Depriving someone of their ability to feed, clothe, and/or shelter themselves is a very small step from imprisonment. So the judge might as well have made it illegal.
You miss the point that it isn't the government's job to secure profits for any business or individual. If the owner of the content didn't want it seen by the public, they should have made it available only to private users, and not via a public URL. This situation is 100% analogous to a painter displaying, in full public view, a prized painting, then demanding $10 to view it, and crying to the government when no one pays your $10 fee to look at the painting. If the artist wanted the painting to be inaccessable, it is HIS JOB, not the government's, to make sure it is not publicly accessible.
So, by your logic the government's sole job should be to prevent the possibility of so-called "theft" (which, your definition is actually incorrect, since to steal something, the thief would have to gain access to it by means other than the owner's approved channels, which isn't the case: the owner of the content in this case made said content publicly available, and thus no stealing took place) of revenue from any individual or company. You sir, are insane.
That's probably the next step. Likely this judge will rule that thinking about content on the internet is an infraction punishable by death or absurd fine, and that by no means should any link URLs be thought of or transferred by way of non-digital medium (i.e., speech, paper text, smoke signals etc.).
Yes, but you miss the larger impact of the ruling, which essentially defines every link on the internet as illegal, so long as the owner of the target site cares to say "boo". And if you take it one step further, any site linking to any site that contains copyrighted material would also be illegal, covering all the rest of the content on the internet, that may or may not directly host copyrighted content or have bothered to copyright their site design.
Aye, it's true, should be and is are different. However, my analogies are far more consistent than the others that have been made thus far (i.e., that encryption is analogous to envelopes, when in fact that comparison is baseless, since encryption represents obfuscation/modification of data, while an envelope is merely a "cover" over that data, similar to how an email or text message is not readable unless it is first accessed from the disk into human readable form).
Arr, I recognize that capitalism promotes a single or few essentially laymen gaining 99% of the profit from expert work, but I was referring specifically to having a layman posted directly as your boss to organize a project in a field he knows nothing about, at 6000% salary. And to the guy above, I work at a small business, and technically no one oversees my work on technical matters (though I supposed you could argue that the owner has this position, and indeed "earns" multiple thousands of times more than myself, but my main point is that a layman shouldn't be making/directing expert decisions, and certainly not at salary anywhere above the expert him/herself). The reason I discount my situation as unalike is that the owner defers to me in technical matters.
I'd argue that free will can't exist, because we quantify it as the ability to choose independently of any determining factors. However, every action of an organism is completely biased towards said organism's ability to sense: if our primary mode of visual stimulus was ultra-violet instead of the current spectrum, we very likely would have concepts relating solely to the giant patches of light we would be able to see in a roughly hemispherical shape above us, rather than our current material infatuation with those objects we can perceive in our current light-organs' spectrum. This is just an example of the many things that are completely relative to our mode of existence (i.e., electro-chemical machines), and so there can be no reasoning about free will which is indepedent of these factors, which violates the definition of free will. My guess is that the whole of human action could be said to fall into certain domains, with some variability, but ultimately, all actions are dependent not on nature (physical laws), omniscient fantasy characters ("God" et al), but the bias of our biological bodies on our actions and perception of existence.
My point is that email communications should technically be protected for the very reason that anyone making the disk access to read the data of an email is basically committing the same crime as someone opening a letter. The ISP or whoever may *own* the data to the message, but technically only the sender and recipient should have ANY right to access that data (especially before transmission is complete).
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because a letter is in a public area, anyone should be able to open and read it. Remember, accessing the data from disk into human readable form is pretty much 100% analogous to an envelope. Encryption of email is far more analogous to writing your snail mail letter in code, than it is to having an envelope. By your logic (and the Feds'), if someone other than the person that sent a snail mail letter is HOLDING it, than it should be 100% legal for them to open it. This isn't the case, it also shouldn't be for email. It takes a disk access to read an email, just as it takes opening an envelope to read a letter.
Correction to number 4: If any of your data happens to cross AT&T's pipes. Having AT&T as your ISP of course would put you at risk, but since so many ISPs in the US use AT&Ts pipes, many such would be vulnerable to illegal NSA spying without having AT&T directly affiliated. Traceroute for the win.
