Agreed. Changing identities and locations is typically a really risky thing. The process will raise red flags if not done right, and there's no guarantees the new identity and location is secure (trust is acquired over time, and security is all about trust). Forcing terrorists to do so by claiming all their existing identities and locations have been compromised would be brilliant. It would also put a nice dent in their wallets, and make them worry about things other than the next act of terror.
The best part is, the government might actually have some useful information, and they'll be using it to capture the terrorists who hole up thinking this must be what actually happened. A few more high-level incidents would make even more of them panic.
The real advantage of e-mail (and any other form of electronic document) is the ease of duplication, the ease of storage, and the ease of searching and referencing later on. Most people have come to realize this only very recently.
The fastest form of communication is by physically speaking directly to the other person. It's also the most inconvenient, as it requires both parties to be available at the same time. Written communication trades speed for convenience.
The solution to this isn't less government, it's more government. It's more government by better funding the patent office so they can hire better people and spend more time doing prior art research. Possibly, they need to be rid of the current measure of productivity in favor of some other more accurate measure.
And it's more government in that more laws are needed to specify more precisely what can and cannot be patented, i.e. limit the scope of patentability. The laws that once did this were invalidated, resulting the clusterfuck we have today.
Were they wrong or was it irrational to do so? Yes, yes they were wrong to jump to conclusions with only the bare minimum knowledge of the situation.
FTFY.
It's not wrong to assume the worst based on past behavior. But it is wrong to start crying foul before attempting to figure out what really happened, and if the assumptions have any merit.
The cables were the tipping point that led to the Jasmine Revolution. It's not necessarily a peaceful outcome, but it is a step in the right direction when oppressed populaces dispose of their own Western-backed dictators so that they can democratically elect their own leaders.
The ultimate outcome is uncertain, but at the very least, those people will hold a lot less hostility towards Western countries and their people if they're laying in a bed they made with their own hands instead of in one a Western power strapped them to. And if they're lucky, they might even end up with somebody decent leading them.
It also only works while the finger is moving across the screen. This technology relies on the differential formed by varying between vibrating and not vibrating. You can't have a differential if you're just tapping the screen.
That may be true of the physical realm, where one's appearances, mannerisms, speech, and other identifying pieces of information contribute to the person's leadership ability. And that person over time will then make a "name" that others will automatically follow. That's a normal social organization, where you can identify a person not necessarily by a word, but at least by the senses (sight, hearing, and smell usually).
Anonymous is a different type of entity altogether. It exists only behind a monitor. It could be a 12 year old script kiddie or a 70 year old grandma. It could be a CEO of a blue chip, or a russian mob enforcer. It doesn't matter, because on a chan, they're all just Anonymous. What matters is the proposal, the deed, the action, the idea. If it's an idea that many people agree with, then Anonymous becomes an actor of significant force. If it's an idea that people do not care about, then it will be buried and die before it can become anything more.
Anonymous is not an anarchy. "Anarchy" is just a cool-sounding name that people (themselves included) give the idea whether to sound cool or to be condescending. But those who call it an anarchy fail to understand how the system actually works. They fail to recognize the structure in place that drives Anonymous to act as a loose-knit group rather than individuals.
If you examine it closely, its organization and process is in fact closer to a pure democracy than anything else. Members vote "yea" on a suggestion by doing something productive towards the suggestion. Members vote "nay" by doing something counterproductive. And they abstain by not doing anything at all. And by hiding behind Anonymous, the ballots are secret.
To liken Anonymous to anything other than itself is incorrect, because there hasn't been anything like Anonymous in the past. Only through technology is such an entity that combines individudal and group mentality so effortlessly able to exist.
I'm not afiliated with any part of the group (i.e. I do not frequent any chan), but the whole concept does intrigue me greatly.
"Of course, we're still not evil," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, you're fucked and there's nothing you can do about it. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my âspreading good cheer' laugh. Really."
I'm not sure one member of Anonymous is equivalent to Anonymous. Anonymous somehow implies a collective of sorts. A group of one doesn't really make a collective.
I think when it comes to Anonymous, the sum is greater than its parts. The more parts of the collective move, the more "Anonymous" the act becomes. And that's what's so incredibly interesting about it.
Are you? How many political campaigns do you donate to each year? If your answer isn't "all of the ones I can donate to" then you're probably aren't a member of said ruling class.
