21 2. A WEB SITE ADMINISTRATOR UPON REQUEST SHALL REMOVE ANY COMMENTS 22 POSTED ON HIS OR HER WEB SITE BY AN ANONYMOUS POSTER UNLESS SUCH ANONY- 23 MOUS POSTER AGREES TO ATTACH HIS OR HER NAME TO THE POST AND CONFIRMS 24 THAT HIS OR HER IP ADDRESS, LEGAL NAME, AND HOME ADDRESS ARE ACCURATE. 25 ALL WEB SITE ADMINISTRATORS SHALL HAVE A CONTACT NUMBER OR E-MAIL 26 ADDRESS POSTED FOR SUCH REMOVAL REQUESTS, CLEARLY VISIBLE IN ANY 27 SECTIONS WHERE COMMENTS ARE POSTED.
What about CDNs physically located in NY that serve news and video from very popular sites? And how are you going to verify all this information? Like, I go through Tor, I tell you I'm Jim Conte, I give you his home address and then I verify that I'm indeed him and all this time someone on the staff of this news site is... doing what exactly? Verifying how? Are they calling ISPs and saying "Hey, does this IP address check out for this home address? And how on Earth are they going to be able to afford to do this for anonymous comments?
I'm not sure what to think. I've wanted Microsoft to lose its dominance ever since it eclipsed Netscape browser in 1999, but to replace one evil company that abuses it users, with another evil company that spies on people, is like a pyrrhic victory.
My logic is to celebrate the contenders even if it's just more of the same corporations. Am I the only web developer that noticed that Internet Exploder started getting passably decent as Firefox & Chrome were breathing down their necks? I welcome any sort of race when before it was just the aborted full frontal lobotomy that is IE6 as a candidate.
Besides, roll your own chromium and kiss any privacy raping proprietary ties goodbye if you want (and without the loss of HTML5 support and standards).
Shlomo Cohen, 24, of Toronto, said he used the Internet for shopping, business and staying in touch with friends -- “Everyone needs e-mail,” he said.
You might say it's a powerful tool that isn't inherently good or evil, it can just magnify the abilities and desires of the user?
Basically: "New technology befuddles and stymies religious folks who wonder why their deity(s) of choice didn't write out rules for said technologies X millennia ago (at least for deities that are said to be omniscient)."
As a former Catholic, I'm sort of glad that "thou shalt not play Diablo III for 12 hours on Sunday while occasionally watching free pornography" is no longer applied to me. Hard to shake the guilt that I'm enjoying so much while others deliberately stunt themselves though...
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
I haven't read this book and I think the article discussing it doesn't accomplish much aside from briefly agreeing with the author on everything. I think this whole argument is sort of a nonstarter. Oftentimes I try to look at "soft" issues as an ethical engineer and I come to the conclusion that you can approach a lot of hotly debated issues from two sides. And, like the limit as x approaches zero in y(x) = -1/x, you can sort of logically come to two extremely different conclusions. As an oversimplified example, take anti-trust laws. From the left we start with something really innocuous like it's the government's job to protect an individual's basic rights which means that if they wish to enter a market then other individuals shouldn't be able to collude to keep them out of that market by price fixing which means that we should have government regulations against it... and we're at positive infinity. But if you approach from the right you start with something really innocuous as well like governments should enable individuals to follow their dreams and if their dreams are price fixing so be it because the free market will decide whose product is better and the consumer will be smart enough to buy the new product if it is indeed made better and the price fixing will result in a loss to the colluding parties and so therefore we need to make the free market freer and truly free to alleviate all these issues... and we're at negative infinity. Both sides are clamoring for one extreme and the engineer is just sitting there saying "Technically it's undefined."
Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.
Another topic that I'm not sure how it is addressed is that you only get one experiment. There is no control group for your political policies. On top of that a negative stigma has been attached to people being used as lab rats so don't even try to divide your populace into statistical experiments -- they have to do that themselves. If an engineer does not have absolute control over an environment, he or she usually considers the experiment flawed and the resulting data potentially worthless. This is one of the defining hallmarks of our political process -- no one person controls all of the variables.
I'm left wondering why any ethical engineer would desire to be a technocrat.
I am 100% behind pushing science in the public forum and seeking more data and more models. I will argue, however, that the first decision an engineer makes in office will likely be as emotionally, personally and financially motivated as it would had Governor Evil been there instead.
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance.
I've heard that said a few times but it seems nuts that China would sell these things at a loss, if that's really the case they will run out of money and be forced to stop fairly soon.
That's not necessarily true. They could be exploiting a resource. In this case, I will argue that China is exploiting their local environment and exporting products that are a direct result of using up that resource to countries that will not sacrifice that resource for money. Imagine if a solar plant in the United States could dump the tailings and cuttings anywhere they wanted or lay a pipe to anywhere that disposes of water and fluids used in the mechanical processing of said solar cells, they too could sell really cheap solar cells and panels. Lead, mercury, cadmium and the production of carbon dioxide are all still a part of fabricating photovoltaic technologies for mass production.
The very weak argument of how a free market is supposed to protect the environment goes something like this: people know pollution is bad and therefore they pay top dollar for the companies that pollute the least. If people don't think pollution is bad, then they buy the cheapest stuff and deal with it. And somehow the free market is supposed to work like this. Well, I'm glad for the EPA and I'm glad that the free market hasn't been left to companies that would rather spend money on misinformation campaigns than actual cleaner technology. Nixon opened trade with China and every president since has left it that way. As a result, we've found a loophole to get our cheap shit without polluting our local environment. But with CO2 having global impact, it's about time we started taxing products from foreign countries that don't want to play by our standards of environmental ethics (and it's obvious that China's national government is either helpless or corrupt). It's funny, if we applied tariffs in IT the same way, all the people complaining about outsourcing would be satisfied as now the ethical treatment and compensation of workers would be artificially raised by the US government to make it a toss up whether or not it is exported. Indian programmers are exploited by their companies in ways that American companies simply cannot.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for these tariffs, I'm just urging you to shift your point of view instead of assuming that the only thing the Chinese are losing in this proposition is a net loss on their sales. On the contrary, they're losing their environment and abusing human resources so much so that they are making a killing by their standards in profit. As such, it shall continue ad infinitum.