They shouldn't be paying any managers anything in the first place. If they want paid development work, pay the developers doing the work, not some morons that are just going to annoy the people actually making the product. It's very very little wonder this has pissed people off. It's essentially the same as having a layman (i.e., not someone educated in development in any form) take the "lead developer" position (at 6000% of the normal devs' pay), and then the managers ("lead dev") trying to tell all the devs that they need to work harder. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'd quit immediately if a layman were posted above me at 6000% of my salary, and probably also hurl copious insults.
Eh, lots of face recognition is reliable now. Taking certain points on a face and comparing the distances between groups of them in other images is *fairly* reliable, given a reasonably clear image which has a clear view of the person's face. The problem(s) associated with any current method of facial recognition are basically the same as the problems with any algorithm written by a human: said person can only confer a *portion* of his/her intelligence to the algorithm, and if said algorithm can't adapt to unknown conditions (most of them:P), then false positives/failures in identification will result (e.g., the bit of intelligence given only deals with pictures that have a clear view of the target's face). The thing is, humans don't identify things based on single criteria, and it isn't practical to expect an algorithm to do so. If I were personally writing something of this nature, I would attempt to recognize as many disparate but related elements as possible to provide identification (for instance, if you have someone with a reasonable obscure username (defined by some metric) you could possibly assert that X person's picture on Flickr corresponds to Y person's./ account or whatever).
I think any benefit gained from playing games is inherent to the way that the brain improves itself. So, it's more a consequence of the fact that any time you're forced to think logically/critically about a situation and do so repeatedly over a long period of time in an adaptive situation, you're going to have an increase in mental faculty (even if small for some simple puzzles). The key though, I'm guessing, is enforcement (repetition) and the logic/critical process in reacting to a situation(obviously, the more information the player's brain need take into account, the more involved the critical thinking process, and the more improvement). At least, that's my guess, since I don't actually have anything to back me up (other than anecdotal evidence that critical thinking in general increases mental acuity).
You do realize you just made a case against requirements, then shot down your own method (calling manufacturers) because it doesn't work, right? So, which is it then? Call companies, or the companies are all liars and requiring them not to lie wouldn't work anyway, thereby making calling them pointless in the first place. It'd be nice if you followed your own logic, at the VERY least.
About time someone said this. Seconded. The victim attitude is pathetic and ridiculous. More people died in car accidents in two weeks following the "terrorist" attack than in the actual attack. The impact of terrorists on citizens is so absolutely minor when compared with the millions of other ways you could conceivably die NOT involving terrorists. It's far more likely to trip and break your neck/back or get run over by a car than it is to be attacked by something as nebulous and insubstantial as "terrorists". People that allow themselves to be frightened and herded like sheep over something this riduclously minor do not deserve to live in a country called "the home of the brave".
And for all the trolls that undoubtedly will call me a "liberal" (since they apparently don't know how to make any logical arguments), I am not, was a former military servicemember and indeed hold very dear the TRUE ideals of the country (personal liberty and freedom, not the oppressive fear mongering garbage that so many cowardly people want).
Yeah, definitely. The easiest way to figure out roughly what *really* happened is to properly follow up both the "official" story of who funded whom. The chain of funding is much longer than the media et al want the public to think. That combined with other indicators of who benefitted from the attack, and the picture becomes quite a bit more clear.
It's just a pity that so many people can't think for themselves or properly research the subject, and that the COINTELPRO against such people is massive and widespread (OMG U R A CONSPIRACY NUT!!!11!! is the typical response to *any* questioning, even that backed by reliable sources).
The problem being that if anyone were to hack these machines with the intent of hindering the neocon agenda, they'd just use their multitude of torture/murder/no rights laws that they've been passing to deem that person a "terrorist" (here I refer to the Torture and Murder Bill recently pushed by Bush, and the Patriot Act, both of which could easily be applied to a regular citizen hacking a Diebold/ES&S machine) and either hold them indefinitely without trial whilst torturing them for a confession, or summarily sentence them to execution. Which, most assuredly, is the real reason for the PA/Torture and Murder Bill.
