Second, the OP mentioned that violence is ok but titties aren't (again, it would be porn, not titties).
The OP is talking about titties. You're talking about porn. Are titties really the same as porn? Congratulations, you passed the test for being an American prude. If you're not interested in talking about titties - why reply to him? No one is responsible to create talking points for you.
Otherwise what was the point of the post? Violence is OK [for adults], but titties aren't [for adults], regardless of the fact that nobody is even discussing taking away titties _or_ violence from _adults_?
Microsoft is discussing taking away titties from adults. Or do you really think that a "family-oriented"console will ever show titties? Furthermore, what's wrong with showing titties to kids? Or schlongs, or pussies, or ass cracks, or belly buttons, or ankles, or.... Yeah, I thought so. Tits for you are the same as sex.
Seriously, use your fucking head before going off on ridiculous rants about _me_ being the one who is confused.
Seems you have everyone fooled about being enlightened.
Which would you prefer? Having the money come from your wallet or Google's? Make no mistake about it, that is the only choice you get.
Interesting point. I know how I'm voting, because I already do so: I make sure the money is coming from my wallet. Why? Because a) there is no such thing as a corporation paying out of its own wallet. Anything that lowers the profit margin to an unacceptable point gets passed to the consumer. B) If I pay for it, I ensure that a gamebreaking company can start in a garage on a shoestring server and communication budget. Success merely depends on whether they're good, not how much money they have to pay off their ISPs with a potentially competing business.
You can say the ISPs are getting enough and they should not be allowed any more profits. Unfortunately, that way likes the Soviet-style command economy.
Except that in certain cases, a Soviet-style command structure is the only alternative to a heavily entrenched monopoly sitting on a crucial resource. What would you rather have: the government asking you to pay more taxes, or a corporation with a monopoly on a key resource asking you to pay more money? Make no mistake, a monopoly on violence isn't the only painful monopoly.
What was done? You didn't refute my point; you agreed with me - regulation is control. Thanks for the support but you may want to not be so schizo about it.
I see - you're completely unwilling to engage in debate, merely in demagoguery. Nevermind then. Carry on. Just leave the voting to the adults.
Because the point of regulation is control it is madness to claim that regulation does not control, which is the essence of any counterargument.
Incorrect. The strawman you're putting up is that regulation is not control. No one's arguing that. What people are saying is that some behavior needs to be controlled through regulation so that abuses are limited and free market can be approximated.
Because there are not many companies that can afford to lobby, there are therefore only a small number of companies that offer input into the evolution of regulation.
Incorrect. Many companies can afford to lobby. A 20k campaign donation goes a long way for a state representative. Outright buying of legislation like proposition 23 in CA is more expensive, but again, that's what organizations like ALEC are for: the pooling of resources of companies that have similar goals.
Please do explain to us just what part of this summary is incorrect, even though this is exactly what has happened with every other government regulation since the big bang.
Done. I suggest you study government regulation and free market theory a bit more so that you don't put up ridiculous straw men.
If you do not regulate something then control will flow between companies naturally over time. But you will not have a focal point of control that never changes and through which changes must be processed.
You're clearly too young to have experienced the old ATT or Standard Oil.
The ONLY way to stop corporate control of something by a small group of companies with lobbying power is not to regulate it. End of story.
Ever heard of a monopoly? You clearly do not understand how monopolies can arise in areas that lack regulation and how they are nearly impossible to get rid of without regulation. I would suggest you educate yourself before you start making proclamations on how things should be done.
Sorry, but government just laid the wires and figured out how to send messages. Everything else was the private sector.
And you don't think that that was kinda an important first step? Or that everything that came after it would not have been possible without that first step? Or that nothing would have happened at all without that first step?
TCP/IP by itself might have only been used by liberal eggheads to write Hello World back and forth. But HTML. FTP and SMTP are not possible without it.
You're kidding yourself if you think a major ISP like Qwest would allow a mom and pop store to compete against them. If the mom and pop store is successful, watch Qwest raise their prices until the mom and pop store is priced out of the market, regardless of what the service is like.