Or how about this: Do you personally retain a lobbying organization whose employees include failed or retired politicians? If not, then you're not even close.
Absolute greed and selfishness are more advanced behaviors than a good amount of selflessness. Indeed, it seems the more advanced the organism, the more extreme the organism is capable of behaving.
From a purely logical standpoint, if you have 10 widgets, and you only need to consume 5, wouldn't you care if somebody else consumed the other 5? From a long-term perspective, if two can survive through altruism where it would have otherwise been one, the species as a whole will benefit (with natural selection as a force to eliminate the fringes and extremes). It follows that altruism and selflessness is a necessary trait for long-term survival of the species as a whole.
Humans, however, store and stockpile far beyond what is necessary for reproduction. Higher-functioning animals including humans may horde to generate artificial scarcity to raise the overall value of their possession. But highest-functioning animals like humans are capable of doing so for no logical reason other than purely out of spite.
Both greed and selflessness at the extremes ultimately lend to the loss of the ability to propogate, but it seems success lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
If I were them, I'd build a plugin system not unlike what Firefox does just for the UI, and release all of the fluff as plugins. Then during the installation, you can recommend a list of preferred plugins or have several suites of plugins to choose from.
Yeah, there are going to be compatibility issues. On installation, they should do what Windows does when you change monitor settings and have the ability to go back to the previous (working) setting. This includes on update of a particular plugin as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it's now too much to expect the editors to choose decent summaries, much less do any actual editing of said summaries.
Agreed. Changing identities and locations is typically a really risky thing. The process will raise red flags if not done right, and there's no guarantees the new identity and location is secure (trust is acquired over time, and security is all about trust). Forcing terrorists to do so by claiming all their existing identities and locations have been compromised would be brilliant. It would also put a nice dent in their wallets, and make them worry about things other than the next act of terror.
The best part is, the government might actually have some useful information, and they'll be using it to capture the terrorists who hole up thinking this must be what actually happened. A few more high-level incidents would make even more of them panic.
It's win-win.
The real advantage of e-mail (and any other form of electronic document) is the ease of duplication, the ease of storage, and the ease of searching and referencing later on. Most people have come to realize this only very recently.
The fastest form of communication is by physically speaking directly to the other person. It's also the most inconvenient, as it requires both parties to be available at the same time. Written communication trades speed for convenience.
You get a thorough interview from a well-trained, intelligent professional.
Good luck finding those working for the U.S. government, especially the runts of the litter known collectively as the TSA.
And therein lies the problem.
It's QoS. If you were being attacked, you probably wouldn't want to be concerned with what your attacker smelled like.
The solution to this isn't less government, it's more government. It's more government by better funding the patent office so they can hire better people and spend more time doing prior art research. Possibly, they need to be rid of the current measure of productivity in favor of some other more accurate measure.
And it's more government in that more laws are needed to specify more precisely what can and cannot be patented, i.e. limit the scope of patentability. The laws that once did this were invalidated, resulting the clusterfuck we have today.
Were they wrong or was it irrational to do so? Yes, yes they were wrong to jump to conclusions with only the bare minimum knowledge of the situation.
FTFY.
It's not wrong to assume the worst based on past behavior. But it is wrong to start crying foul before attempting to figure out what really happened, and if the assumptions have any merit.
Coal is death by continuous paper cuts so long as the plant is running. Nuclear is death by a sword when something goes wrong.
It's fairly obvious which one is scarier, considering that people aren't rational creatures by any measure.
The cables were the tipping point that led to the Jasmine Revolution. It's not necessarily a peaceful outcome, but it is a step in the right direction when oppressed populaces dispose of their own Western-backed dictators so that they can democratically elect their own leaders.
The ultimate outcome is uncertain, but at the very least, those people will hold a lot less hostility towards Western countries and their people if they're laying in a bed they made with their own hands instead of in one a Western power strapped them to. And if they're lucky, they might even end up with somebody decent leading them.
Sounds more and more like an anti-trust violation in the making to me.
Because that's Google's business plan.
And people are too lazy to deal with installation, patching, etc.
Nah, it's just Microsoft struggling to find relevancy in a new world that it had never imagined and does not understand.
The only unfortunate thing is they're going to bring a whole lot of other companies down along with them.
It also only works while the finger is moving across the screen. This technology relies on the differential formed by varying between vibrating and not vibrating. You can't have a differential if you're just tapping the screen.
It sounds a lot like asking how to get ideas to make money from a bunch of people without having to pay them.