His point is that there is no evidences that any of t is getting into the water table.
Well, there have been cases where the stuff that is taken out does find its way into the drinking water but the common argument is that it was mishandled. The way I see this, in a very unscientific way, is that we're doing something similar to when we dumped mountains of garbage into the Pacific Ocean because, hey let's face it, there's nothing out there and nobody's ever going to be able to find it, right? And now we just sit there and stare at it wondering if anyone's going to do anything about it saying stupid shit like "Well, it doesn't matter if we stop, Japan will keep dumping out there."
And, you know, this fracking stuff just sounds like more of the same mentality and I feel like it could bite our ass in the future when all of Pennsylvania has pockets of water underneath it that, by themselves pose no risk but added up eventually cause us some discomfort. And yet, all the comments on Slashdot assure me I'm just a fear monger so what are you to do? People seem to get upset when I try to place the burden of proof that this will not harm us in anyway on the companies that are going to make billions of dollars off it and the people that still own mineral rights are telling me to shut the hell up at all costs. These natural gas companies sound like really unsavory types.
(Keep in mind I'm neither a lawyer nor expert on this stuff though) In the introduced legislation (H 464) that I linked to in the summary (and, mind you, that could well have changed in the process to get it signed), they use the phrase "for conventional or enhanced recovery of natural gas or oil" at the end of any statement banning permits being issued. Like this one:
To ensure that the state’s underground sources of drinking water remain free of contamination and to formalize ANR’s interpretation of the state underground injection control rules, the general assembly should prohibit the issuance of a permit for the discharge to an underground injection well for conventional or enhanced recovery of natural gas or oil.
So I would guess for environmental cleanups you might be okay but, of course, you would most likely need a discharge permit to ensure that you are compliant with laws protecting any wildlife or water surrounding the area. Hasn't that always been the case though?
My dad pushes dirt in Minnesota and he knows all the laws about reclaiming and recovering after you've just scooped a bunch of clay out of the earth and haven't replaced the topsoil. Because you are in really deep if the anyone sees that. It got so bad for one guy who had my dad do work on his property that he ended up donating the corner of his back forty where he had scooped up all the clay to a church so he could 1) write it off and 2) get that environmental catastrophe off his hands given he didn't have enough topsoil to put back.
Because he didn't make any of that money based on Government-subsidized infrastructure, did he? Like, for example, the protocols and research necessary to create the Internet?
All valid points. However, I am a little bewildered as to why you have stood idly by whilst China conducts massive commerce over the same infrastructure with money actually leaving the USA and no sales tax being paid on those transactions to the American government. Where is your outrage there? Not only is that like a truck drive avoiding paying for roads, it's like a truck driver driving your money away on those same roads. Why is this not outrageous?
This is like someone making shedloads of money with a trucking company, and then doing everything possible to not pay for roads.
Look, my initial reaction to this story is identical to yours. I see this guy go to Harvard, reap the benefits of being in a safe country with tax dollars that create the ecosystem for something like Facebook to flourish and then when it comes to his turn to put back into the system, he kites off. Well, the story isn't that simple, he was born in Sao Paulo and probably is one of the people the US has brain drained from India, Brazil, etc in order to bolster our own economy. On top of that, Facebook is a global phenomena by now with serious activity world-wide. So, you know, I don't feel so bad that now Singapore or where ever he takes up residence has "reverse brain drained" the US in this instance due to "steep" taxes. I'd be more upset if Zuckerberg did it but in the end, this single IPO is probably trivial compared to every company maneuvering "sales" to Ireland and the Netherlands to avoid paying billions of dollars to the United States each year. This is a one time thing and I think the "Ex-Patriot Act" is garbage when they should be targeting the systematic avoidance done by almost every company that can claim international sales. Poor poor Eduardo, he was just being an efficient little Capitalist.
With corporate person-hood becoming a major problem, will the "Ex-Patriot Act" apply to these tax evasion strategies of which everyone is guilty?
I don't mind looking up for new words but if you ask me to look up for jargon then I am quite sure the author doesn't know how to communicate or doesn't have much to communicate to begin with.
I tipped off Eugene Koonin about this review on Slashdot. He read it and corrected me saying:
I will make one comment only: this is a scientific book not a book of popular science, therefore it simply cannot be judged by the standards of 'Brief History of Time' (quite apart from the obvious distinction between Hawking and mere mortals)
All fields have their super overloaded terms that journals have weighted with baggage so they can have physically short sentences with each other and know the terminology. So I don't think your statement is very fair. I think this book is a must have for any serious biologist but it was probably unfair of me to try and approach it from completely outside that realm.
You mean my loser friend from high school who spends all day in front of his computer posting updates on his shitty life *isn't* the perfect person to target with an ad for a $40,000 new car?!?!?
Probably not. Although convincing him that the 2011 Chevrolet Aveo (with an MSRP of $12,000) is the best investment he could make now that his rusted out junker needs a new transmission might be worth a few bucks to GM. If he has income and can get an auto loan from a bank, they're interested in him. America is full of losers like your friend that still need cars to go to their shitty job so they can afford their shitty food, pay their shitty rent and make shitty car payments. Transitioning these sales strategies of "most dependable" or "safest in its class" from TV to online hubs of entertainment isn't too far of a stretch, is it?
If you're perhaps wondering about how this works out for smaller businesses, NPR built an anecdote out of a small locally owned pizza joint in New Orleans trying their hand at targeted social advertising. For $240 they doubled their Facebook fans (at the cost of nearly $1 per 'like') and weren't so sure they'd see the return on that money after asking customers one evening where they heard about Pizza Delicious.
Iran is desperate to plug that hole, but frankly they're heavily outmatched and being sanctioned and sabotaged every step of the way.
If you're imposing strict social codes with ridiculously harsh laws while trying to compete with super powers, you're going to have a bad time.
It's true the USSR and US played a big part in turning Iran into the screw up it is today but at some point the people have gotta turn it around if they don't want to end up completely like North Korea. Smart people don't want to live in places where smart people are bothered and executed. Smart people also can't be told where to live -- they're smart and they figure out ways around that.
