into a home, but obviously one of them deserves a bigger punishment.
The problem with the law in question is that it gives a 20 year sentence regardless of the harm done. Yes breaking into a computer is illegal, but if they don't ruin someone's life savings and credit by stealing their identity as the law originally intended then they should receive a lesser sentence.
no, software bloat took care of that. You can't tell me there isn't something wrong with the fact that a computer with 20x less power can do the same basic things as a modern computer.
That maybe a bit more nostalgia than what it really was. I remember having to wait for the 5" 1/4 quarters to format, waiting 6 hours to download a 200kb PCX file from a 2400baud BBS, and remember when I had to make boot disks because I couldn't get EMM386 to work for one game but I need pure 640K with no TRS to run another.
I mean, I wouldn't take back growing up with the old limited technology we had back then, but I really don't miss the boot disks and floppy disk changing.
Last time the gaming community ignored Jack, he got an interview on Fox News. Someone has to speak out or he'll have a free soapbox on the Mainstream Media with no one questioning his logic.
A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.
Two things. Rights are not given. They are inherit and the same for all people.
A Chinese citizen has the same rights as a US citizen, it is just that the Chinese government doesn't recognize this. This was the whole deal about the Bill of Rights to force government to recognize key rights but also acknowledge that these rights were already there including those not specifically listed in the bill of rights.
Secondly, since habeas corpus has been suspended, in theory you are getting less due process than the Chinese if the US government so desires to ignore the rights.
I think he may have confused intelligence with sentience. Neither require each other, but it helps.
As in...
My cat is sentient but he's not intelligent enough to drive my car. vs These robots are not sentient but they are intelligent enough to drive my car.
Of course I have no evidence to really prove my cat is sentient other than he appears to be so and I don't feel like cutting him open to double check that he didn't get replaced by a cat android while I was sleeping.
In fact, you could never really prove any other sentient beings sentience (consciousness) other than your own and it is not measurable in a scientific way. Intelligence, on the other hand, can be measured by observing the beings skills in its understanding of cause and effect.
In that regards... My cat is intelligent enough to understand that if he hears a can open, then it means that food is forthcoming.
True, they increase security over standard text passwords, but how am I supposed to give a throwaway password to a coworker so that he can use my machine while I'm on vacation?
Um... Not to side track. That is just a bad security practice. If you need to give your coworker rights to your computer, you give him rights to log into that work station with his name and password.
If he needs to get to your profile or files, then you simply give him the same permissions to access those files. In a windows environment, I would add him to the users so he could log into the machine locally and then set folder permissions to read/write to C:\document and settings\(my profile). On a Mac, I would give him read/write to my home directory. (Of course I don't trust my coworkers that much so I'd put the files they need access to in a single shared folder and let them have at that)
Of course you need to be on a domain of sorts and/or have rights to modify permissions on the files and folders that you own.
If you don't have the permissions to do so (which means IT security doesn't trust you), then I suspect your IT security would beat you with a large 2 by 4 if they found out you gave your password to a coworker.
For all you know some 10 year old kid has a bad heart and has to keep his cell phone on 24/7 for that all important "Get to hospital NOW" call.
Quick! Outlaw tunnels and buildings too thick to allow cell phone signals!
But seriously... It is kind of silly to think that someone can rely on a cell phone 24/7 for emergency issues. As an anecdotally statement, there are parts of the building I work in that are complete dead zones depend on which direction I face. Maybe they used too much concrete or my service provider just blows, but I have a hunch that if there is an emergency I should use a land line.
If I go driving in the backwoods of New Jersey my cell phone doesn't even get a good roaming signal. (Though the nice thing about the Turnpikes is that New Jersey does have emergency phones ever so often)
Anyways... If cell phone use is critical for life and death situations then you should probaly invest in a satellite phone or a ham radio which of course still won't work in a tunnel.
Simply wasting police time with hunting these down is not going to solve any real problem other than to waste tax money. It would be better spent making cell phones more reliable.
