Any more proof required that Anonymity is required for a working free society? Not because without it, a society ceases to be free, but because an oppressive government requires a complete lack of it.
Quite frankly, every time I hear someone say "but I'm not hiding anything", I have to add "yet". People might not hide anything now, but that's largely because they're part of the majority that makes laws. They don't understand how quickly their position can evaporate and how quickly they can find themselves on the wrong end of the long arm of justice.
The day you can convince 50.1% of NY's population that it doesn't need a particular part of the budget is the day you'll reduce spending. Not one day before.
Just because it isn't a worthy cause to you doesn't mean that others don't consider it worthy. Welcome to being a political minority in a democracy.
On the contrary. This is bog-standard legalese. If you've ever interacted with lawyers and watched them write a document, they will come up with the broadest, most far-reaching agreement they think they can get away with it. Why? Because their job is measured by how many lawsuits their company is losing. They reduce that likelihood by putting out EULAs, TOS and other agreements that are as ideal for the company as possible.
In other words, the people who wrote this document knew what they were doing. You don't.
Entertaining as the thought might be, both you and I know that this won't happen. The worst that will happen is another few cars getting lit up, which gives him another excuse to "get tough on crime".
I don't know about you, but people who engage in bossnapping, manage to shut down the capital for a day or two and get away with it, wield a bit more power than people who don't.
The big question of course is whether this will get the same attention as privatizing Renault or EDF.
Lots of local laws and a big argument on what the second amendment EXACTLY means results in a hodgepodge of carrying laws and habits. The end result is that the vast majority of Americans do not carry a gun in public (legally or otherwise). More rural areas in certain states increase your odds, while heading to large cities in others means you basically won't see a gun on anybody but a cop or a gangbanger.
And then there's Texas.
There's certainly a certain mythos about guns in the US that make it sound like everyone carries one, but the reality really is pretty far from that.
As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap.
I used to think that gun control is the solution to violence. That banning guns would work. However, I'm starting to think though that guns are like P2P technology: the genie's out of the bottle, and no one's putting it back in. There are too many legitimate reasons to own a gun, and in the vast majority of countries, it will not be possible to remove all guns from circulation. As a result, I'm tending towards the same approach as P2P technology - use it, and use it as much as makes sense.
The trick, of course, is what makes sense? My initial thought on this is that the probability to encounter a gun in public should be the same probability as being able to buy a gun. Yes, it means a lot of people will be carrying guns. It will require training, and it will require a major slap-down if anything happens to your gun, or if you do something with your gun that puts others in jeopardy (like leaving it unattended), you get slapped down hard. Fines if you were merely careless, jail time if something bad resulted from it (self-defense will only be valid if another gun was drawn). Only those who are willing to bear the risk will be out in public with them - good and bad people alike.
Will it make going out an entirely different experience? Sure will. Restaurants will have a gun check, along with a coat check. Clubs will become a little less carefree. Secondary shootings will go up. Would it be worth it? I don't know. But one thing I'm learning is that everything is a tool, and you can't unmake tools, or unlearn them. We might as well embrace them.
Finally, I think we're going to end up with an interesting social experiment: Germany is banning violence, but allowing boobs. The US is banning boobs, but allowing violence. We'll see how things evolve.
Personally, I see the article as a warning about what to look for when contemplating a Windows 7 purchase. For me, VMs are high on my list of priorities. I need to know where they work and where they don't. I imagine a lot of corporate purchasers are similarly worried about VMs - in the consulting space, it's SOP to demo new products in a VM.
So yes, not everyone will care. But I do. So do a lot of others. As a result, this article was important to me. It's too bad it wasn't for you.
I hope that Windows 7 (and idiot windows programmers) makes it actually feasible to run as a user instead of an admin. If not, goodbye Windows, hello OS X or Ubuntu for everything but work and games.
I have already transitioned to OS X at home. I'm just looking for an excuse to completely ditch Windows, and only use it in a VM or a game partition.