Judge Abolghasem Salavati of Branch 15 of Tehran's Revolution Court — who is famous for his harsh sentences — tried 10 to 15 people in the same trial, under the collective charge of collaborating with Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad.
Hardly "his" trial now, wasn't it? From the sound of it, it was just 10-15 students they all accused of the same thing with some of them (like Sina Zahiri) confessing in order to reduce their sentences. Of course, Zahiri's accusation is contact with Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (completely unrelated to the Mossad). So now that Zahiri has confessed, Iran has "evidence" that they can now use to justify counter attacks or assassinations or arrests or whatever.
I'm sure in Kokabee's case, he'd have a lighter sentence if he just said that Israel is doing all the stuff of which they accuse him. Because then Iran has evidence to start some international shit (by the way, I am by no means claiming Israel has no such operations inside Iran).
Well this is obviously a post by the Minnesotan lake water army. Come down to Newark and we'll knock your fucking teeth in for spreading those filthy lies.
I don't know who this eldavojohn person is, but they're obviously a shill for those semi-Swedish a-holes.
*pulls his New Jersey to Minnesota Translation Guide off the shelf and blows the dust off it*
Let's see here... ah... Well, hello to you too, doenchya knoe! Why it sure is a fine pleasure to meet such a strapping orange colored lad like yourself! You just come back from a Charley in the Chocolate Factory production or something?
Oh, right, I need to translate this cordiality so that you can understand it... "How's the fauwkin' weather ova there, ya fauwkin' prick? You look thirsty, can I offer ya some pop... er... fauwkin' yagga bawmbs?"
Okay, you don't seem to be a troll so let me help you out.
I think this is great move by Apple.
I think we can all agree on this.
It also shows that they care about other things than profit...
Well, that depends, doesn't it? I think this became an issue when "reporters" made it an issue and Apple surmised that it might affect their bottom line. Never mind that everyone else is likely just as guilty as Apple, they're the biggest target so it's up to them to make the first move. In the end, they're probably doing this so it doesn't cost them sales from the hippies.
... unlike *ahem* certain privacy violating company Mountain View that just decided to pack their packs and leave after they couldn't compete with Baidu.
There's so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. Google has some privacy violations here in the United States but they're pretty mild compared to what the Chinese government does to its citizens and dissidents. By the way, that's why Google left (really was forced to leave) China as they refused to adjust their search results to comply with the Socialist party's orders in China. They were actually trying to stand up for the citizens and left in protest.
We haven't had such industrial revolution since the US started growing.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "the US started growing" but there are other nations, like Japan's Meji Restoration that were considered amazing industrial revolutions. History is peppered with nations each taking great strides to push themselves forward -- although they are not always pure of motive. Maybe you should check out the section on child labor.
It also shows that the hybrid socialist-capitalism system that China (and somewhat Europe too) has is a great strength compared to the US hard stance on pure capitalism.
I hate to break it to you but almost every nation runs on a hybrid socialist-capitalist system. Even the United States. We may have started closer to the Capitalist side but we're making "progress" to meet China halfway as they approach from the other side. I'm not even going to open that can of worms in this discussion but if you're interested you should check out pollution control laws in the United States versus China (Hint: China is very pure capitalism compared to the US on that one).
Having spent time the China and other places in Asia I must also say that the people are much nicer and reasonable. It is often impossible to deal with Americans, but Asian people still enjoy good old talk, socializing and being together. Also the cheer amount of their population and business culture, with a still relaxed life helps them.
Forgive me if I am mistaken but this feels suspiciously similar to the Chinese water army that is paid to frequent forums in support of something. Provide something measurable and we'll talk. Even a concrete anecdote about your vast experiences that give you credence to speak on behalf of all Americans. I can tell you right now that people in Minnesota are quite nicer than people in New Jersey. I'm sure China has the same dynamics.
I am more than interested to see this change in politics, and as I am already living in Asia (I moved here from Europe), stuff is about to get great soon.
You should read "The Good Earth" by Pearl S. Buck, the Chinese people have never had it better! You say stuff is about to get get great soon and I think you're enjoying a Golden Age! I would, however, be interested to learn what European country you left that is in such a worse state than China.
But don't get your hopes up too high, kids. Much like Google's dual-tier stock plan, the patent calls for 'customer status levels including a premium status and a standard status,' so a premium customer will be able to veto attempts by lowly standard customers to kill his requests to play MC Hammer's 'Can't Touch This'.
I think there's some confusion here. I read that part of the patent as saying that if you, the owner of this jukebox system, have a patron at your place of playing music that is a regular then you can get his/her ID and promote them above random walk-ins. I used to bartend for two years in college. There was this lonely guy that came in everyday of the week. My first day there, the owner pointed at him and said, "This is Joe, you help Joe before any other customers, you charge Joe $1.25 for each of his beers no matter what size or kind, tap or bottle." Apparently for 30 some years that guy came in, drank five beers through the course of the entire evening and left. People like that, I think you'd let them have your way with your jukebox and maybe you, the owner would be above everyone else in case things got out of hand. Maybe google thinks bars will run promotions where the first birthday person in the door with a large party gets veto control over the jukebox? Who knows?
At Chicago's Billy Goat Tavern, construction workers found physical threats an effective way to discourage smart-ass Whitney Young High School students from playing annoying jukebox songs over and over again.
What the hell? Somebody want to fill me in? I just spent ten minutes googling for some news item about this and came up empty handed...
It was also once consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe.
But it wasn't published in peer reviewed journals. I dare say at the time there was no "scientific community" and that nationality determined which intellectual circles you could run in. Although I do agree that, to compare the state of where we are today, you would need to go back to pre-Renaissance times.
A consensus of people in some places think it's okay to stone adulterers.
Yeah, a consensus of people who were not scientists. Who were not using statistics or science at all... who were basically calling themselves judge, jury and executioner. Again, what these strange archaic Puritanical concepts have to do with modern scientific consensus is well beyond me. I link you 18 scientific associations' assertions on global warming and you refute it with some ancient lynching. Apples to oranges.
Just because a majority of people believe something is true doesn't mean that it is.