We'll be safe as long as Kepler doesn't start calling them its preciouses.
That may be true of the physical realm, where one's appearances, mannerisms, speech, and other identifying pieces of information contribute to the person's leadership ability. And that person over time will then make a "name" that others will automatically follow. That's a normal social organization, where you can identify a person not necessarily by a word, but at least by the senses (sight, hearing, and smell usually).
Anonymous is a different type of entity altogether. It exists only behind a monitor. It could be a 12 year old script kiddie or a 70 year old grandma. It could be a CEO of a blue chip, or a russian mob enforcer. It doesn't matter, because on a chan, they're all just Anonymous. What matters is the proposal, the deed, the action, the idea. If it's an idea that many people agree with, then Anonymous becomes an actor of significant force. If it's an idea that people do not care about, then it will be buried and die before it can become anything more.
Anonymous is not an anarchy. "Anarchy" is just a cool-sounding name that people (themselves included) give the idea whether to sound cool or to be condescending. But those who call it an anarchy fail to understand how the system actually works. They fail to recognize the structure in place that drives Anonymous to act as a loose-knit group rather than individuals.
If you examine it closely, its organization and process is in fact closer to a pure democracy than anything else. Members vote "yea" on a suggestion by doing something productive towards the suggestion. Members vote "nay" by doing something counterproductive. And they abstain by not doing anything at all. And by hiding behind Anonymous, the ballots are secret.
To liken Anonymous to anything other than itself is incorrect, because there hasn't been anything like Anonymous in the past. Only through technology is such an entity that combines individudal and group mentality so effortlessly able to exist.
I'm not afiliated with any part of the group (i.e. I do not frequent any chan), but the whole concept does intrigue me greatly.
"Of course, we're still not evil," said Sergey Brin of Google. "You can trust us on this. Every bit of data about you, your life and the house you live in is strictly a secret between you and our marketing department. But, hypothetically, if we were evil, you're fucked and there's nothing you can do about it. Ha! Ha! I'm sorry, that's my âspreading good cheer' laugh. Really."
FTFY
CBS isn't the one suing CNet. CBS owns CNet, and is being sued.
Hm, there's either some delicious irony going on here, or somebody's playing devil's advocate.
I'm not sure one member of Anonymous is equivalent to Anonymous. Anonymous somehow implies a collective of sorts. A group of one doesn't really make a collective.
I think when it comes to Anonymous, the sum is greater than its parts. The more parts of the collective move, the more "Anonymous" the act becomes. And that's what's so incredibly interesting about it.
Are you? How many political campaigns do you donate to each year? If your answer isn't "all of the ones I can donate to" then you're probably aren't a member of said ruling class.
Or how about this: Do you personally retain a lobbying organization whose employees include failed or retired politicians? If not, then you're not even close.
In comparison, the hoover dam generates 2.08 GW, and niagara falls 2.4 GW. And in the most extreme case, the three gorges dam does 18.2 GW.
It may work on small scales, but it cannot compete with hydroelectric on a large scale.
Absolute greed and selfishness are more advanced behaviors than a good amount of selflessness. Indeed, it seems the more advanced the organism, the more extreme the organism is capable of behaving.
From a purely logical standpoint, if you have 10 widgets, and you only need to consume 5, wouldn't you care if somebody else consumed the other 5? From a long-term perspective, if two can survive through altruism where it would have otherwise been one, the species as a whole will benefit (with natural selection as a force to eliminate the fringes and extremes). It follows that altruism and selflessness is a necessary trait for long-term survival of the species as a whole.
Humans, however, store and stockpile far beyond what is necessary for reproduction. Higher-functioning animals including humans may horde to generate artificial scarcity to raise the overall value of their possession. But highest-functioning animals like humans are capable of doing so for no logical reason other than purely out of spite.
Both greed and selflessness at the extremes ultimately lend to the loss of the ability to propogate, but it seems success lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.
It certainly seems that way sometimes.
"date with a girl" moment.
And prostitution doesn't count.
If I were them, I'd build a plugin system not unlike what Firefox does just for the UI, and release all of the fluff as plugins. Then during the installation, you can recommend a list of preferred plugins or have several suites of plugins to choose from.
Yeah, there are going to be compatibility issues. On installation, they should do what Windows does when you change monitor settings and have the ability to go back to the previous (working) setting. This includes on update of a particular plugin as well.