Here's the endgame for the RIAA/MPAA: government mandated operating systems where the user is not in full control of the software. Anything else is just trying to turn back the tide with a spoon. I'm pretty sure that at some point the IP organizations are going to figure this out, and will start actively lobbying for laws to be worded accordingly.
It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. To some extent, the PS3 and Xbox360 are already moving in that direction. Adoption rates are high, and people are so far happy with the devices. We'll see where that progresses to.
Suppose someone were going to pay me 2 years worth of money, up front, for 1 year of work, in exchange for not competing for a year.
That's not how it works. They pay you market rate for doing your job (possibly a bit above to make you leave). It certainly isn't twice as much or (years worked+noncompete term)/(years worked) extra.
Because that's what it really amounts to. Spend more than a few years at a company, get really good at what you do. Then, if the company pisses you off, you are faced with three options: 1) Bend over and take it. 2) Completely change your profession, and start from scratch. All knowledge you have acquired has been rendered useless. 3) Be unemployed for the term of the non-compete.
Alright, so it isn't quite slavery. You're not caned if you stop working for the master. But it's a damn risky proposition to actually stand up to any abuse.
Is any more proof necessary that overzealous IP laws will strangle our economy? As someone else pointed out, Silicon Valley is Silicon Valley because talent is free to move between companies.
Proof generally involves showing something. Outside of an incoherent chain of argumentation, you haven't shown much.
Why don't you man up and actually demonstrate how easy it is to bring down a skyscraper? Note that that is different from showing that an existing plan doesn't require an IQ of 200 to understand. Show your work.
Folks like you scare me. You think just because *you* can easily define things like "harassment" that everybody else conforms to your definition of the word. You don't think beyond your own idea of the concept, and you're willing to trade First Amendment protections because of it. Frightening. Truly frightening.
The way I found this to work is that some people in power decide that some other people who aren't in power are making too much trouble. If they'd just go away, EVERYTHING would be better. So the people in power pass inane laws like this.
Then, shockingly, something happens that changes the power structure. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot... and the wailing begins. "It isn't fair! That's not what I meant!"
Sadly, the cluster fuck is on at that point, and it will take a whole lot of time to rectify it. I'm with you in that it pisses me off to no end to see people be so incredibly short-sighted that they want to piss away one of the greatest social constructs of the last 5000 years.
So you're arguing that the generic term of your sentence excludes a specific instance of that generic term , but the specific term of your sentence cannot be extrapolated to cover a similar structure? Really?
Yeah, I've given up arguing substance, because I realized that you have none. It's still kinda fun to see how much you twist and turn in response to semantic arguments.
I was very aware of the B-25 hit well before 9/11.
Then I would suggest you be more precise in your terminology. When you say that "I never knew anyone ever used a plane to try to bring down the twin towers before", I assumed you knew a B-25 was a plane. If you want to argue that a B-25 is different from a 767, sure. But that's not what you said.
You are pulling out a lot of arguments, only to say later "well, that's not what I meant". Don't bring out similarities only to claim later that there aren't similarities. People can't read your mind, you know.
Yeah, I know, I'm just feeding a troll at this point. Sometimes, it's kinda fun though.
You can look at the french Farmer protests, and the reasons the farmers are being protected. The terms that are being thrown around are all about how farmers are the root of the nation (terroir national) and how losing agriculture would be a loss of national identity. It's not that far-fetched - agriculture is still the second biggest industry in France.
The French might be the loudest about protecting their farmers, but the reasons are the same across the western world. Note that I'm not saying they're right, but merely stating the why for the how.
As for China rolling over another country that provides the food for the US - I hadn't thought of that. Good point. Thanks for reminding me that the world is more than just two poles. The main reason I see that to be unrealistic scenario is that food is fungible - pretty much all countries produce some sort of food in some fashion. If one country goes under, it is fairly straightforward to find a replacement. It's not like with oil and gas, where there are specific, irreplaceable sources.
