A person who has to say lewd or offensive language that threatens or suggest lewd or offensive acts as part of their job are probably exempt. A policeman using an interphone to say, "if you don't open the door we will break it down." is offensive towards someones property, but they are likely to be exempt.
A Radio DJ saying, "we are smashing down houses here on 98.1 FM" into a microphone might just get prosecuted!
And for the rest of us, if we tell blond jokes online, we'll get prosecuted.
I found your comments to be very very interesting. I wish I had mod points left even though you don't need them.
The fact is, if more people looked after each other, we would not be busy with our own self-interests but making sure that the interests of everyone around us was looked after. Since capitalism sort of insinuates we should look after ourselves before our brothers we end up more isolated in a way.
Furthermore, the ideals you share do put a new light on extremism. Specifically extremism in the middle east, what we call terrorists may very well have been people who are willing to give their lives to a system of ideals defending their "friends" in any way possible, including at the price of their lives, because those ideals have become corrupted by violence, hate and misdirection.
Anyone can "Suspend" or bend the law. Lawyers and Judges do it all the time and they call it "interpretation" of the law.
The issue the FBI and anyone who uses the title a nobility like "Citizen" should be aware of though, is that there are always consequences for every action. Getting caught is an issue, dealing with those consequences is another.
We are back to an anarchy guys. Let's face it, if you are allied with the right people you have "more equal" rights then other people who are unfortunate to have placed their loyalties with allies who are less affluent or are bound by some sort of "unreasonable" moral principles.
The sad part is, with that type of attitude, we all get discharged from "civilization" into what John Locke referred to as "the wilderness" of modern times.
The definition of tacit acquiescence is agreement or approval through silence. Silent Majority is easily identified as a mass who approves and not disapproves. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acquiescence)
Thanks for your reply. I'd just like to sprinkle in a few of my comments.
Take your points in turn:
1. Your citizens are living in a recession. The chinese are not. You need to understand the width and depth of this war to understand that your citizens in the millions are being degraded and suffering a lower standard of living, unemployment, and all that goes with it, while the chinese take the other direction. Its not a one for one price, because the chinese operate an economic war where each economic soldier - for thats what they are ultimatly operates far below the cost of the opponent. Chinese workers work at costs far below US or Western workers do. Part of this means yes - your citizens get cheap goods, but its not free. They do this by unseating and uneploying you, your friends, your neighbours. And the overall numbers game means in China, they can employ 3-10 workers for the same cost of one of your own.
It's a misconception to believe that recession and economic cycles are controlled by the Chinese. In fact, economic prosperity has more to do with the availability of money. The problem is, with greater amount of money in circulation, you need more products and services available to buy. China serves the role of producing the products that we buy so as to enjoy the prosperity. In that aspect China actually improves the standard of living because each of us can find a way to be productive in a way that is more enjoyable then working an assembly line task.
Chinese factories don't need to be more efficient than western ones, they operate on a base thats simply cheaper. They can have many times the workers at the same or lower cost, and given they have a billion + citizens, they won't change that any time soon. *But* - for each worker they take from west to east - everyone needs to understand that - if that worker then ceases employment - the unemployment costs to the nation state are again much higher than if it affected a chinese worker 1 to 1.
It is war - make no mistake. And if you don't think so, explore how hard it is for western companies to deal in china with knock off copies of IP and products. Examine that in scale and you begin to see the issue. If chinese companies have that done here, they go straight to the rule of law and we then help them defeat us in every way. I'm not proclaiming that we should mimic their action at home, but rather, if china and chinese companies steal and rip IP, they should garner no protection here and punishing damages should be a matter of course.
Ideally, we should let the Chinese do what they do best. We should procure different ways of to utilize our productive volition. IP is one such area and there are significant efforts that are being put into IP protection.
While I agree that it's a war and I make absolutely no mistake about it, it's important to remember that war is an art. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." The problem is our society has become dependent on them to lend us money and to produce goods we can buy cheaply. The balance of power has tipped over to their side of the field. Americans are not productive enough in a meaningful way to even the playing field. Only a few innovative companies like Goldman Sachs, Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and a few others really have the type of innovative inertia to "play" meaningfully. We must all find a way to become productive in a way that complements the types of benefits China offers us. I say that because the value of money in circulation in our economy must correlate with the productivity we are capable of.