It's really weird that when the top minds of physics postulate that black holes exist, we're not adverse to it. But when the top minds of climate science agree on something, suddenly we are the armchair scientists who are better than those who have studied this most of their lives and have compiled samples from decades past from around the world. And the key difference seems to be that you don't want to face the consequences. You're okay with no longer using CFCs, you're okay with trying to wrap our minds around the existence of black holes and could you tell me why now you choose to shove your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
You can point out factual errors in another's post without going down the road of "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit" in your own.
This befuddles me the most. The original post I replied to said:
Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).
So I provide a citation and hard numbers on man-made CO2 versus volcanoes. And you label that "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit"?
The Cherry Blossom festival happened sooner than ever in its history this year in DC and NASA says it's not just cherry blossoms but all plants (published in Nature's May 2nd issue, a peer-reviewed journal). Of course, this natural basic indicator of the state of the climate doesn't have an immediate perceived threat to mankind's existence so you're free to keep your fingers in your ears. At some point though, it's going to become annoying, then problematic for third world countries, then it will slowly climb the chain up to the protected Americans. And then, and only then, will we be willing to do something about it. When it's too late.
Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).
Well, according to the USGS man made CO2 levels for 2010 were 35 billion metric tons while all volcanic activity was estimated at 0.26 billion metric tons. So keep spreading your lies and uncertainty about climate science. Your cheap rhetoric designed to protect your lifestyle is surprisingly effective against individuals who spend their lives studying this stuff and publishing in peer reviewed journals, NASA, etc.
Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure if humans are speeding up natural global warming by a significant amount (IE: accelerating it from millennia to centuries or centuries to decades).
All that bullshit peppered with weasel words like "probably" and "maybe" without a single citation. Well done. The concensus from the scientific community has been made, the burden of proof is now on you to refute their findings. Not vice versa. Not "probably" or "maybe."
Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden
Wow, I never knew that Ted Kaczynski and the above crew were quoted on Global Warming. So, upon reading the article I found that:
How did Heartland justify the comparison between murderers and tyrants and anyone who believed in global warming? "Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming," according to the press release that announced the ads. It went on to claim that "[t]he people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society."
Wait, so you're telling me that you're putting pictures of some of recent history's most hated and feared men next to quotes about believing in Global Warming?
Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?
So they won't mind if I put up a billboard that reads
"... and when this Earth is fucked the free market will build us a better one." (read more at www.heartland.org)
So what the jury actually decided doesn't mean much. It means that Google copied the Java API. Well, yeah, we knew that already.
That's not exactly true, the jury's verdict read that what was copied was the "structure, sequence, and organization" of Java APIs. Of which, if you're up for implementing a non-standardized version of Java, you should take note.
Disclaimer: This Ars article has grown from two lines when I submitted this to a full fledged report.
i too like to look at ants building small mounds on the side of the road instead of the fiery multicar pile up and people screaming for their lives two feet away
zzz
Well, back in 2009, you were submitting and commenting on a story about violent video game law in the United States. At the time the United States was being accused of civilian deaths in Afghanistan yet you seemed capable to "look at ants building small mounds on the side of the road" in that situation. Now what is so special about Syria that we can't talk about the state of their video games? Surely -- if you yourself can submit and comment on articles about US video game law while said country wages war and kills innocents and insurgents -- we can comment at this point in time on Syria's video games industry, can't we?
assad is a murderous tyrant, but we want to focus on sanctions george bush put on his regime... and its effects on the gaming industry? this is the important thing to talk about?
The sanctions are part of the history of Syria's currently ailing game development industry. Think of this as maybe a case history of how a destabilized nation can lose out on arts and entertainment due to sanctions. This is, arguably, the point of sanctions: not to deplete food, water, shelter but more so the nice-to-haves (one of which is games).
if you demonstrate an eagerness to talk about the usa and american actions, or GAMING, for crying out loud... on the topic of a country currently under the full force of mass murder of civilians by a true tyrant on a daily basis for months... you look like you are less motivated by actual principles and more like you are either obsessed with the usa or lack all proportionality in your ability to think about and understand the world you live in
really? the fucking gaming industry is the important issue here? i'm pretty fucking sure the entire syrian gaming industry would agree with me: "uhhh... that's a little unimportant right now, they are murdering us"
You seem to have misread this article from the PoV as we are trying to help save Syrian lives. That's not really the case and the mainstream media has already covered this issue fairly well. You're actually reading a techie site called Slashdot where games and technology are two important topics. While politics and conflict sometimes find their way into the discussion, it's usually kept to the topics most important to us. Just because humans are losing their lives and that's the most important thing, doesn't mean we have to ignore the facets that are important to us and also affected by this conflict. As such, you can turn your attention to a variety of other news sources if you want body counts or UN actions. But if you're curious about the collateral to Syria's Games Industry, here is a unique story on it. It's not meant to replace the reporting on the actual conflict but mildly augment it.
there are people dying in this world for rights that some people in the west take completely for granted... because obviously, it's more important to talk about fucking videogames, on the topic of syria right now
wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanites
You seem to make the assumption that because we're talking about Syrian games and not people dying that we don't care about it. Did you know that last night The Simpsons aired at its regular time slot instead of emergency 24/7 reporting on all television channels about the conflict in Syria? And I suppose we're all horrible awful inhuman demons for not constantly talking about death in Syria? Instead of instructing me to "wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanite" I suggest you consider the possibility that I am capable of consuming a very diverse range of news reports, this being one of a particular topic. And to stop assuming that this is the only coverage of Syria I'm being exposed to.
Here at Slashdot, games are art. Art is culture. And a destruction of culture is indeed an important topic. Syria appeared to be a major hub of game development in the Middle East and Arab World so of course it is important to note when their game industry is sent back to the stone age. This means that a large part of the world isn't getting something that is integral to our lifestyle and it will be a long time before that industry catches up with the West. Which is truly unfortunate because, unlike nuclear weapons, these are cultural experiences that can be enjoyed the world over.
He correctly understood that they wouldn't be used against him as evidence in a court of law.
Uh, perhaps the idea would be to use a strong encryption so that if someone did find them, they wouldn't give away all the people you are collaborating with? Sure, it would be broken 20 years down the road but... surely even in death you would want to protect your cause and your allies? Seems like pretty common sense to me... just another sign that he didn't really care about those around him or he didn't understand technology.