Probably just a matter of time before an emergency requires a quick call to 911 that gets blocked by this illegal tactic.
One possibility could be that a team of highjackers take over an airplane and use one to prevent outside phone calls. Or... An armed robber has one to prevent anyone from making calls during a heist. Or... An house burglar uses it to disable one of the new type of house alarms that are cellular.
That said, I don't think the technology should be banned outright because any of the above would be able to make it from generic parts and it would have some legal uses.
As long as it remains on private property and the signal does not interfere with cell phones outside the property any business should be allowed to use one as long as they have signs posted that they disable cell phones.
Of course as it stands now, FCC regulations prevents even legitimate use so this has become a black market of sorts.
Russia a pretty big place. If you had connections, you could hide out east in a Siberian Oblast and no one would be the wiser. Then again, your connections would need to have a reason for hiding you but money could always be that reason.
No civillian space flight, no humans on planets, no artificial intelligence, no cure to AIDs, cancer, asthma or the common cold.
Actually, I don't think its not the fault of emerging technologies but rather emerging technologies must scale to the following questions:
1. Is it profitable? 2. Is is mass producible? 3. Does it follow a decentralized free market model rather than a centralized regulated model?
No one predicted cell phones and the internet in the 80s as they are now, yet if someone told me in 1989 about Youtube on my hand held device I would have scoffed at it being too Star Trek like. Yet today we have such technology.
The reason we don't have AI, Civilian Space Travel, and Flying Cars is because they meet none of the 3 criteria I mentioned. AI today would require a computer that costs billions of dollars to build, a civilian space program would cost billions to build, and the flying car industry would be too regulated and dangerous to even consider marketing to people.
Which is why cell phones and internet caught on because those things are quite decentralized in how they work (Yeah I know the cell phone companies are monopolies but you can sell someone a cell phone and it doesn't cause any problem with the rest of the system etc etc)
Yeah, but I think Ben was penalized for its initial delay at an intersection for too long at the first mission. After they rebooted it seemed to be ok and actually did pretty good getting around the intersections it had problems with. When Honeywell was taken out of the race, Ben was waiting behind it at the stop sign until they pulled Honeywell out but I don't think they penalize for that.
It is something to note that the two teams that finished but finished last were MIT and Cornell which had a collision with each other somewhere around Mission 2. But they both finished which is pretty awesome considering what it takes to run this corse.
It's hard to keep all these people and cases straight, but isn't this the woman who was very clearly absolutely guilty?
True, but I believe they are getting a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. At the same time, juries are free to vote for not guilty for person who are very clearly absolutely guilty in cases where the jury believes the law is unfair.
Slashdot Mirror
Sovereignty means the country establishes the rules within their boundaries. If the US doesn't like it, they can always go to war with China.
I agree with you, but it doesn't jive with the current way the Fed deals with foreign businesses. Do you remember when they arrested CEOs of foreign gambling sites whose servers were overseas and legal in the nations they operated in?
Same could be said about what is happening here. Of course they aren't going to go to war with China or even bring it up with Chinese leaders when they come and visit, but you can bet they'll tar and feather anyone at Yahoo they can and they'll be in a legal right (of course "legal" is quite questionable these days) to do so if the Yahoo person happen to be on US soil.
Hell... There are plenty of trade laws that will get a US citizen in federal prison for legal activity on foreign soil. How about those Cuban cigars?
Yahoo! China has to follow the laws of that country, just as we expect Yahoo! U.S. to do so.
What if the law in the US says you cannot follow the law in China?
There are plenty of laws that US citizens are supposed to follow while overseas even though the activity may be quite legal in the country they are dealing with. Mostly tax and sedition laws... But I suppose if they really wanted to, US congress could pass a law to outlaw doing business with people who don't respect human rights or democracy. Oh wait...
No, but they are well regulated and access is guaranteed.
Actually, if you live in Philadelphia you already pay an income tax whether you like it or not. At least trash pickup is free. Water is cheap as well as gas and electric companies are well regulated enough to keep their prices down.