Home Depot and Walmart don't charge resellers more than regular customers do. The only thing they might do is institute a limit on the quantity a single person can buy. Apples and oranges.
No, he (assuming male) was just pointing out that the research is possibly biased.
Let's make something clear: everyone is biased, and everything is biased based on their history, friends, relationships, money sources, dreams, phobias and god knows what else. Pointing out that something might be biased is on the order of water is wet. Pointing out that a study is biased towards a liberal agenda based on the donors funding the organization is avoiding the argument.
Just as the background of those who watch Fox News is important, so is the background (funding) of those conducting the study.
No it isn't. What is important is the structural setup of the study. The rest is for sociology majors to find something to do.
So what you're saying is that you're unable to debate the topic, and instead you try to not even shoot the messenger, but the sponsors of the messenger? Is your position so weak that you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion?
Try reading the European constitution, it is the perfect example of it. http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm. It runs about 400 pages in a normal printed book, has fundamental rights, policies, annexes, and more. It's a public policy document written by lawyers, for politicians, and with the public being an afterthought.
The thief cannot smash the information and destroy it.
Correct. However, the trait about information that makes it impossible to destroy also makes it impossible to unclassify.
You can argue all you want about how something being secret is a classification problem that has nothing to do with who knows that information, but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the classification has been rendered nil: to prevent to distribution of said information to unauthorized people. It is exactly a problem of closing the barn after the horses are gone.
They are about the degree to which that knowledge can harm the National Security of the United States AND keeping that knowledge away from people that would use it to harm the United States.
Classic logic problem: invalidating part of the sentence invalidates all of it. Once the wrong people know it, it's pointless to keep the knowledge from people who would not use it to harm the United States.
Here's the thing though: this is an incredibly bad way to support hardware.
#1: Your customers actually don't trust you when they find out that there's a hardcoded user in the hardware. Why? Because businesses with a proper understanding of security know that this is a massive security hole, and will refuse to buy that hardware. #2: There's already a way to get admin-level access to hardware: ask the client for it. If they don't want you to connect to their internals with their own password, there are things like VPNs and temporary admin password - again stuff that is basic IT methodology. Yeah, it's a bit harder than just handing things over to the vendor and say "Fix it", but it's vastly better. #3 If user recovery is the issue, the solution is wrong. The proper solution is a hardware reset button that has no user-level API. Yes, all the settings are borked. Export them, reset, import them back in. Yes, it's harder, but it's the right thing to do.
Yes, you are correct: this is all for the purpose of easy support. However, it's braindead, and any company with an IT department worth its name will refuse to run hardware with this "feature", and should look closely into vendors with a better understanding of security.
And that's coming from someone who used to work for HP.
Yes, there is. It's called research, honesty and being knowledgeable about the field and about what areas you don't know much about. The problem is that these things are a lot more expensive to implement than a regular Internet firewall.
Look at what the USA has done to Cuba with just economic sanctions.
Yep. Pretty much nothing. Castro (one of them at least) is still in power, it still doesn't give a flying fuck about the US and US businesses still can't make money there. In other words, every single goal of the economic sanctions has failed.
The aim of charity should always be to reduce the need for charity. This has been the goal of organisations like Oxfam for many years. It does not appear to be the goal of the B&MGF.
Then you don't understand the impact that diseases have on the development of an economy. If you'd read the studies and success stories, the single greatest bang for the buck when it comes to charity is to make sure that people are healthy. Close behind that is education. The B&MGF is active in both. You're right, they're not pursuing this accidentally: they understand what the best ways are to lift people out of poverty.
It seems to me you don't understand what it takes for an area and a person to be economically successful.
The current claim is that the leaks are killing informants or people mentioned in leaks. What Assange is talking about is people killed as a result of the government clamping down on protests based on information in the leaks. In other words, if people would have kept quiet about the information contained in the leaks, instead of protesting, no one would have died.
So the score is that no one has yet to die because information was leaked. Going for second order effects to blame Assange is kinda silly.
