Recently, I wrote about the concept of an Internet that knows no boundaries in relation to how content is distributed and consumed, but today I would like to talk about it in the broader sense of free speech and censorship.
I find Internet censorship to be a deplorable concept, not because it prevents me from consuming things that a jurisdictional entity considers inappropriate or immoral, but because it stymies the legitimate aggregation and consumption of ideas.
One of the more interesting side effects of the Information Revolution has been the unification of our people--not in some patriotic or otherwise political sense, but our entire race. We can now explore and understand the world around us in ways that were not previously possible. I can converse with someone that was present in the Mumbai attacks last week, talk to an Islamic jihadist, converse with my parents across the country, and participate in a discussion on the election of a black president. I can read about the newest innovations in the scientific world, find the latest juice on my favorite celebrity, watch a movie produced by some indie director, and play a game that some 12 year old wrote in his mom's basement. The Internet is free (libre) to our imaginations and thoughts to explore.
Therefore, it is not too hard to imagine that there are those that have expressions that differ from our own tastes and acceptances. Does that mean that the we have the right to muzzle them? Remember, the Internet is free (libre) from jurisdictional bounds, so who are we to restrict what is published there? Is child pornography justification enough to silence the innocent voices of those who may become collateral damage in the censorship fight against it? Is copyright so sacrosanct that it should smother legally distributed content as well?
Australians are in the fight of their lives to take back their freedom of speech, revoked by the government, a victim in the so called fight against child porn. It is very easy to say that these new powers won't do very much as far as stopping and preventing child porn, but it isn't too much of a stretch to say the sole purpose of these laws is to grant the government self-anointed power to control the things that its constituents publish and view.
The Internet is still new territory, that is for sure, but we have an opportunity to break down language, cultural, racial, educational, and political barriers with it. Why would we destroy it with crusades against things over which there is little or no control? Are we so myopic that we think the the tragedies of child pornography and human trafficking will be reduced (or even end) with maiming the one medium of humanity's greatest achievement of interpersonal communication?
I trust no man, not even myself, to control such power because even the wisest of the wise are not infallible, incorruptible, or undeceivable. No, let the Internet be what humanity shapes it to be. Through the portals of this great experiment in human discourse, we get to peel back the layers of filters to see what humanity really is. And maybe that is what makes it so uncomfortable to ponder--because we may not like what we see.
...the idea that the view should never contain logic at all is quite dogmatic and as such doesn't work well on the real world...
I think that's what the OP is trying to say when he comments that 'MVC is a pattern'. Patterns help solve particular problems, but when following the pattern in the most purist of the sense doesn't solve the problem (or gasp! make it bigger!) then being 'pure' doesn't make sense.
Take AlertBox. I think there some gems in his usability suggestions, but if you follow his guidance to the 't', you end up with a boring and un-user-friendly site like his.
Or how 'bout this, why isn't the underlying FS abstracted away from the OS? It seems that if you wanted to get out of the gooey compatibility mess, some sort of common interface would exist independent of OS calls to the hardware.
I think the point is not to sterilize the water, but make it safe to drink. Our bodies are fairly tolerant to bacteria getting inside. Think of it this way: Do you really think that tap water is 100% germ free? Is the glass you're putting your lips on sterile?
The idea of the UV light is to get the parts/qty down to such a level as to be safe for your body to take care of the rest.
Here ya go. The actual news agency was Reuters, not the AP. I think this gaff was the one that broke the camel's back, so to speak, in news agencies using doctored photos.
I don't know about you, but I base my designs *not* trusting the client (the card, in this case). I would give the buses/train terminals a little more intelligence and have them communicate with the central DB. In the event of a comm failure, let the rider pass, but reconcile the difference later. Their design pushes *all* the onus on the card providing valid data, which leaves it wide open to hacking.
Re:Revenge of the Nerds...
on
American Nerd
·
· Score: 2, Funny
A pedant. I'd shorten that to 'pedo', but that colloquialism is already taken...
The system is asynchronous, with the current balance and ticket data held electronically on the card rather than in the central database. The main database is updated periodically with information received from the card by barriers and validators. Tickets purchased online or over the telephone are "loaded" at a preselected barrier or validator./quote
So, given that my key gets rotated every 5 min, am I safe from their attack that takes 10-15? Now, assuming that the crack time scales with the resources thrown at it, it would seem that this isn't a safe bet.