2. China is not served in the long term by their war activity. Period. In the future, they will need to be able to export and reside in the markets they are ripping militarily and politically. And they even know this themselves. The issue is when that crossing point will come, and how long they can maintain their current war winning strategic operation. Their acti
We had better either take down the US Flag and start flying the Red flag of China or we had better hit them hard and without mercy as we would anyone who would harm Americans.
Are you for real?
You give them too much credit, maybe you recognize them as your masters. I do not.
I agree with hitting them hard. But I must say, we probably disagree on what that means.
China does not give a shit about you, or the west. It will under cut you, subsidise fuel to its operations, steal your data, rob you of your intellectual property, and take your job or life away from you. Its operating on the correct directive which is self interest. The nations and people's suffering at this policy - need to understand that its no use playing possom. Being sanguine about this won't stop it, slow it or provide an answer. It_must be addressed.
At the moment, no one is quite willing to do this.
At some stage, democracies and the west will see some final figures and data from the losses, and a slow process of anger will start to take place. Late. Slow, Stupid.
At some point in future history, you might ask yourself, or those round you - what were you doing while the chinese were raping you and yours.
I believe government to be invasive by nature; we have how may 3 letter agencies that attempt to "hold us at bay" from ourselves for what real reason? It's not an incorrect perception to see our own government to have taken many many positions against it's own citizens. The latest patent and copyright litigative culture is enabled by their positions in the matter. We and our corporations fight amongst ourselves. Stupid. Well it does artificially inflate the GDP by creating more consumption of legal services. That's good for the economy right? Just like our Medical industry, let's treat the symptoms because we can then be certain that the cause will always be there, that way we can sell more service.
Nobody can deny that our governments efforts are favorable to your mentioned Chinese war strategy.
While I applaud your idea of a complete ban on Chinese imports, that strategy if flawed for at least 3 reasons:
1. Our citizenry will be in an outrage when they need to purchase a more expensive substitute that eventually makes it's way to the market. The only way to make that happen is to put everyone under the wooden yoke and force compliance. That in itself is a victory for China considering their plan.
2. China and it's economic might, funds our government by buying US government backed securities, our own government who may chose to engage this strategy, needs to secure alternate funding if it hopes not to go bankrupt. During president Lincoln's term, he solved that problem by printing money known as the "greenback". His strategy fueled the economy and provide much needed liquidity for the circulation of some "medium of exchange", however our government has sold out and our money supply is now in the hands of private enterprise. The Federal Reserve Bank is not a government run organization. It's a private one. The constituents of that organization will not likely give up an asset so valuable as the entire money and financial system in the richest country in the world.
3. The powerful and influential people in our country don't want drastic change. They want a change that will provide them with some guarantee as to their future. These are the people we will depend on to lead us through because as individuals, in our ignorance, we are... well... stupid.
In practicality, the only way through is to start competing with China, rather then letting ourselves become indebted to them. We need to produce something besides overpriced F-35's or F-22's or other parts of the war machine. It all starts with policy changes that create incentives for domestic manufacturing to raise up.
As it is now, the US government doesn't give a shit about you, or the west. It will under-cut you, steal your money, put you into petty court battles over intellectual property, take your job and life away by making you an economic exile. It's operating on the correct (?) directive which is self interest. The nations and people's suffering at it's policy - need to understand that its no use playing possom... you get the idea. It _must_ be addressed.
I am not claiming the US does not engage in this kind of behavior; they probably do, and for all I know they've been caught red-handed at it too. But this report is not proof of that, even if we were to take Wikipedia as a great source of anything to begin with.
Masterfully put.
In fact, there is no proof the US does not engage in this kind of behavior. Since the general presumption is that they do engage in these types of activities, to point out equivalent Chinese activities and call it "unlawful" or in someway try to take the high moral ground in regard to the issue is what we know of as hypocrisy.