I'd rather live in the wild, wearing animal skins and hunting for my dinner than EVER EVER live in a theocratic police state, where this country is headed. I'd rather give up every single comfort (including electricity, running water, computers, the Internet etc) than give up even the tiniest fraction of my liberty. Anyone that is willing to give up their basic human rights, and their liberty, deserves fully what they get (the theocratic police state we're headed for). And good riddance to the cowards.
You'd be surprised how many people do not even recognize the neocon agenda as the same exact tactic used in pre-WWII Germany. There are even people that would vehemently deny that this kind of thing is even going on. Hell, there are even some commenting in this very article. It's too bad that so many people are willfully ignorant of this obvious coup, and are just content to sit around and praise the religious fanatic neocons as they strip any semblance of freedom from US citizens. Can anyone say "ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorist'" in the newest legal torture/murder bill?
I voted until the point when they started using blatantly insecure voting machines manufactured by companies in the neocon pocket (Diebold AND ES&S). Voting in a broken system is not only pointless, but counter productive.
As a former serviceman, I agree completely with this. Giving up your liberties so you can feel "safe" from such an intangible and fairly ridiculous threat as "terrorists" is both cowardly and pathetic. I want to live in the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the police state theocracy land of the imprisoned and tortured, home of the cowardly.
When the day comes when cowards like the parent succeed in turning this country into a theocratic police state, where no one has any freedoms, I'll definitely be willing and able to fight to destroy the oppressive, cowardly regime and people that made it happen.
Your sig should have "neocon" instead of "Republican". Republicans are victims of the circumstance of having their party taken over by religious fanatics. Not all of them agree with the neocon insanity (and to those neocon cunts that will undoubtedly accuse me of doing nothing but saying that neocons are insane, go ahead and tell me what is sane about trying to turn a democratic republic into a police state theocracy is sane). That said, I'm not a Republican (gah, hell no) nor a Democrat, Libertarian, Leftist or otherwise (for all the neocon scumbags that undoubtedly will try to accuse me of voicing my opinion solely because I'm a "leftist commie pinko" or some such idiocy).
The real problem is that the Republican party has been taken over by a group of religious fanatics.
Slashdot Mirror
Depriving someone of their ability to feed, clothe, and/or shelter themselves is a very small step from imprisonment. So the judge might as well have made it illegal.
You miss the point that it isn't the government's job to secure profits for any business or individual. If the owner of the content didn't want it seen by the public, they should have made it available only to private users, and not via a public URL. This situation is 100% analogous to a painter displaying, in full public view, a prized painting, then demanding $10 to view it, and crying to the government when no one pays your $10 fee to look at the painting. If the artist wanted the painting to be inaccessable, it is HIS JOB, not the government's, to make sure it is not publicly accessible.
So, by your logic the government's sole job should be to prevent the possibility of so-called "theft" (which, your definition is actually incorrect, since to steal something, the thief would have to gain access to it by means other than the owner's approved channels, which isn't the case: the owner of the content in this case made said content publicly available, and thus no stealing took place) of revenue from any individual or company. You sir, are insane.
That's probably the next step. Likely this judge will rule that thinking about content on the internet is an infraction punishable by death or absurd fine, and that by no means should any link URLs be thought of or transferred by way of non-digital medium (i.e., speech, paper text, smoke signals etc.).
Yes, but you miss the larger impact of the ruling, which essentially defines every link on the internet as illegal, so long as the owner of the target site cares to say "boo". And if you take it one step further, any site linking to any site that contains copyrighted material would also be illegal, covering all the rest of the content on the internet, that may or may not directly host copyrighted content or have bothered to copyright their site design.
Aye, it's true, should be and is are different. However, my analogies are far more consistent than the others that have been made thus far (i.e., that encryption is analogous to envelopes, when in fact that comparison is baseless, since encryption represents obfuscation/modification of data, while an envelope is merely a "cover" over that data, similar to how an email or text message is not readable unless it is first accessed from the disk into human readable form).
Arr, I recognize that capitalism promotes a single or few essentially laymen gaining 99% of the profit from expert work, but I was referring specifically to having a layman posted directly as your boss to organize a project in a field he knows nothing about, at 6000% salary. And to the guy above, I work at a small business, and technically no one oversees my work on technical matters (though I supposed you could argue that the owner has this position, and indeed "earns" multiple thousands of times more than myself, but my main point is that a layman shouldn't be making/directing expert decisions, and certainly not at salary anywhere above the expert him/herself). The reason I discount my situation as unalike is that the owner defers to me in technical matters.