The less information you give your enemy the better. Even minute things that seem unimportant can be used against you.
Wind-up Usama Bin Laden doll says real life phrases like "Encryption is hard, let's go jihading!"
and with the millions of dollars they are paid, how many of them donated to research?
Well from the summary:
Malcom Gladwell stirred up controversy in 2009 by comparing professional football to dog fighting for the trauma the game inflicts on players' brains, but with mounting evidence that the repeated concussions football players receive during their careers causing a lifetime of brain problems
I recall Michael Vick had quite the experiment set up to study this but, of course, PETA shut him down.
Slashdot Mirror
What about CDNs physically located in NY that serve news and video from very popular sites? And how are you going to verify all this information? Like, I go through Tor, I tell you I'm Jim Conte, I give you his home address and then I verify that I'm indeed him and all this time someone on the staff of this news site is ... doing what exactly? Verifying how? Are they calling ISPs and saying "Hey, does this IP address check out for this home address? And how on Earth are they going to be able to afford to do this for anonymous comments?
I'm not sure what to think. I've wanted Microsoft to lose its dominance ever since it eclipsed Netscape browser in 1999, but to replace one evil company that abuses it users, with another evil company that spies on people, is like a pyrrhic victory.
My logic is to celebrate the contenders even if it's just more of the same corporations. Am I the only web developer that noticed that Internet Exploder started getting passably decent as Firefox & Chrome were breathing down their necks? I welcome any sort of race when before it was just the aborted full frontal lobotomy that is IE6 as a candidate.
Besides, roll your own chromium and kiss any privacy raping proprietary ties goodbye if you want (and without the loss of HTML5 support and standards).
Looks like it actually got down to -12% within an hour of opening. From the sounds of it, NASDAQ royally screwed up this IPO and there's probably unexecuted orders lying around which is likely going to result in some very hilarious realized losses. Look, if Goldman Sachs is securing hundreds of millions of dollars in shares ahead of time and cashing out during a tech IPO, you as an individual are probably already too late the party. Of course, that's investment advice from an anonymous idiot on Slashdot but it looks like they will be one of the few parties laughing all the way to the bank (as usual).
Shlomo Cohen, 24, of Toronto, said he used the Internet for shopping, business and staying in touch with friends -- “Everyone needs e-mail,” he said.
You might say it's a powerful tool that isn't inherently good or evil, it can just magnify the abilities and desires of the user?
...
Basically: "New technology befuddles and stymies religious folks who wonder why their deity(s) of choice didn't write out rules for said technologies X millennia ago (at least for deities that are said to be omniscient)."
As a former Catholic, I'm sort of glad that "thou shalt not play Diablo III for 12 hours on Sunday while occasionally watching free pornography" is no longer applied to me. Hard to shake the guilt that I'm enjoying so much while others deliberately stunt themselves though
In short, Mark Henderson wants Technocrats not Politicians running our system. I tend to agree.
I haven't read this book and I think the article discussing it doesn't accomplish much aside from briefly agreeing with the author on everything. I think this whole argument is sort of a nonstarter. Oftentimes I try to look at "soft" issues as an ethical engineer and I come to the conclusion that you can approach a lot of hotly debated issues from two sides. And, like the limit as x approaches zero in y(x) = -1/x, you can sort of logically come to two extremely different conclusions. As an oversimplified example, take anti-trust laws. From the left we start with something really innocuous like it's the government's job to protect an individual's basic rights which means that if they wish to enter a market then other individuals shouldn't be able to collude to keep them out of that market by price fixing which means that we should have government regulations against it ... and we're at positive infinity. But if you approach from the right you start with something really innocuous as well like governments should enable individuals to follow their dreams and if their dreams are price fixing so be it because the free market will decide whose product is better and the consumer will be smart enough to buy the new product if it is indeed made better and the price fixing will result in a loss to the colluding parties and so therefore we need to make the free market freer and truly free to alleviate all these issues ... and we're at negative infinity. Both sides are clamoring for one extreme and the engineer is just sitting there saying "Technically it's undefined."
Basically, two strong narratives will ruin an ethical engineer's best intents.
Another topic that I'm not sure how it is addressed is that you only get one experiment. There is no control group for your political policies. On top of that a negative stigma has been attached to people being used as lab rats so don't even try to divide your populace into statistical experiments -- they have to do that themselves. If an engineer does not have absolute control over an environment, he or she usually considers the experiment flawed and the resulting data potentially worthless. This is one of the defining hallmarks of our political process -- no one person controls all of the variables.
I'm left wondering why any ethical engineer would desire to be a technocrat.
I am 100% behind pushing science in the public forum and seeking more data and more models. I will argue, however, that the first decision an engineer makes in office will likely be as emotionally, personally and financially motivated as it would had Governor Evil been there instead.
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance.
I've heard that said a few times but it seems nuts that China would sell these things at a loss, if that's really the case they will run out of money and be forced to stop fairly soon.
That's not necessarily true. They could be exploiting a resource. In this case, I will argue that China is exploiting their local environment and exporting products that are a direct result of using up that resource to countries that will not sacrifice that resource for money. Imagine if a solar plant in the United States could dump the tailings and cuttings anywhere they wanted or lay a pipe to anywhere that disposes of water and fluids used in the mechanical processing of said solar cells, they too could sell really cheap solar cells and panels. Lead, mercury, cadmium and the production of carbon dioxide are all still a part of fabricating photovoltaic technologies for mass production.
The very weak argument of how a free market is supposed to protect the environment goes something like this: people know pollution is bad and therefore they pay top dollar for the companies that pollute the least. If people don't think pollution is bad, then they buy the cheapest stuff and deal with it. And somehow the free market is supposed to work like this. Well, I'm glad for the EPA and I'm glad that the free market hasn't been left to companies that would rather spend money on misinformation campaigns than actual cleaner technology. Nixon opened trade with China and every president since has left it that way. As a result, we've found a loophole to get our cheap shit without polluting our local environment. But with CO2 having global impact, it's about time we started taxing products from foreign countries that don't want to play by our standards of environmental ethics (and it's obvious that China's national government is either helpless or corrupt). It's funny, if we applied tariffs in IT the same way, all the people complaining about outsourcing would be satisfied as now the ethical treatment and compensation of workers would be artificially raised by the US government to make it a toss up whether or not it is exported. Indian programmers are exploited by their companies in ways that American companies simply cannot.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for these tariffs, I'm just urging you to shift your point of view instead of assuming that the only thing the Chinese are losing in this proposition is a net loss on their sales. On the contrary, they're losing their environment and abusing human resources so much so that they are making a killing by their standards in profit. As such, it shall continue ad infinitum.