Whether or not such activities are negative, as far as the human race is concerned, is questionable. Especially if you observe US and Chinese activities from a culturally relative (ie free of political motives) standpoint. Perhaps we can all agree that whatever conclusion governments may make regarding the issue of espionage, whether it be commercial in nature of not, is always based on some political motivation. In this case maybe the US wants more polarization of US citizens so they may (who knows) more easily identify who are the terrorists.
There may be reasons to use telnet over SSH. Challenge the assumption that it's always better to encrypt communications rather then let someone listen in.
That being said, your presumption is normally right; ISP administrators who block SSH and only allow file transfer by FTP fall into the same category. They should be fired.
The holy grail of SSH, IMO, is tunneling. No firewall can stop you! (Well they can but they have to move to something more sophisticated then packet inspection and port blocking.)
Not everyone is up to playing around with a soldering iron, so there is still space for selling complete devices.
None of the above is really going to make any money, but will likely generate interest; a marketing ploy. HP needs to contribute something that is worth people paying money for and as to date they don't have that in the mobil sector.
The biggest problem with being a CEO is they are required to have a vision for their companies future. In some cases a vision of innovation that works when a company is struggling; Steve Jobs' reality distortion fields are largely adopted by the mainstream with the idevices that turned Apple into what it is today. Google, Samsung, HTC and others are following along. Diving into that market as the late entry contestant requires some sort of competitive advantage. HP seems to be holding an empty hand.
Google's OS is interesting because it's free and open source so hobbyists can play with it (to a certain extent). People buy it because it's cheap or because people around them create hype about it for one reason or another. HP is late to the open source table as well, what real incentive to people to play with WebOS instead of Android?
Google and Apple all have other related interests like the iStore, AppStore, Search and related activities. HP has nothing like that either.
Till now, HP hasn't really contributed anything new, if they do develop a sustainable business model for this market, it will require an innovative idea or a competitively priced product/service package along with enough marketing to get them a seat at the table. At the moment they have neither. They have a CEO brainstorming scenarios in the mobil OS market.
Without competitively in the market, are you claiming they are entitled to earn any money at all?
Yeah I picked up on that after clicking submit. No edit function on slashdot.:/ I guess corporate politics or players in the HP corporation hasn't been on my focus list. My stereotype of male CEO's in play here.
Close sourcing Android is as left field and idea as HP getting out of the PC market. Probably won't get anyone fired though.
Clearly CEO of HP has been taking the wrong medication. No wonder WebOS flopped. Now he want's to open source it so he can compete, that's not enough!. Maybe he should contribute an open hardware design that runs WebOS so people who want control can pick up a soldering iron and a few components and put together smart devices that have WebOS running on it. That would be neat.
For the same reasons Christians must accept they are born sinners. There are some very fundamentalist ideas behind this latest movement; the ownership of information, art, and all things related. In an age where information is freely available there must be some way to legitimize one's claim to property to every length possible.
The cruel and inhuman reality is that legitimate claim is and the means to enforce such claims is the newest way to create people who are "more equal" then others.
Lawyers are nothing but hired guns to fight battles. An attorney is required to provide the best defense or offense for their client regardless of what they think of their client. If attorneys started refusing to provide legal defenses for the worst of the worst then how would we really know who they are; the government would be free jail most anyone by claiming them "the worst of the worst."
That is actually untrue.
American 2nd jurisprudence states in paragraph 6 that an officer of the court (ie lawyer) has a preemptive obligation to public policy and the courts before his client. Which means the lawyer is actually required to take a position against his client in open court if the client moves in a way that could undermine the prioritative interests of either or.
Insofar as the client does not actually interfere, then let the spectacle begin for all who may see. The scenario is has more in common to the strawman fallacy than a hired gun. Lawyers represent the "worst of the worst", not to really get them out of jail time, but rather to setup a target that can either be hit, or missed for anyone who cares to see.
Slashdot Mirror
There are always exceptions.
A person who has to say lewd or offensive language that threatens or suggest lewd or offensive acts as part of their job are probably exempt. A policeman using an interphone to say, "if you don't open the door we will break it down." is offensive towards someones property, but they are likely to be exempt.
A Radio DJ saying, "we are smashing down houses here on 98.1 FM" into a microphone might just get prosecuted!