The problem with that analogy is two-fold: 1) If you're so heavily specialized in food that another country is dependent on you, you're likely to be behind in other areas that are critical for waging war - natural resources, technology, infrastructure, training, etc. If you aren't, and are big enough to both have another country by its balls agriculturally and technologically, the other country is screwed regardless of what it does. 2) Agriculture is easily kick-started. Sow some seeds, repurpose some trucks, and presto - damn near instant agriculture. There is some problem with efficient farming being fairly complex, but that's one thing that's beautiful about the internet - it makes it easy to talk to experts. The place where this comes up is things like machine-tools - high-precision work that requires a lot of specialized knowledge, that can't be kick-started very easily, and that is required for other industries.
Personally, I believe that the only reason to subsidize agriculture is out of a misplaced sense of "roots", "values" and "national identity".
What's up with the people on slashdot having to argue everything to it's bitter end when they're clearly wrong?
The irony is delicious.
As for plane strikes not bringing down skyscrapers, I can help your ignorance: try looking for the history of the Empire State Building. What I can't help you with is your assumption that what you don't know doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
That paragraph ought to be required reading for every bloody politician who thinks he/she knows best, and for every bloody voter who supports them in the latest social cause.
It's also encapsulated in the cliche "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". In other words, this understanding is as old as society. It's just that some people think they're going to change the world, and do it without falling into the pitfalls that doomed everyone who came before them.
Slashdot Mirror
Any more proof required that Anonymity is required for a working free society? Not because without it, a society ceases to be free, but because an oppressive government requires a complete lack of it.
Quite frankly, every time I hear someone say "but I'm not hiding anything", I have to add "yet". People might not hide anything now, but that's largely because they're part of the majority that makes laws. They don't understand how quickly their position can evaporate and how quickly they can find themselves on the wrong end of the long arm of justice.
The day you can convince 50.1% of NY's population that it doesn't need a particular part of the budget is the day you'll reduce spending. Not one day before.
Just because it isn't a worthy cause to you doesn't mean that others don't consider it worthy. Welcome to being a political minority in a democracy.
Alright, I have to give you props for that one. Funny AND Informative.
On the contrary. This is bog-standard legalese. If you've ever interacted with lawyers and watched them write a document, they will come up with the broadest, most far-reaching agreement they think they can get away with it. Why? Because their job is measured by how many lawsuits their company is losing. They reduce that likelihood by putting out EULAs, TOS and other agreements that are as ideal for the company as possible.
In other words, the people who wrote this document knew what they were doing. You don't.
Entertaining as the thought might be, both you and I know that this won't happen. The worst that will happen is another few cars getting lit up, which gives him another excuse to "get tough on crime".
I don't know about you, but people who engage in bossnapping, manage to shut down the capital for a day or two and get away with it, wield a bit more power than people who don't.
The big question of course is whether this will get the same attention as privatizing Renault or EDF.
Lots of local laws and a big argument on what the second amendment EXACTLY means results in a hodgepodge of carrying laws and habits. The end result is that the vast majority of Americans do not carry a gun in public (legally or otherwise). More rural areas in certain states increase your odds, while heading to large cities in others means you basically won't see a gun on anybody but a cop or a gangbanger.
And then there's Texas.
There's certainly a certain mythos about guns in the US that make it sound like everyone carries one, but the reality really is pretty far from that.
As far as I'm concerned the only possible solution is to keep these people from acquiring the weapons that allow them to inflict high numbers of casualties or to allow people carry sufficient protection to put one of these people down when they snap.
I used to think that gun control is the solution to violence. That banning guns would work. However, I'm starting to think though that guns are like P2P technology: the genie's out of the bottle, and no one's putting it back in. There are too many legitimate reasons to own a gun, and in the vast majority of countries, it will not be possible to remove all guns from circulation. As a result, I'm tending towards the same approach as P2P technology - use it, and use it as much as makes sense.