One thing that did interest me was this:
A new wireless standard known as WPA2 is considered safe from the attack developed by Tews and Beck
Maybe I can buy Window NT 7 and skip over Vista (NT6) completely.
You just don't get it, do you? Windows 7 is nothing more than an enhancement to Vista, one with meaningless features. A new taskbar? New UI for Notepad? Less crazy UAC messages? C'mon, where are the real features? What the hell happened to WinFS?
So I was thinking...what if I hijacked the library computer so that I could read books from home.
The whole idea of books was being able to quickly and cheaply reproduce information for the masses. It's funny how anyone caught doing so with certain texts were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Here we are a few centuries later and the same thing is occurring with the Internet.
Sometimes I really wonder if Fahrenheit 451 is fiction or prophecy.
And therein lies the rub. Copyright should be less about people making copies, as it is (semi) controlling distribution. So I ask: Why don't we create a means of allowing to get stuff for free, but still force them through a distribution channel to get it. The channel can then generate revenue through ad supported, value-add supported, micro-payment supported, et all means.
The flip side is, how can you make money giving stuff away for free without control of its distribution?
I would argue that you need a RAID solution regardless. Assuming you use the bulk of that drive, backing up ~1TB of data in event of drive failure can be a pain. With those sized drives, I'd only go with RAID 1/5/6/combo anyway.
"The comment" shall be taken to mean the comment Contained in this thread and any subequent Versions or upgrades received as a result of having Viewed this comment. "reader" shall be taken as The original reader of the comment.
Reader has the non-exclusive right to use the Software only on a single computer. Reader may not Electronically transfer the comment from one Computer to another over any type of network. Reader may not distribute copies of the comment or The accompanying documentation to others either For a fee or without charge. Reader may not modify Or translate the comment or documentation. User May not disassemble the comment or allow it to be Disassembled into its contituent source code. Reader's use of the comment indicates his/her Acceptance of these terms and conditions. If reader Does not agree to these conditions, return the Distribution media, documentation, and associated Materials to the vendor from whom the comment Was downloaded, and erase the comment from any And all storage devices upon which it may have been Installed.
This license agreement shall be governed by the Laws of the united states of america and shall inure to the benefit of chabil ha' or its assigns.
Disclaimer / limitation of liability: Reader acknowledges that the comment may not be Free from defects and may not satisfy all of reader's Needs. Chabil ha' does not warrant all media on which the Comment is distributed. The comment and any accompanying written Materials are licensed "as is". In no event will chabil ha' be liable for Direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damage Or damages resulting from loss of use, or loss of Anticipated profits resulting from any defect in the Comment, even if it has been advised of the Possibility of such damage. Some laws do not allow The exclusion or limitation of implied warranties or Liabilities for incidental or consequential damages, So the above limitations or exclusion may not apply.
Specific restrictions:
In accordance with the computer software rental Act of 1990, this comment may not be rented, lent or Leased.
The comment and accompanying documentation may Not be provided by a "backup service" or any other Vendor which does not provide an original package As composed by chabil ha', including but not Limited to all original distribution media, Documentation, registration cards, and insertions.
I've pretty much gone in denial with Indiana Jones. I refuse to recognize KotCS as a legitimate movie. It was just some lame fan film that happened to star Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.
I saw it in the theater and paid $1 to rent it at RedBox just to make sure I wasn't totally inebriated with salt and artificial popcorn butter when I saw it the first time. I was shaking my head the whole time I was watching it again. What a dissapointment.
I half expected a Jar-Jar Binks cameo, what with George Lucas in charge and aliens and whatevers.
Slashdot Mirror
Because contrary to your notion, it's an end-user's right not to upgrade.
Yet another example of the following aphorism:
Open Source != Socialism
Funny, I blogged about something similar:
Recently, I wrote about the concept of an Internet that knows no boundaries in relation to how content is distributed and consumed, but today I would like to talk about it in the broader sense of free speech and censorship.
I find Internet censorship to be a deplorable concept, not because it prevents me from consuming things that a jurisdictional entity considers inappropriate or immoral, but because it stymies the legitimate aggregation and consumption of ideas.