And for the rest of us, if we tell blond jokes online, we'll get prosecuted.
I found your comments to be very very interesting. I wish I had mod points left even though you don't need them.
The fact is, if more people looked after each other, we would not be busy with our own self-interests but making sure that the interests of everyone around us was looked after. Since capitalism sort of insinuates we should look after ourselves before our brothers we end up more isolated in a way.
Furthermore, the ideals you share do put a new light on extremism. Specifically extremism in the middle east, what we call terrorists may very well have been people who are willing to give their lives to a system of ideals defending their "friends" in any way possible, including at the price of their lives, because those ideals have become corrupted by violence, hate and misdirection.
Thanks for an inspirational posting.
Anyone can "Suspend" or bend the law. Lawyers and Judges do it all the time and they call it "interpretation" of the law.
The issue the FBI and anyone who uses the title a nobility like "Citizen" should be aware of though, is that there are always consequences for every action. Getting caught is an issue, dealing with those consequences is another.
We are back to an anarchy guys. Let's face it, if you are allied with the right people you have "more equal" rights then other people who are unfortunate to have placed their loyalties with allies who are less affluent or are bound by some sort of "unreasonable" moral principles.
The sad part is, with that type of attitude, we all get discharged from "civilization" into what John Locke referred to as "the wilderness" of modern times.
The definition of tacit acquiescence is agreement or approval through silence. Silent Majority is easily identified as a mass who approves and not disapproves. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acquiescence)
I wish I still had mod points. +1 here!
And, I liked the way Hannibal Lector handled the official from the Justice Department in the 2001 movie Hannibal.
Take your points in turn:
1. Your citizens are living in a recession. The chinese are not. You need to understand the width and depth of this war to understand that your citizens in the millions are being degraded and suffering a lower standard of living, unemployment, and all that goes with it, while the chinese take the other direction. Its not a one for one price, because the chinese operate an economic war where each economic soldier - for thats what they are ultimatly operates far below the cost of the opponent. Chinese workers work at costs far below US or Western workers do. Part of this means yes - your citizens get cheap goods, but its not free. They do this by unseating and uneploying you, your friends, your neighbours. And the overall numbers game means in China, they can employ 3-10 workers for the same cost of one of your own.
It's a misconception to believe that recession and economic cycles are controlled by the Chinese. In fact, economic prosperity has more to do with the availability of money. The problem is, with greater amount of money in circulation, you need more products and services available to buy. China serves the role of producing the products that we buy so as to enjoy the prosperity. In that aspect China actually improves the standard of living because each of us can find a way to be productive in a way that is more enjoyable then working an assembly line task.
Chinese factories don't need to be more efficient than western ones, they operate on a base thats simply cheaper. They can have many times the workers at the same or lower cost, and given they have a billion + citizens, they won't change that any time soon. *But* - for each worker they take from west to east - everyone needs to understand that - if that worker then ceases employment - the unemployment costs to the nation state are again much higher than if it affected a chinese worker 1 to 1.
It is war - make no mistake. And if you don't think so, explore how hard it is for western companies to deal in china with knock off copies of IP and products. Examine that in scale and you begin to see the issue. If chinese companies have that done here, they go straight to the rule of law and we then help them defeat us in every way. I'm not proclaiming that we should mimic their action at home, but rather, if china and chinese companies steal and rip IP, they should garner no protection here and punishing damages should be a matter of course.
Ideally, we should let the Chinese do what they do best. We should procure different ways of to utilize our productive volition. IP is one such area and there are significant efforts that are being put into IP protection.
While I agree that it's a war and I make absolutely no mistake about it, it's important to remember that war is an art. "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." The problem is our society has become dependent on them to lend us money and to produce goods we can buy cheaply. The balance of power has tipped over to their side of the field. Americans are not productive enough in a meaningful way to even the playing field. Only a few innovative companies like Goldman Sachs, Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and a few others really have the type of innovative inertia to "play" meaningfully. We must all find a way to become productive in a way that complements the types of benefits China offers us. I say that because the value of money in circulation in our economy must correlate with the productivity we are capable of.