The trick, of course, is what makes sense? My initial thought on this is that the probability to encounter a gun in public should be the same probability as being able to buy a gun. Yes, it means a lot of people will be carrying guns. It will require training, and it will require a major slap-down if anything happens to your gun, or if you do something with your gun that puts others in jeopardy (like leaving it unattended), you get slapped down hard. Fines if you were merely careless, jail time if something bad resulted from it (self-defense will only be valid if another gun was drawn). Only those who are willing to bear the risk will be out in public with them - good and bad people alike.
Will it make going out an entirely different experience? Sure will. Restaurants will have a gun check, along with a coat check. Clubs will become a little less carefree. Secondary shootings will go up. Would it be worth it? I don't know. But one thing I'm learning is that everything is a tool, and you can't unmake tools, or unlearn them. We might as well embrace them.
Finally, I think we're going to end up with an interesting social experiment: Germany is banning violence, but allowing boobs. The US is banning boobs, but allowing violence. We'll see how things evolve.
Personally, I see the article as a warning about what to look for when contemplating a Windows 7 purchase. For me, VMs are high on my list of priorities. I need to know where they work and where they don't. I imagine a lot of corporate purchasers are similarly worried about VMs - in the consulting space, it's SOP to demo new products in a VM.
So yes, not everyone will care. But I do. So do a lot of others. As a result, this article was important to me. It's too bad it wasn't for you.
I hope that Windows 7 (and idiot windows programmers) makes it actually feasible to run as a user instead of an admin. If not, goodbye Windows, hello OS X or Ubuntu for everything but work and games.
I have already transitioned to OS X at home. I'm just looking for an excuse to completely ditch Windows, and only use it in a VM or a game partition.
Here's the endgame for the RIAA/MPAA: government mandated operating systems where the user is not in full control of the software. Anything else is just trying to turn back the tide with a spoon. I'm pretty sure that at some point the IP organizations are going to figure this out, and will start actively lobbying for laws to be worded accordingly.
It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. To some extent, the PS3 and Xbox360 are already moving in that direction. Adoption rates are high, and people are so far happy with the devices. We'll see where that progresses to.
That's actually a really good idea. Maybe someone can pick this up?
See solution 2. You're essentially forgetting everything that made you valuable to a company or a particular sector.
Not to mention that you point out that there are already rules governing trade secrets. There is no need for an extra non-compete.
And that plan won't work anymore. Apparently, you'd make a lousy terrorist. So bad, in fact, that you seem to be beaten by a 6 year old.
Suppose someone were going to pay me 2 years worth of money, up front, for 1 year of work, in exchange for not competing for a year.
That's not how it works. They pay you market rate for doing your job (possibly a bit above to make you leave). It certainly isn't twice as much or (years worked+noncompete term)/(years worked) extra.
That's really the problem.
Because that's what it really amounts to. Spend more than a few years at a company, get really good at what you do. Then, if the company pisses you off, you are faced with three options:
1) Bend over and take it.
2) Completely change your profession, and start from scratch. All knowledge you have acquired has been rendered useless.
3) Be unemployed for the term of the non-compete.
Alright, so it isn't quite slavery. You're not caned if you stop working for the master. But it's a damn risky proposition to actually stand up to any abuse.
Is any more proof necessary that overzealous IP laws will strangle our economy? As someone else pointed out, Silicon Valley is Silicon Valley because talent is free to move between companies.
Proof generally involves showing something. Outside of an incoherent chain of argumentation, you haven't shown much.
Why don't you man up and actually demonstrate how easy it is to bring down a skyscraper? Note that that is different from showing that an existing plan doesn't require an IQ of 200 to understand. Show your work.
Folks like you scare me. You think just because *you* can easily define things like "harassment" that everybody else conforms to your definition of the word. You don't think beyond your own idea of the concept, and you're willing to trade First Amendment protections because of it. Frightening. Truly frightening.