One of the more interesting side effects of the Information Revolution has been the unification of our people--not in some patriotic or otherwise political sense, but our entire race. We can now explore and understand the world around us in ways that were not previously possible. I can converse with someone that was present in the Mumbai attacks last week, talk to an Islamic jihadist, converse with my parents across the country, and participate in a discussion on the election of a black president. I can read about the newest innovations in the scientific world, find the latest juice on my favorite celebrity, watch a movie produced by some indie director, and play a game that some 12 year old wrote in his mom's basement. The Internet is free (libre) to our imaginations and thoughts to explore.
Therefore, it is not too hard to imagine that there are those that have expressions that differ from our own tastes and acceptances. Does that mean that the we have the right to muzzle them? Remember, the Internet is free (libre) from jurisdictional bounds, so who are we to restrict what is published there? Is child pornography justification enough to silence the innocent voices of those who may become collateral damage in the censorship fight against it? Is copyright so sacrosanct that it should smother legally distributed content as well?
Australians are in the fight of their lives to take back their freedom of speech, revoked by the government, a victim in the so called fight against child porn. It is very easy to say that these new powers won't do very much as far as stopping and preventing child porn, but it isn't too much of a stretch to say the sole purpose of these laws is to grant the government self-anointed power to control the things that its constituents publish and view.
The Internet is still new territory, that is for sure, but we have an opportunity to break down language, cultural, racial, educational, and political barriers with it. Why would we destroy it with crusades against things over which there is little or no control? Are we so myopic that we think the the tragedies of child pornography and human trafficking will be reduced (or even end) with maiming the one medium of humanity's greatest achievement of interpersonal communication?
I trust no man, not even myself, to control such power because even the wisest of the wise are not infallible, incorruptible, or undeceivable. No, let the Internet be what humanity shapes it to be. Through the portals of this great experiment in human discourse, we get to peel back the layers of filters to see what humanity really is. And maybe that is what makes it so uncomfortable to ponder--because we may not like what we see.
It doesn't have to be a proper spelling. hoe.tel!
Sound like you need Open Source Religion!
...the idea that the view should never contain logic at all is quite dogmatic and as such doesn't work well on the real world...
I think that's what the OP is trying to say when he comments that 'MVC is a pattern'. Patterns help solve particular problems, but when following the pattern in the most purist of the sense doesn't solve the problem (or gasp! make it bigger!) then being 'pure' doesn't make sense.
Take AlertBox. I think there some gems in his usability suggestions, but if you follow his guidance to the 't', you end up with a boring and un-user-friendly site like his.
Or how 'bout this, why isn't the underlying FS abstracted away from the OS? It seems that if you wanted to get out of the gooey compatibility mess, some sort of common interface would exist independent of OS calls to the hardware.
but for grabbing attention, it seems to have worked. It happens all the time--ever watch the evening news?
I think the point is not to sterilize the water, but make it safe to drink. Our bodies are fairly tolerant to bacteria getting inside. Think of it this way: Do you really think that tap water is 100% germ free? Is the glass you're putting your lips on sterile?
The idea of the UV light is to get the parts/qty down to such a level as to be safe for your body to take care of the rest.
Oh man, I remember TradeWars back from the BBS days! Did you know that there's a public beta going on for a web based version of the game?
Here ya go. The actual news agency was Reuters, not the AP. I think this gaff was the one that broke the camel's back, so to speak, in news agencies using doctored photos.
I don't know about you, but I base my designs *not* trusting the client (the card, in this case). I would give the buses/train terminals a little more intelligence and have them communicate with the central DB. In the event of a comm failure, let the rider pass, but reconcile the difference later. Their design pushes *all* the onus on the card providing valid data, which leaves it wide open to hacking.
A pedant. I'd shorten that to 'pedo', but that colloquialism is already taken...
A casual look at wikipedia reveals the following:
The system is asynchronous, with the current balance and ticket data held electronically on the card rather than in the central database. The main database is updated periodically with information received from the card by barriers and validators. Tickets purchased online or over the telephone are "loaded" at a preselected barrier or validator./quote
If you have read Freakonomics, the data show that there is no correlation between your name and how (un)successful you will be.
That's so old school, just give me more thickness!
I think the word you are looking for is girth
I have three methods of backup for the most important files (~100GB worth).