His point is that there is no evidences that any of t is getting into the water table.
Well, there have been cases where the stuff that is taken out does find its way into the drinking water but the common argument is that it was mishandled. The way I see this, in a very unscientific way, is that we're doing something similar to when we dumped mountains of garbage into the Pacific Ocean because, hey let's face it, there's nothing out there and nobody's ever going to be able to find it, right? And now we just sit there and stare at it wondering if anyone's going to do anything about it saying stupid shit like "Well, it doesn't matter if we stop, Japan will keep dumping out there."
And, you know, this fracking stuff just sounds like more of the same mentality and I feel like it could bite our ass in the future when all of Pennsylvania has pockets of water underneath it that, by themselves pose no risk but added up eventually cause us some discomfort. And yet, all the comments on Slashdot assure me I'm just a fear monger so what are you to do? People seem to get upset when I try to place the burden of proof that this will not harm us in anyway on the companies that are going to make billions of dollars off it and the people that still own mineral rights are telling me to shut the hell up at all costs. These natural gas companies sound like really unsavory types.
DO you even know what chemicals are in there?
Now that's a funny question if you're in PA (and I don't mean "ha-ha" funny).
To ensure that the state’s underground sources of drinking water remain free of contamination and to formalize ANR’s interpretation of the state underground injection control rules, the general assembly should prohibit the issuance of a permit for the discharge to an underground injection well for conventional or enhanced recovery of natural gas or oil.
So I would guess for environmental cleanups you might be okay but, of course, you would most likely need a discharge permit to ensure that you are compliant with laws protecting any wildlife or water surrounding the area. Hasn't that always been the case though?
My dad pushes dirt in Minnesota and he knows all the laws about reclaiming and recovering after you've just scooped a bunch of clay out of the earth and haven't replaced the topsoil. Because you are in really deep if the anyone sees that. It got so bad for one guy who had my dad do work on his property that he ended up donating the corner of his back forty where he had scooped up all the clay to a church so he could 1) write it off and 2) get that environmental catastrophe off his hands given he didn't have enough topsoil to put back.
Because he didn't make any of that money based on Government-subsidized infrastructure, did he? Like, for example, the protocols and research necessary to create the Internet?
All valid points. However, I am a little bewildered as to why you have stood idly by whilst China conducts massive commerce over the same infrastructure with money actually leaving the USA and no sales tax being paid on those transactions to the American government. Where is your outrage there? Not only is that like a truck drive avoiding paying for roads, it's like a truck driver driving your money away on those same roads. Why is this not outrageous?
This is like someone making shedloads of money with a trucking company, and then doing everything possible to not pay for roads.
Look, my initial reaction to this story is identical to yours. I see this guy go to Harvard, reap the benefits of being in a safe country with tax dollars that create the ecosystem for something like Facebook to flourish and then when it comes to his turn to put back into the system, he kites off. Well, the story isn't that simple, he was born in Sao Paulo and probably is one of the people the US has brain drained from India, Brazil, etc in order to bolster our own economy. On top of that, Facebook is a global phenomena by now with serious activity world-wide. So, you know, I don't feel so bad that now Singapore or where ever he takes up residence has "reverse brain drained" the US in this instance due to "steep" taxes. I'd be more upset if Zuckerberg did it but in the end, this single IPO is probably trivial compared to every company maneuvering "sales" to Ireland and the Netherlands to avoid paying billions of dollars to the United States each year. This is a one time thing and I think the "Ex-Patriot Act" is garbage when they should be targeting the systematic avoidance done by almost every company that can claim international sales. Poor poor Eduardo, he was just being an efficient little Capitalist.
With corporate person-hood becoming a major problem, will the "Ex-Patriot Act" apply to these tax evasion strategies of which everyone is guilty?
I don't mind looking up for new words but if you ask me to look up for jargon then I am quite sure the author doesn't know how to communicate or doesn't have much to communicate to begin with.
I tipped off Eugene Koonin about this review on Slashdot. He read it and corrected me saying:
I will make one comment only: this is a scientific book not a book of popular science, therefore it simply cannot be judged by the standards of 'Brief History of Time' (quite apart from the obvious distinction between Hawking and mere mortals)
All fields have their super overloaded terms that journals have weighted with baggage so they can have physically short sentences with each other and know the terminology. So I don't think your statement is very fair. I think this book is a must have for any serious biologist but it was probably unfair of me to try and approach it from completely outside that realm.
You mean my loser friend from high school who spends all day in front of his computer posting updates on his shitty life *isn't* the perfect person to target with an ad for a $40,000 new car?!?!?
Probably not. Although convincing him that the 2011 Chevrolet Aveo (with an MSRP of $12,000) is the best investment he could make now that his rusted out junker needs a new transmission might be worth a few bucks to GM. If he has income and can get an auto loan from a bank, they're interested in him. America is full of losers like your friend that still need cars to go to their shitty job so they can afford their shitty food, pay their shitty rent and make shitty car payments. Transitioning these sales strategies of "most dependable" or "safest in its class" from TV to online hubs of entertainment isn't too far of a stretch, is it?
If you're perhaps wondering about how this works out for smaller businesses, NPR built an anecdote out of a small locally owned pizza joint in New Orleans trying their hand at targeted social advertising. For $240 they doubled their Facebook fans (at the cost of nearly $1 per 'like') and weren't so sure they'd see the return on that money after asking customers one evening where they heard about Pizza Delicious.
Iran is desperate to plug that hole, but frankly they're heavily outmatched and being sanctioned and sabotaged every step of the way.
If you're imposing strict social codes with ridiculously harsh laws while trying to compete with super powers, you're going to have a bad time.