I'd argue that free will can't exist, because we quantify it as the ability to choose independently of any determining factors. However, every action of an organism is completely biased towards said organism's ability to sense: if our primary mode of visual stimulus was ultra-violet instead of the current spectrum, we very likely would have concepts relating solely to the giant patches of light we would be able to see in a roughly hemispherical shape above us, rather than our current material infatuation with those objects we can perceive in our current light-organs' spectrum. This is just an example of the many things that are completely relative to our mode of existence (i.e., electro-chemical machines), and so there can be no reasoning about free will which is indepedent of these factors, which violates the definition of free will. My guess is that the whole of human action could be said to fall into certain domains, with some variability, but ultimately, all actions are dependent not on nature (physical laws), omniscient fantasy characters ("God" et al), but the bias of our biological bodies on our actions and perception of existence.
Yeah, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are REAL seekers of "truth". Uh-huh. Suure.
OMG if u saye n e thang abot Amerrica u r a liberall!!!! OMG OMG !!! TERRRORAST!!! /sarcasm
My point is that email communications should technically be protected for the very reason that anyone making the disk access to read the data of an email is basically committing the same crime as someone opening a letter. The ISP or whoever may *own* the data to the message, but technically only the sender and recipient should have ANY right to access that data (especially before transmission is complete).
Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because a letter is in a public area, anyone should be able to open and read it. Remember, accessing the data from disk into human readable form is pretty much 100% analogous to an envelope. Encryption of email is far more analogous to writing your snail mail letter in code, than it is to having an envelope. By your logic (and the Feds'), if someone other than the person that sent a snail mail letter is HOLDING it, than it should be 100% legal for them to open it. This isn't the case, it also shouldn't be for email. It takes a disk access to read an email, just as it takes opening an envelope to read a letter.
Correction to number 4: If any of your data happens to cross AT&T's pipes. Having AT&T as your ISP of course would put you at risk, but since so many ISPs in the US use AT&Ts pipes, many such would be vulnerable to illegal NSA spying without having AT&T directly affiliated. Traceroute for the win.
They shouldn't be paying any managers anything in the first place. If they want paid development work, pay the developers doing the work, not some morons that are just going to annoy the people actually making the product. It's very very little wonder this has pissed people off. It's essentially the same as having a layman (i.e., not someone educated in development in any form) take the "lead developer" position (at 6000% of the normal devs' pay), and then the managers ("lead dev") trying to tell all the devs that they need to work harder. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'd quit immediately if a layman were posted above me at 6000% of my salary, and probably also hurl copious insults.
Eh, lots of face recognition is reliable now. Taking certain points on a face and comparing the distances between groups of them in other images is *fairly* reliable, given a reasonably clear image which has a clear view of the person's face. The problem(s) associated with any current method of facial recognition are basically the same as the problems with any algorithm written by a human: said person can only confer a *portion* of his/her intelligence to the algorithm, and if said algorithm can't adapt to unknown conditions (most of them :P), then false positives/failures in identification will result (e.g., the bit of intelligence given only deals with pictures that have a clear view of the target's face). The thing is, humans don't identify things based on single criteria, and it isn't practical to expect an algorithm to do so. If I were personally writing something of this nature, I would attempt to recognize as many disparate but related elements as possible to provide identification (for instance, if you have someone with a reasonable obscure username (defined by some metric) you could possibly assert that X person's picture on Flickr corresponds to Y person's ./ account or whatever).
I think any benefit gained from playing games is inherent to the way that the brain improves itself. So, it's more a consequence of the fact that any time you're forced to think logically/critically about a situation and do so repeatedly over a long period of time in an adaptive situation, you're going to have an increase in mental faculty (even if small for some simple puzzles). The key though, I'm guessing, is enforcement (repetition) and the logic/critical process in reacting to a situation(obviously, the more information the player's brain need take into account, the more involved the critical thinking process, and the more improvement). At least, that's my guess, since I don't actually have anything to back me up (other than anecdotal evidence that critical thinking in general increases mental acuity).