2. China is not served in the long term by their war activity. Period. In the future, they will need to be able to export and reside in the markets they are ripping militarily and politically. And they even know this themselves. The issue is when that crossing point will come, and how long they can maintain their current war winning strategic operation. Their acti
I wish I had mod points lift. I'd mod your post +1 informative.
Very well said.
Is this how much we fear our Chinese masters?
We had better either take down the US Flag and start flying the Red flag of China or we had better hit them hard and without mercy as we would anyone who would harm Americans.
Are you for real?
You give them too much credit, maybe you recognize them as your masters. I do not.
I agree with hitting them hard. But I must say, we probably disagree on what that means.
Amen.
I'd like to comment on one more thing.
China does not give a shit about you, or the west. It will under cut you, subsidise fuel to its operations, steal your data, rob you of your intellectual property, and take your job or life away from you. Its operating on the correct directive which is self interest. The nations and people's suffering at this policy - need to understand that its no use playing possom. Being sanguine about this won't stop it, slow it or provide an answer. It_must be addressed.
At the moment, no one is quite willing to do this.
At some stage, democracies and the west will see some final figures and data from the losses, and a slow process of anger will start to take place. Late. Slow, Stupid.
At some point in future history, you might ask yourself, or those round you - what were you doing while the chinese were raping you and yours.
I believe government to be invasive by nature; we have how may 3 letter agencies that attempt to "hold us at bay" from ourselves for what real reason? It's not an incorrect perception to see our own government to have taken many many positions against it's own citizens. The latest patent and copyright litigative culture is enabled by their positions in the matter. We and our corporations fight amongst ourselves. Stupid. Well it does artificially inflate the GDP by creating more consumption of legal services. That's good for the economy right? Just like our Medical industry, let's treat the symptoms because we can then be certain that the cause will always be there, that way we can sell more service.
Nobody can deny that our governments efforts are favorable to your mentioned Chinese war strategy.
While I applaud your idea of a complete ban on Chinese imports, that strategy if flawed for at least 3 reasons:
1. Our citizenry will be in an outrage when they need to purchase a more expensive substitute that eventually makes it's way to the market. The only way to make that happen is to put everyone under the wooden yoke and force compliance. That in itself is a victory for China considering their plan.
2. China and it's economic might, funds our government by buying US government backed securities, our own government who may chose to engage this strategy, needs to secure alternate funding if it hopes not to go bankrupt. During president Lincoln's term, he solved that problem by printing money known as the "greenback". His strategy fueled the economy and provide much needed liquidity for the circulation of some "medium of exchange", however our government has sold out and our money supply is now in the hands of private enterprise. The Federal Reserve Bank is not a government run organization. It's a private one. The constituents of that organization will not likely give up an asset so valuable as the entire money and financial system in the richest country in the world.
3. The powerful and influential people in our country don't want drastic change. They want a change that will provide them with some guarantee as to their future. These are the people we will depend on to lead us through because as individuals, in our ignorance, we are... well... stupid.
In practicality, the only way through is to start competing with China, rather then letting ourselves become indebted to them. We need to produce something besides overpriced F-35's or F-22's or other parts of the war machine. It all starts with policy changes that create incentives for domestic manufacturing to raise up.
As it is now, the US government doesn't give a shit about you, or the west. It will under-cut you, steal your money, put you into petty court battles over intellectual property, take your job and life away by making you an economic exile. It's operating on the correct (?) directive which is self interest. The nations and people's suffering at it's policy - need to understand that its no use playing possom... you get the idea. It _must_ be addressed.
These day
Think about it, trying to invalidate the value of a security you sold to run your household? Nobody would want your securities any more.
I am not claiming the US does not engage in this kind of behavior; they probably do, and for all I know they've been caught red-handed at it too. But this report is not proof of that, even if we were to take Wikipedia as a great source of anything to begin with.
Masterfully put.
In fact, there is no proof the US does not engage in this kind of behavior. Since the general presumption is that they do engage in these types of activities, to point out equivalent Chinese activities and call it "unlawful" or in someway try to take the high moral ground in regard to the issue is what we know of as hypocrisy.