Except that developing cures for diseases isn't like buying a jacket. It's not like there's some cure that they're "saving up for" $50 million at a time, bit by bit, rather than just buying it off the shelf for $5 billion.
Exactly. What's more, you can't just dump $10billion into an area and call it a day. Let's say that there is a jacket problem that requires $10 billion dollars to solve: 100 million people need a $100 jacket. Bill Gates can't just sign a check for $10 billion, hand it over to someone, and the jackets magically appear on 100 million people. It doesn't work that way. Someone has to buy those jackets. Someone has to distribute them. Someone has to make sure the jackets go to people who don't have one, and not to a reseller. You're already up to three organizations which require vastly different skill sets and connections. And we haven't even touched the problem that there aren't 100 million jackets available to buy, and that they have to be produced first.
And then, realize that curing cancer and relieving malaria problems present problems that are orders of magnitude bigger than just handing out a jacket. That includes handing out malaria nets. Ever thought about how you best deal with a completely corrupt country?
The best solution is indeed to set up a long-lived foundation to administrate the process by which the money is used to achieve the end result. Regardless of whether you just want to hand out jackets or cure cancer.
Here's something else that bothers me when I hear people complain about philanthropic foundations and people giving their money supporting the poor and sick: their complaints always revolve around "this cause sucks, that one's so much better" and "they're not really giving it away, they're just investing in themselves". I always have the impression that this is nothing but jealousy that they aren't getting a cut of the action. A version of "support the charity of Neutroncowboys with not enough toys", if you will.
And then countries realize that a treaty is a piece of paper, IP is incredibly easy to steal, and the US would try to kill the local pharma industry even without the treaty. They turn the treaty into compost, give the US the finger, and do what they want to do.
That's the interesting part about being a country. In the end, only an invasion can stop it from doing what it wants.
Still, it would be hard to be a philanthropist if you ran out of poor people - they're just making sure that they can keep helping people for the foreseeable future.
I'm not sure what you're implying. That all philanthropists are only interested in keeping people poor, so they can keep giving their money away? That philanthropists are buying the continuing poverty of others to build a monument for their generosity? Either which way, it's a completely illogical position. I suspect you're merely jealous that philanthropists aren't handing you their money.
Unfortunately, politicians have become outstanding at dodging even follow-up questions. I've listened to some interviews where the interviewer was actually calling the politician on their nonsense - only to find out that the politician was actually so good at dodging and weaving that no follow-up question had any traction. To the point that the politician blatantly said "That's just not true" when confronted with his bullshit.
You could try to nail them to the wall for their answers, but at that point you'd just spend your entire interview time going after one question and not getting anywhere.
If you're trying to do that while people are trying to gain access to the flight controls, I will personally kick you in the head until you stop moving. Or did you not notice that all the hijackings involved people making demands to be taken somewhere?
Since 2001, there have been zero hijackings where the hijackers tried to gain access to the flight controls. Think that's a coincidence?
Let me ask you this: when you present your assessment of a prospective mine, do you only attach the raw data? Of course not. You present data in a format that makes your conclusion easy to understand. In other words, it's been massaged.
Now, is it important that the raw data is made available? Of course. Is it important that the massaging is sensible and intelligible? Of course. But this mantra of "show us the raw data" is complete straw man when it comes to cflimate research - because the raw data is available.
By that definition, yes, you do work with raw data. But you don't analyze the data for what it says about a given theory, you analyze it for internal errors.
And no, the filtering is not The Work. It is part of it. The valuable work is figuring out what the data means in the context of various theories. And for that, you need to filter first.
Newsflash - all data is "massaged". It's either normalized, scrubbed of data by faulty measurements and of outliers, corrected for systematic errors, etc. No one works with raw data, because there is often so much noise in data that it is impossible to compare it to anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
The only way small groups of companies gain power is by government granted monopolies.
ATT. Standard Oil. At this point, you're just wallowing in your ignorance.
Second, the OP mentioned that violence is ok but titties aren't (again, it would be porn, not titties).