It's true the USSR and US played a big part in turning Iran into the screw up it is today but at some point the people have gotta turn it around if they don't want to end up completely like North Korea. Smart people don't want to live in places where smart people are bothered and executed. Smart people also can't be told where to live -- they're smart and they figure out ways around that.
and refused to speak at his trial
From the Nature article
Judge Abolghasem Salavati of Branch 15 of Tehran's Revolution Court — who is famous for his harsh sentences — tried 10 to 15 people in the same trial, under the collective charge of collaborating with Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad.
Hardly "his" trial now, wasn't it? From the sound of it, it was just 10-15 students they all accused of the same thing with some of them (like Sina Zahiri) confessing in order to reduce their sentences. Of course, Zahiri's accusation is contact with Mojahedin-e Khalgh Organization (completely unrelated to the Mossad). So now that Zahiri has confessed, Iran has "evidence" that they can now use to justify counter attacks or assassinations or arrests or whatever.
I'm sure in Kokabee's case, he'd have a lighter sentence if he just said that Israel is doing all the stuff of which they accuse him. Because then Iran has evidence to start some international shit (by the way, I am by no means claiming Israel has no such operations inside Iran).
Well this is obviously a post by the Minnesotan lake water army. Come down to Newark and we'll knock your fucking teeth in for spreading those filthy lies. I don't know who this eldavojohn person is, but they're obviously a shill for those semi-Swedish a-holes.
*pulls his New Jersey to Minnesota Translation Guide off the shelf and blows the dust off it*
... ah ... Well, hello to you too, doenchya knoe! Why it sure is a fine pleasure to meet such a strapping orange colored lad like yourself! You just come back from a Charley in the Chocolate Factory production or something?
... "How's the fauwkin' weather ova there, ya fauwkin' prick? You look thirsty, can I offer ya some pop ... er ... fauwkin' yagga bawmbs?"
Let's see here
Oh, right, I need to translate this cordiality so that you can understand it
I think this is great move by Apple.
I think we can all agree on this.
It also shows that they care about other things than profit ...
Well, that depends, doesn't it? I think this became an issue when "reporters" made it an issue and Apple surmised that it might affect their bottom line. Never mind that everyone else is likely just as guilty as Apple, they're the biggest target so it's up to them to make the first move. In the end, they're probably doing this so it doesn't cost them sales from the hippies.
... unlike *ahem* certain privacy violating company Mountain View that just decided to pack their packs and leave after they couldn't compete with Baidu.
There's so much wrong with this statement I don't even know where to start. Google has some privacy violations here in the United States but they're pretty mild compared to what the Chinese government does to its citizens and dissidents. By the way, that's why Google left (really was forced to leave) China as they refused to adjust their search results to comply with the Socialist party's orders in China. They were actually trying to stand up for the citizens and left in protest.
We haven't had such industrial revolution since the US started growing.
I guess I don't know what you mean by "the US started growing" but there are other nations, like Japan's Meji Restoration that were considered amazing industrial revolutions. History is peppered with nations each taking great strides to push themselves forward -- although they are not always pure of motive. Maybe you should check out the section on child labor.
It also shows that the hybrid socialist-capitalism system that China (and somewhat Europe too) has is a great strength compared to the US hard stance on pure capitalism.
I hate to break it to you but almost every nation runs on a hybrid socialist-capitalist system. Even the United States. We may have started closer to the Capitalist side but we're making "progress" to meet China halfway as they approach from the other side. I'm not even going to open that can of worms in this discussion but if you're interested you should check out pollution control laws in the United States versus China (Hint: China is very pure capitalism compared to the US on that one).
Having spent time the China and other places in Asia I must also say that the people are much nicer and reasonable. It is often impossible to deal with Americans, but Asian people still enjoy good old talk, socializing and being together. Also the cheer amount of their population and business culture, with a still relaxed life helps them.
Forgive me if I am mistaken but this feels suspiciously similar to the Chinese water army that is paid to frequent forums in support of something. Provide something measurable and we'll talk. Even a concrete anecdote about your vast experiences that give you credence to speak on behalf of all Americans. I can tell you right now that people in Minnesota are quite nicer than people in New Jersey. I'm sure China has the same dynamics.
I am more than interested to see this change in politics, and as I am already living in Asia (I moved here from Europe), stuff is about to get great soon.
You should read "The Good Earth" by Pearl S. Buck, the Chinese people have never had it better! You say stuff is about to get get great soon and I think you're enjoying a Golden Age! I would, however, be interested to learn what European country you left that is in such a worse state than China.
But don't get your hopes up too high, kids. Much like Google's dual-tier stock plan, the patent calls for 'customer status levels including a premium status and a standard status,' so a premium customer will be able to veto attempts by lowly standard customers to kill his requests to play MC Hammer's 'Can't Touch This'.
I think there's some confusion here. I read that part of the patent as saying that if you, the owner of this jukebox system, have a patron at your place of playing music that is a regular then you can get his/her ID and promote them above random walk-ins. I used to bartend for two years in college. There was this lonely guy that came in everyday of the week. My first day there, the owner pointed at him and said, "This is Joe, you help Joe before any other customers, you charge Joe $1.25 for each of his beers no matter what size or kind, tap or bottle." Apparently for 30 some years that guy came in, drank five beers through the course of the entire evening and left. People like that, I think you'd let them have your way with your jukebox and maybe you, the owner would be above everyone else in case things got out of hand. Maybe google thinks bars will run promotions where the first birthday person in the door with a large party gets veto control over the jukebox? Who knows?
At Chicago's Billy Goat Tavern, construction workers found physical threats an effective way to discourage smart-ass Whitney Young High School students from playing annoying jukebox songs over and over again.
What the hell? Somebody want to fill me in? I just spent ten minutes googling for some news item about this and came up empty handed ...
It was also once consensus that the Earth was the center of the universe.
But it wasn't published in peer reviewed journals. I dare say at the time there was no "scientific community" and that nationality determined which intellectual circles you could run in. Although I do agree that, to compare the state of where we are today, you would need to go back to pre-Renaissance times.
A consensus of people in some places think it's okay to stone adulterers.