You do realize you just made a case against requirements, then shot down your own method (calling manufacturers) because it doesn't work, right? So, which is it then? Call companies, or the companies are all liars and requiring them not to lie wouldn't work anyway, thereby making calling them pointless in the first place. It'd be nice if you followed your own logic, at the VERY least.
About time someone said this. Seconded. The victim attitude is pathetic and ridiculous. More people died in car accidents in two weeks following the "terrorist" attack than in the actual attack. The impact of terrorists on citizens is so absolutely minor when compared with the millions of other ways you could conceivably die NOT involving terrorists. It's far more likely to trip and break your neck/back or get run over by a car than it is to be attacked by something as nebulous and insubstantial as "terrorists". People that allow themselves to be frightened and herded like sheep over something this riduclously minor do not deserve to live in a country called "the home of the brave". And for all the trolls that undoubtedly will call me a "liberal" (since they apparently don't know how to make any logical arguments), I am not, was a former military servicemember and indeed hold very dear the TRUE ideals of the country (personal liberty and freedom, not the oppressive fear mongering garbage that so many cowardly people want).
Yeah, definitely. The easiest way to figure out roughly what *really* happened is to properly follow up both the "official" story of who funded whom. The chain of funding is much longer than the media et al want the public to think. That combined with other indicators of who benefitted from the attack, and the picture becomes quite a bit more clear. It's just a pity that so many people can't think for themselves or properly research the subject, and that the COINTELPRO against such people is massive and widespread (OMG U R A CONSPIRACY NUT!!!11!! is the typical response to *any* questioning, even that backed by reliable sources).
The problem being that if anyone were to hack these machines with the intent of hindering the neocon agenda, they'd just use their multitude of torture/murder/no rights laws that they've been passing to deem that person a "terrorist" (here I refer to the Torture and Murder Bill recently pushed by Bush, and the Patriot Act, both of which could easily be applied to a regular citizen hacking a Diebold/ES&S machine) and either hold them indefinitely without trial whilst torturing them for a confession, or summarily sentence them to execution. Which, most assuredly, is the real reason for the PA/Torture and Murder Bill.
I'd rather live in the wild, wearing animal skins and hunting for my dinner than EVER EVER live in a theocratic police state, where this country is headed. I'd rather give up every single comfort (including electricity, running water, computers, the Internet etc) than give up even the tiniest fraction of my liberty. Anyone that is willing to give up their basic human rights, and their liberty, deserves fully what they get (the theocratic police state we're headed for). And good riddance to the cowards.
You'd be surprised how many people do not even recognize the neocon agenda as the same exact tactic used in pre-WWII Germany. There are even people that would vehemently deny that this kind of thing is even going on. Hell, there are even some commenting in this very article. It's too bad that so many people are willfully ignorant of this obvious coup, and are just content to sit around and praise the religious fanatic neocons as they strip any semblance of freedom from US citizens. Can anyone say "ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorist'" in the newest legal torture/murder bill?
I voted until the point when they started using blatantly insecure voting machines manufactured by companies in the neocon pocket (Diebold AND ES&S). Voting in a broken system is not only pointless, but counter productive.
As a former serviceman, I agree completely with this. Giving up your liberties so you can feel "safe" from such an intangible and fairly ridiculous threat as "terrorists" is both cowardly and pathetic. I want to live in the land of the free, home of the brave. Not the police state theocracy land of the imprisoned and tortured, home of the cowardly. When the day comes when cowards like the parent succeed in turning this country into a theocratic police state, where no one has any freedoms, I'll definitely be willing and able to fight to destroy the oppressive, cowardly regime and people that made it happen.
Your sig should have "neocon" instead of "Republican". Republicans are victims of the circumstance of having their party taken over by religious fanatics. Not all of them agree with the neocon insanity (and to those neocon cunts that will undoubtedly accuse me of doing nothing but saying that neocons are insane, go ahead and tell me what is sane about trying to turn a democratic republic into a police state theocracy is sane). That said, I'm not a Republican (gah, hell no) nor a Democrat, Libertarian, Leftist or otherwise (for all the neocon scumbags that undoubtedly will try to accuse me of voicing my opinion solely because I'm a "leftist commie pinko" or some such idiocy). The real problem is that the Republican party has been taken over by a group of religious fanatics.