The OP is talking about titties. You're talking about porn. Are titties really the same as porn? Congratulations, you passed the test for being an American prude. If you're not interested in talking about titties - why reply to him? No one is responsible to create talking points for you.
Otherwise what was the point of the post? Violence is OK [for adults], but titties aren't [for adults], regardless of the fact that nobody is even discussing taking away titties _or_ violence from _adults_?
Microsoft is discussing taking away titties from adults. Or do you really think that a "family-oriented"console will ever show titties? Furthermore, what's wrong with showing titties to kids? Or schlongs, or pussies, or ass cracks, or belly buttons, or ankles, or.... Yeah, I thought so. Tits for you are the same as sex.
Seriously, use your fucking head before going off on ridiculous rants about _me_ being the one who is confused.
Seems you have everyone fooled about being enlightened.
Which would you prefer? Having the money come from your wallet or Google's? Make no mistake about it, that is the only choice you get.
Interesting point. I know how I'm voting, because I already do so: I make sure the money is coming from my wallet. Why? Because a) there is no such thing as a corporation paying out of its own wallet. Anything that lowers the profit margin to an unacceptable point gets passed to the consumer. B) If I pay for it, I ensure that a gamebreaking company can start in a garage on a shoestring server and communication budget. Success merely depends on whether they're good, not how much money they have to pay off their ISPs with a potentially competing business.
You can say the ISPs are getting enough and they should not be allowed any more profits. Unfortunately, that way likes the Soviet-style command economy.
Except that in certain cases, a Soviet-style command structure is the only alternative to a heavily entrenched monopoly sitting on a crucial resource. What would you rather have: the government asking you to pay more taxes, or a corporation with a monopoly on a key resource asking you to pay more money? Make no mistake, a monopoly on violence isn't the only painful monopoly.
What was done? You didn't refute my point; you agreed with me - regulation is control. Thanks for the support but you may want to not be so schizo about it.
I see - you're completely unwilling to engage in debate, merely in demagoguery. Nevermind then. Carry on. Just leave the voting to the adults.
Because the point of regulation is control it is madness to claim that regulation does not control, which is the essence of any counterargument.
Incorrect. The strawman you're putting up is that regulation is not control. No one's arguing that. What people are saying is that some behavior needs to be controlled through regulation so that abuses are limited and free market can be approximated.
Because there are not many companies that can afford to lobby, there are therefore only a small number of companies that offer input into the evolution of regulation.
Incorrect. Many companies can afford to lobby. A 20k campaign donation goes a long way for a state representative. Outright buying of legislation like proposition 23 in CA is more expensive, but again, that's what organizations like ALEC are for: the pooling of resources of companies that have similar goals.
Please do explain to us just what part of this summary is incorrect, even though this is exactly what has happened with every other government regulation since the big bang.
Done. I suggest you study government regulation and free market theory a bit more so that you don't put up ridiculous straw men.
If you do not regulate something then control will flow between companies naturally over time. But you will not have a focal point of control that never changes and through which changes must be processed.
You're clearly too young to have experienced the old ATT or Standard Oil.
The ONLY way to stop corporate control of something by a small group of companies with lobbying power is not to regulate it. End of story.
Ever heard of a monopoly? You clearly do not understand how monopolies can arise in areas that lack regulation and how they are nearly impossible to get rid of without regulation. I would suggest you educate yourself before you start making proclamations on how things should be done.
Sorry, but government just laid the wires and figured out how to send messages. Everything else was the private sector.
And you don't think that that was kinda an important first step? Or that everything that came after it would not have been possible without that first step? Or that nothing would have happened at all without that first step?
TCP/IP by itself might have only been used by liberal eggheads to write Hello World back and forth. But HTML. FTP and SMTP are not possible without it.
Don't try so hard, you'll throw your back out.
You're kidding yourself if you think a major ISP like Qwest would allow a mom and pop store to compete against them. If the mom and pop store is successful, watch Qwest raise their prices until the mom and pop store is priced out of the market, regardless of what the service is like.