The way I found this to work is that some people in power decide that some other people who aren't in power are making too much trouble. If they'd just go away, EVERYTHING would be better. So the people in power pass inane laws like this.
Then, shockingly, something happens that changes the power structure. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot... and the wailing begins. "It isn't fair! That's not what I meant!"
Sadly, the cluster fuck is on at that point, and it will take a whole lot of time to rectify it. I'm with you in that it pisses me off to no end to see people be so incredibly short-sighted that they want to piss away one of the greatest social constructs of the last 5000 years.
No, not at all. See, since he's being an asshole, I get to put him in jail. Wait - that's not how it's supposed to work?
Nor did I mention the Empire State Building.
So you're arguing that the generic term of your sentence excludes a specific instance of that generic term , but the specific term of your sentence cannot be extrapolated to cover a similar structure? Really?
Yeah, I've given up arguing substance, because I realized that you have none. It's still kinda fun to see how much you twist and turn in response to semantic arguments.
I was very aware of the B-25 hit well before 9/11.
Then I would suggest you be more precise in your terminology. When you say that "I never knew anyone ever used a plane to try to bring down the twin towers before", I assumed you knew a B-25 was a plane. If you want to argue that a B-25 is different from a 767, sure. But that's not what you said.
You are pulling out a lot of arguments, only to say later "well, that's not what I meant". Don't bring out similarities only to claim later that there aren't similarities. People can't read your mind, you know.
Yeah, I know, I'm just feeding a troll at this point. Sometimes, it's kinda fun though.
You can look at the french Farmer protests, and the reasons the farmers are being protected. The terms that are being thrown around are all about how farmers are the root of the nation (terroir national) and how losing agriculture would be a loss of national identity. It's not that far-fetched - agriculture is still the second biggest industry in France.
The French might be the loudest about protecting their farmers, but the reasons are the same across the western world. Note that I'm not saying they're right, but merely stating the why for the how.
As for China rolling over another country that provides the food for the US - I hadn't thought of that. Good point. Thanks for reminding me that the world is more than just two poles. The main reason I see that to be unrealistic scenario is that food is fungible - pretty much all countries produce some sort of food in some fashion. If one country goes under, it is fairly straightforward to find a replacement. It's not like with oil and gas, where there are specific, irreplaceable sources.
The problem with that analogy is two-fold:
1) If you're so heavily specialized in food that another country is dependent on you, you're likely to be behind in other areas that are critical for waging war - natural resources, technology, infrastructure, training, etc. If you aren't, and are big enough to both have another country by its balls agriculturally and technologically, the other country is screwed regardless of what it does.
2) Agriculture is easily kick-started. Sow some seeds, repurpose some trucks, and presto - damn near instant agriculture. There is some problem with efficient farming being fairly complex, but that's one thing that's beautiful about the internet - it makes it easy to talk to experts. The place where this comes up is things like machine-tools - high-precision work that requires a lot of specialized knowledge, that can't be kick-started very easily, and that is required for other industries.
Personally, I believe that the only reason to subsidize agriculture is out of a misplaced sense of "roots", "values" and "national identity".
Ah yes. Good ol'fashioned protectionism. The Great Depression wants its economic fix back.
Standard joke about economists: ask two economists a question. You'll get three answers.
What's up with the people on slashdot having to argue everything to it's bitter end when they're clearly wrong?
The irony is delicious.
As for plane strikes not bringing down skyscrapers, I can help your ignorance: try looking for the history of the Empire State Building. What I can't help you with is your assumption that what you don't know doesn't exist or doesn't matter.
Thankyouthankyouthankyou.
That paragraph ought to be required reading for every bloody politician who thinks he/she knows best, and for every bloody voter who supports them in the latest social cause.
It's also encapsulated in the cliche "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". In other words, this understanding is as old as society. It's just that some people think they're going to change the world, and do it without falling into the pitfalls that doomed everyone who came before them.