The thing about those industries is that there are physical quantities of matter being moved and cost money each time to deliver. With internet connectivity the majority of the cost is the initial infrastructure and as long as bandwidth is not over exceeded the cost of maintainence is very nil compared to the rest of the project.
I don't see why a city can't use its budget to finance a free system albeit slow system that only supports port 80 and/or ports for emails. Of course it would be useless for torrents and gaming, but I would think that is some one wanted such a service they should pay for it through a normal company.
However, I think Philadelphia failed in that by trying to provide too much of a service at too high of a price and with a technology that doesn't work and is hard to use. Most of the forums about Earthlink broad band is that when it works it doesn't work that great and it costs about as much as DSL.
I mean I wouldn't mind some of the tax money going to a free service that had ok speeds but didn't allow you to do anything than port 80 and SSL that anyone in the city could use.
The telephone company cannot legally deny you free 911 service.
Of course I'm not sure what the equivalent of a 911 call on the internet is.
Though, I believed the lines and content should be provided by two different companies and the company that owns the lines be a well regulated non-profit company devoted to giving everyone the ability to have internet. If they want it, they'll have to pay for it between competing content providers etc etc.
Pictures of me are not "private information".
Ok how about a picture and a caption that says "Here is Jeff, my friend from (insert city) getting drunk and shortly before touching the bar maid and then getting thrown out into the street!"
Of course, I don't know if that would fall under your scenario, but what is preventing others from posting such information.
Just because you don't doesn't mean it happens. You could never leave the house, not have any friends, and yell at strangers when they photograph you when you are forced to leave the house but the majority of people out there do things they'd rather not everyone else know about.
Of course I'm not absolving those who take pictures of them doing it and then posted for the world to see, but the real question about a facebook society is when everyone does it and you are participating whether you like it or not unless you don't leave the house and all your communication with the outside world is encrypted.
I think my only qualm with Gamestop is the need for a sales person.
Why should the customer be constantly reminded for a pre-order? If you want it that bad, they'll pre-order it.
I go to Gamestop pretty much to see if they have anything interesting used. Beyond that, I answer any questions they have without listening with a "No!"
Of course I've learned that at all places... Any cashier asks you any question, no matter what it is, you say no. No protection plan, no zip code, no date of birth, no pre-orders, no nothing other than maybe my license when I purchase something with a credit card (and some places are pretty slack on that)
Yeah... I'm sorry you'll get fired if you don't get your numbers, but you work for a company who has an annoying business plan then you are going to deal with irate people.
As far as new games goes... If I happen to be in Gamestop/EB and see a new game I want... I'll go to a local comic shop that has them or Best Buy, Target, Wal-Mart who is always cheaper.
Again... I'm pretty sure the only reason to be to Gamestop is the used games. Stop pushing and people won't push back.
You can search Myspace, Facebook, and so on, you'll never find anything about me. I don't have a page, don't want a page. I just don't participate in that part of the Internet.
Are you so sure? What is stopping friends, relatives, and enemies from posting pictures of you on any of those sites.
Acording to Arstechnia, the co-president of Naughtydog claims that Uncharted only uses 30% of the cells capabilties and the game looks pretty awesome.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/10/30/getting-technical-with-naughty-dog-co-president-christophe-balestra
Also video interview:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21306.html
Of course it still seems like an arbitrary number, but I think the PS3 has a long way before it maxes out. (Its still too expensive though)
Don't want something known widely? Don't post it on a public web site.
And for gods sake... If someone else posts it, don't send them a DMCA takedown notice or it will be the top downloaded torrent in 1 hour.
But seriously, I don't have a face book account but I think there are pictures of me out there (I got mistaken for an anime character at con once I think). I suppose I could threaten those accounts for having a pic of me standing in a crowd, but that isnt' really worth it the effort.
Still... I suppose an employer with facial recognition technology would one day find me on someones face book attending a convention.
I have nothing against the PS3, but it seems we are nearing some sort of graphical barrier here.