Home Depot and Walmart don't charge resellers more than regular customers do. The only thing they might do is institute a limit on the quantity a single person can buy. Apples and oranges.
No, he (assuming male) was just pointing out that the research is possibly biased.
Let's make something clear: everyone is biased, and everything is biased based on their history, friends, relationships, money sources, dreams, phobias and god knows what else. Pointing out that something might be biased is on the order of water is wet. Pointing out that a study is biased towards a liberal agenda based on the donors funding the organization is avoiding the argument.
Just as the background of those who watch Fox News is important, so is the background (funding) of those conducting the study.
No it isn't. What is important is the structural setup of the study. The rest is for sociology majors to find something to do.
Since when am I responsible for what an AC says?
So what you're saying is that you're unable to debate the topic, and instead you try to not even shoot the messenger, but the sponsors of the messenger? Is your position so weak that you have nothing else to contribute to the discussion?
Try reading the European constitution, it is the perfect example of it. http://www.unizar.es/euroconstitucion/Treaties/Treaty_Const.htm. It runs about 400 pages in a normal printed book, has fundamental rights, policies, annexes, and more. It's a public policy document written by lawyers, for politicians, and with the public being an afterthought.
You're very good at following rules. But not very good at understanding consequences.
The thief cannot smash the information and destroy it.
Correct. However, the trait about information that makes it impossible to destroy also makes it impossible to unclassify.
You can argue all you want about how something being secret is a classification problem that has nothing to do with who knows that information, but it doesn't change the fact that the purpose of the classification has been rendered nil: to prevent to distribution of said information to unauthorized people. It is exactly a problem of closing the barn after the horses are gone.
They are about the degree to which that knowledge can harm the National Security of the United States AND keeping that knowledge away from people that would use it to harm the United States.
Classic logic problem: invalidating part of the sentence invalidates all of it. Once the wrong people know it, it's pointless to keep the knowledge from people who would not use it to harm the United States.
Here's the thing though: this is an incredibly bad way to support hardware.
#1: Your customers actually don't trust you when they find out that there's a hardcoded user in the hardware. Why? Because businesses with a proper understanding of security know that this is a massive security hole, and will refuse to buy that hardware.
#2: There's already a way to get admin-level access to hardware: ask the client for it. If they don't want you to connect to their internals with their own password, there are things like VPNs and temporary admin password - again stuff that is basic IT methodology. Yeah, it's a bit harder than just handing things over to the vendor and say "Fix it", but it's vastly better.
#3 If user recovery is the issue, the solution is wrong. The proper solution is a hardware reset button that has no user-level API. Yes, all the settings are borked. Export them, reset, import them back in. Yes, it's harder, but it's the right thing to do.
Yes, you are correct: this is all for the purpose of easy support. However, it's braindead, and any company with an IT department worth its name will refuse to run hardware with this "feature", and should look closely into vendors with a better understanding of security.
And that's coming from someone who used to work for HP.
There is no firewall against social attacks.
Yes, there is. It's called research, honesty and being knowledgeable about the field and about what areas you don't know much about. The problem is that these things are a lot more expensive to implement than a regular Internet firewall.
Look at what the USA has done to Cuba with just economic sanctions.
Yep. Pretty much nothing. Castro (one of them at least) is still in power, it still doesn't give a flying fuck about the US and US businesses still can't make money there. In other words, every single goal of the economic sanctions has failed.
The aim of charity should always be to reduce the need for charity. This has been the goal of organisations like Oxfam for many years. It does not appear to be the goal of the B&MGF.
Then you don't understand the impact that diseases have on the development of an economy. If you'd read the studies and success stories, the single greatest bang for the buck when it comes to charity is to make sure that people are healthy. Close behind that is education. The B&MGF is active in both. You're right, they're not pursuing this accidentally: they understand what the best ways are to lift people out of poverty.
It seems to me you don't understand what it takes for an area and a person to be economically successful.
Misleading.