Whether or not such activities are negative, as far as the human race is concerned, is questionable. Especially if you observe US and Chinese activities from a culturally relative (ie free of political motives) standpoint. Perhaps we can all agree that whatever conclusion governments may make regarding the issue of espionage, whether it be commercial in nature of not, is always based on some political motivation. In this case maybe the US wants more polarization of US citizens so they may (who knows) more easily identify who are the terrorists.
Neat. Thanks for your input.
There may be reasons to use telnet over SSH. Challenge the assumption that it's always better to encrypt communications rather then let someone listen in.
That being said, your presumption is normally right; ISP administrators who block SSH and only allow file transfer by FTP fall into the same category. They should be fired.
The holy grail of SSH, IMO, is tunneling. No firewall can stop you! (Well they can but they have to move to something more sophisticated then packet inspection and port blocking.)
Technically it is over his dead body.
We could just eliminate coin and paper currency all together. We can get by just fine with plastic, checks and other promissory type notes.
strike body, right hand or forehead...
I could turn my cell phone off for a while and they wouldn't know where I had been...
Next law, citizens must own a cellular and have it fully charged and turned on day or night.
At this rate ACTA will go the way of the dodo bird.
They manufacture higher level the components.
Not everyone is up to playing around with a soldering iron, so there is still space for selling complete devices.
None of the above is really going to make any money, but will likely generate interest; a marketing ploy. HP needs to contribute something that is worth people paying money for and as to date they don't have that in the mobil sector.
The biggest problem with being a CEO is they are required to have a vision for their companies future. In some cases a vision of innovation that works when a company is struggling; Steve Jobs' reality distortion fields are largely adopted by the mainstream with the idevices that turned Apple into what it is today. Google, Samsung, HTC and others are following along. Diving into that market as the late entry contestant requires some sort of competitive advantage. HP seems to be holding an empty hand.
Google's OS is interesting because it's free and open source so hobbyists can play with it (to a certain extent). People buy it because it's cheap or because people around them create hype about it for one reason or another. HP is late to the open source table as well, what real incentive to people to play with WebOS instead of Android?
Google and Apple all have other related interests like the iStore, AppStore, Search and related activities. HP has nothing like that either.
Till now, HP hasn't really contributed anything new, if they do develop a sustainable business model for this market, it will require an innovative idea or a competitively priced product/service package along with enough marketing to get them a seat at the table. At the moment they have neither. They have a CEO brainstorming scenarios in the mobil OS market.
Without competitively in the market, are you claiming they are entitled to earn any money at all?
Yeah I picked up on that after clicking submit. No edit function on slashdot. :/ I guess corporate politics or players in the HP corporation hasn't been on my focus list. My stereotype of male CEO's in play here.
Close sourcing Android is as left field and idea as HP getting out of the PC market. Probably won't get anyone fired though.
Clearly CEO of HP has been taking the wrong medication. No wonder WebOS flopped. Now he want's to open source it so he can compete, that's not enough!. Maybe he should contribute an open hardware design that runs WebOS so people who want control can pick up a soldering iron and a few components and put together smart devices that have WebOS running on it. That would be neat.
For the same reasons Christians must accept they are born sinners. There are some very fundamentalist ideas behind this latest movement; the ownership of information, art, and all things related. In an age where information is freely available there must be some way to legitimize one's claim to property to every length possible. The cruel and inhuman reality is that legitimate claim is and the means to enforce such claims is the newest way to create people who are "more equal" then others.
Lawyers are nothing but hired guns to fight battles. An attorney is required to provide the best defense or offense for their client regardless of what they think of their client. If attorneys started refusing to provide legal defenses for the worst of the worst then how would we really know who they are; the government would be free jail most anyone by claiming them "the worst of the worst."
That is actually untrue.
American 2nd jurisprudence states in paragraph 6 that an officer of the court (ie lawyer) has a preemptive obligation to public policy and the courts before his client. Which means the lawyer is actually required to take a position against his client in open court if the client moves in a way that could undermine the prioritative interests of either or.
Insofar as the client does not actually interfere, then let the spectacle begin for all who may see. The scenario is has more in common to the strawman fallacy than a hired gun. Lawyers represent the "worst of the worst", not to really get them out of jail time, but rather to setup a target that can either be hit, or missed for anyone who cares to see.