From my understanding, no game uses more than 30% of the PS3s processing power at this point. Of course it might be that the PS3 is hard to program for multi-core, but the potential is there for exponentially better looking games.
I, too, doubt the judge would make an example of them. It will probably be a fine and some community service, along with the stain on their records for being convicted of a crime, which would doubtfully make a positive impression upon prospective employers, unless Enron and Arthur Anderson were still in business.
At the same time, I don't think giving someone the same sentence as a rapist or armed robber for changing their grades is quite fair. The difference is like a burglar breaking into your home and stealing your possessions versus a burglar breaking into your home, stabbing you to death, and then stealing your possessions.
They both broke into a home, but obviously one of them deserves a bigger punishment.
The problem with the law in question is that it gives a 20 year sentence regardless of the harm done. Yes breaking into a computer is illegal, but if they don't ruin someone's life savings and credit by stealing their identity as the law originally intended then they should receive a lesser sentence.
no, software bloat took care of that. You can't tell me there isn't something wrong with the fact that a computer with 20x less power can do the same basic things as a modern computer.
That maybe a bit more nostalgia than what it really was. I remember having to wait for the 5" 1/4 quarters to format, waiting 6 hours to download a 200kb PCX file from a 2400baud BBS, and remember when I had to make boot disks because I couldn't get EMM386 to work for one game but I need pure 640K with no TRS to run another.
I mean, I wouldn't take back growing up with the old limited technology we had back then, but I really don't miss the boot disks and floppy disk changing.
I wish people would just ignore Jack Thompson.
Last time the gaming community ignored Jack, he got an interview on Fox News. Someone has to speak out or he'll have a free soapbox on the Mainstream Media with no one questioning his logic.
All you need would be an ASUS Eee.
I'm tempted to get one myself.
A US citizen still has considerably more rights than a Chinese citizen.
Two things. Rights are not given. They are inherit and the same for all people.
A Chinese citizen has the same rights as a US citizen, it is just that the Chinese government doesn't recognize this. This was the whole deal about the Bill of Rights to force government to recognize key rights but also acknowledge that these rights were already there including those not specifically listed in the bill of rights.
Secondly, since habeas corpus has been suspended, in theory you are getting less due process than the Chinese if the US government so desires to ignore the rights.
And what evidence do we have of this?
I think he may have confused intelligence with sentience. Neither require each other, but it helps.
As in...
My cat is sentient but he's not intelligent enough to drive my car.
vs
These robots are not sentient but they are intelligent enough to drive my car.
Of course I have no evidence to really prove my cat is sentient other than he appears to be so and I don't feel like cutting him open to double check that he didn't get replaced by a cat android while I was sleeping.
In fact, you could never really prove any other sentient beings sentience (consciousness) other than your own and it is not measurable in a scientific way. Intelligence, on the other hand, can be measured by observing the beings skills in its understanding of cause and effect.
In that regards... My cat is intelligent enough to understand that if he hears a can open, then it means that food is forthcoming.
True, they increase security over standard text passwords, but how am I supposed to give a throwaway password to a coworker so that he can use my machine while I'm on vacation?
Um... Not to side track. That is just a bad security practice. If you need to give your coworker rights to your computer, you give him rights to log into that work station with his name and password.
If he needs to get to your profile or files, then you simply give him the same permissions to access those files. In a windows environment, I would add him to the users so he could log into the machine locally and then set folder permissions to read/write to C:\document and settings\(my profile). On a Mac, I would give him read/write to my home directory. (Of course I don't trust my coworkers that much so I'd put the files they need access to in a single shared folder and let them have at that)
Of course you need to be on a domain of sorts and/or have rights to modify permissions on the files and folders that you own.
If you don't have the permissions to do so (which means IT security doesn't trust you), then I suspect your IT security would beat you with a large 2 by 4 if they found out you gave your password to a coworker.
For all you know some 10 year old kid has a bad heart and has to keep his cell phone on 24/7 for that all important "Get to hospital NOW" call.
Quick! Outlaw tunnels and buildings too thick to allow cell phone signals!