The current claim is that the leaks are killing informants or people mentioned in leaks. What Assange is talking about is people killed as a result of the government clamping down on protests based on information in the leaks. In other words, if people would have kept quiet about the information contained in the leaks, instead of protesting, no one would have died.
So the score is that no one has yet to die because information was leaked. Going for second order effects to blame Assange is kinda silly.
Except that developing cures for diseases isn't like buying a jacket. It's not like there's some cure that they're "saving up for" $50 million at a time, bit by bit, rather than just buying it off the shelf for $5 billion.
Exactly. What's more, you can't just dump $10billion into an area and call it a day. Let's say that there is a jacket problem that requires $10 billion dollars to solve: 100 million people need a $100 jacket. Bill Gates can't just sign a check for $10 billion, hand it over to someone, and the jackets magically appear on 100 million people. It doesn't work that way. Someone has to buy those jackets. Someone has to distribute them. Someone has to make sure the jackets go to people who don't have one, and not to a reseller. You're already up to three organizations which require vastly different skill sets and connections. And we haven't even touched the problem that there aren't 100 million jackets available to buy, and that they have to be produced first.
And then, realize that curing cancer and relieving malaria problems present problems that are orders of magnitude bigger than just handing out a jacket. That includes handing out malaria nets. Ever thought about how you best deal with a completely corrupt country?
The best solution is indeed to set up a long-lived foundation to administrate the process by which the money is used to achieve the end result. Regardless of whether you just want to hand out jackets or cure cancer.
Here's something else that bothers me when I hear people complain about philanthropic foundations and people giving their money supporting the poor and sick: their complaints always revolve around "this cause sucks, that one's so much better" and "they're not really giving it away, they're just investing in themselves". I always have the impression that this is nothing but jealousy that they aren't getting a cut of the action. A version of "support the charity of Neutroncowboys with not enough toys", if you will.
And then countries realize that a treaty is a piece of paper, IP is incredibly easy to steal, and the US would try to kill the local pharma industry even without the treaty. They turn the treaty into compost, give the US the finger, and do what they want to do.
That's the interesting part about being a country. In the end, only an invasion can stop it from doing what it wants.
Still, it would be hard to be a philanthropist if you ran out of poor people - they're just making sure that they can keep helping people for the foreseeable future.
I'm not sure what you're implying. That all philanthropists are only interested in keeping people poor, so they can keep giving their money away? That philanthropists are buying the continuing poverty of others to build a monument for their generosity? Either which way, it's a completely illogical position. I suspect you're merely jealous that philanthropists aren't handing you their money.
Unfortunately, politicians have become outstanding at dodging even follow-up questions. I've listened to some interviews where the interviewer was actually calling the politician on their nonsense - only to find out that the politician was actually so good at dodging and weaving that no follow-up question had any traction. To the point that the politician blatantly said "That's just not true" when confronted with his bullshit.
You could try to nail them to the wall for their answers, but at that point you'd just spend your entire interview time going after one question and not getting anywhere.
If you're trying to do that while people are trying to gain access to the flight controls, I will personally kick you in the head until you stop moving. Or did you not notice that all the hijackings involved people making demands to be taken somewhere?
Since 2001, there have been zero hijackings where the hijackers tried to gain access to the flight controls. Think that's a coincidence?
Let me ask you this: when you present your assessment of a prospective mine, do you only attach the raw data? Of course not. You present data in a format that makes your conclusion easy to understand. In other words, it's been massaged.
Now, is it important that the raw data is made available? Of course. Is it important that the massaging is sensible and intelligible? Of course. But this mantra of "show us the raw data" is complete straw man when it comes to cflimate research - because the raw data is available.
By that definition, yes, you do work with raw data. But you don't analyze the data for what it says about a given theory, you analyze it for internal errors.
And no, the filtering is not The Work. It is part of it. The valuable work is figuring out what the data means in the context of various theories. And for that, you need to filter first.
Newsflash - all data is "massaged". It's either normalized, scrubbed of data by faulty measurements and of outliers, corrected for systematic errors, etc. No one works with raw data, because there is often so much noise in data that it is impossible to compare it to anything else.