If that were still not good enough, bigger, more 'important' things are going on in the world to have to worry about where my data is.
So, given that my key gets rotated every 5 min, am I safe from their attack that takes 10-15? Now, assuming that the crack time scales with the resources thrown at it, it would seem that this isn't a safe bet.
One thing that did interest me was this:
A new wireless standard known as WPA2 is considered safe from the attack developed by Tews and Beck
For how long?
Maybe I can buy Window NT 7 and skip over Vista (NT6) completely.
You just don't get it, do you? Windows 7 is nothing more than an enhancement to Vista, one with meaningless features. A new taskbar? New UI for Notepad? Less crazy UAC messages? C'mon, where are the real features? What the hell happened to WinFS?
Windows 7 is just Vista in sheeps clothing...
So I was thinking...what if I hijacked the library computer so that I could read books from home.
The whole idea of books was being able to quickly and cheaply reproduce information for the masses. It's funny how anyone caught doing so with certain texts were branded heretics and burned at the stake. Here we are a few centuries later and the same thing is occurring with the Internet.
Sometimes I really wonder if Fahrenheit 451 is fiction or prophecy.
Reminds of an old WWII PSA poster.
And therein lies the rub. Copyright should be less about people making copies, as it is (semi) controlling distribution. So I ask: Why don't we create a means of allowing to get stuff for free, but still force them through a distribution channel to get it. The channel can then generate revenue through ad supported, value-add supported, micro-payment supported, et all means.
The flip side is, how can you make money giving stuff away for free without control of its distribution?
I would argue that you need a RAID solution regardless. Assuming you use the bulk of that drive, backing up ~1TB of data in event of drive failure can be a pain. With those sized drives, I'd only go with RAID 1/5/6/combo anyway.
"The comment" shall be taken to mean the comment
Contained in this thread and any subequent
Versions or upgrades received as a result of having
Viewed this comment. "reader" shall be taken as
The original reader of the comment.
Reader has the non-exclusive right to use the
Software only on a single computer. Reader may not
Electronically transfer the comment from one
Computer to another over any type of network.
Reader may not distribute copies of the comment or
The accompanying documentation to others either
For a fee or without charge. Reader may not modify
Or translate the comment or documentation. User
May not disassemble the comment or allow it to be
Disassembled into its contituent source code.
Reader's use of the comment indicates his/her
Acceptance of these terms and conditions. If reader
Does not agree to these conditions, return the
Distribution media, documentation, and associated
Materials to the vendor from whom the comment
Was downloaded, and erase the comment from any
And all storage devices upon which it may have been
Installed.
This license agreement shall be governed by the
Laws of the united states of america and shall inure to the benefit of chabil ha' or its assigns.
Disclaimer / limitation of liability:
Reader acknowledges that the comment may not be
Free from defects and may not satisfy all of reader's
Needs. Chabil ha' does not warrant all media on which the
Comment is distributed. The comment and any accompanying written
Materials are licensed "as is". In no event will chabil ha' be liable for
Direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damage
Or damages resulting from loss of use, or loss of
Anticipated profits resulting from any defect in the
Comment, even if it has been advised of the
Possibility of such damage. Some laws do not allow
The exclusion or limitation of implied warranties or
Liabilities for incidental or consequential damages,
So the above limitations or exclusion may not apply.
Specific restrictions:
In accordance with the computer software rental
Act of 1990, this comment may not be rented, lent or
Leased.
The comment and accompanying documentation may
Not be provided by a "backup service" or any other
Vendor which does not provide an original package
As composed by chabil ha', including but not
Limited to all original distribution media,
Documentation, registration cards, and insertions.
Except that Paint.Net is Open Source (MIT License). We'll see how well that goes over (er, doesn't) with Microsoft.
I've pretty much gone in denial with Indiana Jones. I refuse to recognize KotCS as a legitimate movie. It was just some lame fan film that happened to star Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.
I saw it in the theater and paid $1 to rent it at RedBox just to make sure I wasn't totally inebriated with salt and artificial popcorn butter when I saw it the first time. I was shaking my head the whole time I was watching it again. What a dissapointment.
I half expected a Jar-Jar Binks cameo, what with George Lucas in charge and aliens and whatevers.