But seriously... It is kind of silly to think that someone can rely on a cell phone 24/7 for emergency issues. As an anecdotally statement, there are parts of the building I work in that are complete dead zones depend on which direction I face. Maybe they used too much concrete or my service provider just blows, but I have a hunch that if there is an emergency I should use a land line.
If I go driving in the backwoods of New Jersey my cell phone doesn't even get a good roaming signal. (Though the nice thing about the Turnpikes is that New Jersey does have emergency phones ever so often)
Anyways... If cell phone use is critical for life and death situations then you should probaly invest in a satellite phone or a ham radio which of course still won't work in a tunnel.
Simply wasting police time with hunting these down is not going to solve any real problem other than to waste tax money. It would be better spent making cell phones more reliable.
Probably just a matter of time before an emergency requires a quick call to 911 that gets blocked by this illegal tactic.
One possibility could be that a team of highjackers take over an airplane and use one to prevent outside phone calls.
Or...
An armed robber has one to prevent anyone from making calls during a heist.
Or...
An house burglar uses it to disable one of the new type of house alarms that are cellular.
That said, I don't think the technology should be banned outright because any of the above would be able to make it from generic parts and it would have some legal uses.
As long as it remains on private property and the signal does not interfere with cell phones outside the property any business should be allowed to use one as long as they have signs posted that they disable cell phones.
Of course as it stands now, FCC regulations prevents even legitimate use so this has become a black market of sorts.
Can't hide over there. In the land ruled by KGB.
Russia a pretty big place.
If you had connections, you could hide out east in a Siberian Oblast and no one would be the wiser.
Then again, your connections would need to have a reason for hiding you but money could always be that reason.
However, I would argue a an inbox full of spam can do a lot less damage to an individual than getting mixed up with drugs.
A person sitting at home smoking pot does not harm me in any way.
A person sitting at home emailing me spam harms my blood pressure.
No civillian space flight, no humans on planets, no artificial intelligence, no cure to AIDs, cancer, asthma or the common cold.
Actually, I don't think its not the fault of emerging technologies but rather emerging technologies must scale to the following questions:
1. Is it profitable?
2. Is is mass producible?
3. Does it follow a decentralized free market model rather than a centralized regulated model?
No one predicted cell phones and the internet in the 80s as they are now, yet if someone told me in 1989 about Youtube on my hand held device I would have scoffed at it being too Star Trek like. Yet today we have such technology.
The reason we don't have AI, Civilian Space Travel, and Flying Cars is because they meet none of the 3 criteria I mentioned. AI today would require a computer that costs billions of dollars to build, a civilian space program would cost billions to build, and the flying car industry would be too regulated and dangerous to even consider marketing to people.
Which is why cell phones and internet caught on because those things are quite decentralized in how they work (Yeah I know the cell phone companies are monopolies but you can sell someone a cell phone and it doesn't cause any problem with the rest of the system etc etc)
Yeah, but I think Ben was penalized for its initial delay at an intersection for too long at the first mission. After they rebooted it seemed to be ok and actually did pretty good getting around the intersections it had problems with. When Honeywell was taken out of the race, Ben was waiting behind it at the stop sign until they pulled Honeywell out but I don't think they penalize for that.
It is something to note that the two teams that finished but finished last were MIT and Cornell which had a collision with each other somewhere around Mission 2. But they both finished which is pretty awesome considering what it takes to run this corse.
It's hard to keep all these people and cases straight, but isn't this the woman who was very clearly absolutely guilty?
True, but I believe they are getting a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. At the same time, juries are free to vote for not guilty for person who are very clearly absolutely guilty in cases where the jury believes the law is unfair.
Of course you need a well informed jury.
Stop making up non-sensical situations in an attempt to justify murder.
I'm not justifying murder. In fact I oppose all forms of murder.
I'm just saying, why do we allow it for any other circumstance when the justification seems to be less than the government sanction murder?
So if this murder is wrong, why do we allow the government to put people to death?