Yeah, a consensus of people who were not scientists. Who were not using statistics or science at all ... who were basically calling themselves judge, jury and executioner. Again, what these strange archaic Puritanical concepts have to do with modern scientific consensus is well beyond me. I link you 18 scientific associations' assertions on global warming and you refute it with some ancient lynching. Apples to oranges.
Just because a majority of people believe something is true doesn't mean that it is.
It's really weird that when the top minds of physics postulate that black holes exist, we're not adverse to it. But when the top minds of climate science agree on something, suddenly we are the armchair scientists who are better than those who have studied this most of their lives and have compiled samples from decades past from around the world. And the key difference seems to be that you don't want to face the consequences. You're okay with no longer using CFCs, you're okay with trying to wrap our minds around the existence of black holes and could you tell me why now you choose to shove your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."
You can point out factual errors in another's post without going down the road of "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit" in your own.
This befuddles me the most. The original post I replied to said:
Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).
So I provide a citation and hard numbers on man-made CO2 versus volcanoes. And you label that "cheap rhetoric" and "buillshit"?
The Cherry Blossom festival happened sooner than ever in its history this year in DC and NASA says it's not just cherry blossoms but all plants (published in Nature's May 2nd issue, a peer-reviewed journal). Of course, this natural basic indicator of the state of the climate doesn't have an immediate perceived threat to mankind's existence so you're free to keep your fingers in your ears. At some point though, it's going to become annoying, then problematic for third world countries, then it will slowly climb the chain up to the protected Americans. And then, and only then, will we be willing to do something about it. When it's too late.
Last I knew, it was still heavily debated exactly how much of an effect humans have had on global warming compared to natural causes (IE: volcanic eruptions).
Well, according to the USGS man made CO2 levels for 2010 were 35 billion metric tons while all volcanic activity was estimated at 0.26 billion metric tons. So keep spreading your lies and uncertainty about climate science. Your cheap rhetoric designed to protect your lifestyle is surprisingly effective against individuals who spend their lives studying this stuff and publishing in peer reviewed journals, NASA, etc.
Does it have an effect? Sure. Does it have a noticeable effect? Probably. Does it have a significant effect? Maybe. There's way too many variables to really be sure if humans are speeding up natural global warming by a significant amount (IE: accelerating it from millennia to centuries or centuries to decades).
All that bullshit peppered with weasel words like "probably" and "maybe" without a single citation. Well done. The concensus from the scientific community has been made, the burden of proof is now on you to refute their findings. Not vice versa. Not "probably" or "maybe."
Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and possibly even Osama Bin Laden
Wow, I never knew that Ted Kaczynski and the above crew were quoted on Global Warming. So, upon reading the article I found that:
How did Heartland justify the comparison between murderers and tyrants and anyone who believed in global warming? "Because what these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United Nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming," according to the press release that announced the ads. It went on to claim that "[t]he people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society."
Wait, so you're telling me that you're putting pictures of some of recent history's most hated and feared men next to quotes about believing in Global Warming?
Congratulations, Heartland Institute, your argument is now so depraved that you've reduced yourselves to holding up pictures of Hitler in a public forum while pantomiming your opponents. Is that reductio ad ridiculum or is this so childish that people didn't even bother coming up with a Latin phrase for it?
So they won't mind if I put up a billboard that reads
"... and when this Earth is fucked
the free market will build us a better one."
(read more at www.heartland.org)
So what the jury actually decided doesn't mean much. It means that Google copied the Java API. Well, yeah, we knew that already.
That's not exactly true, the jury's verdict read that what was copied was the "structure, sequence, and organization" of Java APIs. Of which, if you're up for implementing a non-standardized version of Java, you should take note.
Disclaimer: This Ars article has grown from two lines when I submitted this to a full fledged report.
i too like to look at ants building small mounds on the side of the road instead of the fiery multicar pile up and people screaming for their lives two feet away
zzz
Well, back in 2009, you were submitting and commenting on a story about violent video game law in the United States. At the time the United States was being accused of civilian deaths in Afghanistan yet you seemed capable to "look at ants building small mounds on the side of the road" in that situation. Now what is so special about Syria that we can't talk about the state of their video games? Surely -- if you yourself can submit and comment on articles about US video game law while said country wages war and kills innocents and insurgents -- we can comment at this point in time on Syria's video games industry, can't we?
assad is a murderous tyrant, but we want to focus on sanctions george bush put on his regime... and its effects on the gaming industry? this is the important thing to talk about?
The sanctions are part of the history of Syria's currently ailing game development industry. Think of this as maybe a case history of how a destabilized nation can lose out on arts and entertainment due to sanctions. This is, arguably, the point of sanctions: not to deplete food, water, shelter but more so the nice-to-haves (one of which is games).
if you demonstrate an eagerness to talk about the usa and american actions, or GAMING, for crying out loud... on the topic of a country currently under the full force of mass murder of civilians by a true tyrant on a daily basis for months... you look like you are less motivated by actual principles and more like you are either obsessed with the usa or lack all proportionality in your ability to think about and understand the world you live in
really? the fucking gaming industry is the important issue here? i'm pretty fucking sure the entire syrian gaming industry would agree with me: "uhhh... that's a little unimportant right now, they are murdering us"
You seem to have misread this article from the PoV as we are trying to help save Syrian lives. That's not really the case and the mainstream media has already covered this issue fairly well. You're actually reading a techie site called Slashdot where games and technology are two important topics. While politics and conflict sometimes find their way into the discussion, it's usually kept to the topics most important to us. Just because humans are losing their lives and that's the most important thing, doesn't mean we have to ignore the facets that are important to us and also affected by this conflict. As such, you can turn your attention to a variety of other news sources if you want body counts or UN actions. But if you're curious about the collateral to Syria's Games Industry, here is a unique story on it. It's not meant to replace the reporting on the actual conflict but mildly augment it.
there are people dying in this world for rights that some people in the west take completely for granted... because obviously, it's more important to talk about fucking videogames, on the topic of syria right now
wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanites
You seem to make the assumption that because we're talking about Syrian games and not people dying that we don't care about it. Did you know that last night The Simpsons aired at its regular time slot instead of emergency 24/7 reporting on all television channels about the conflict in Syria? And I suppose we're all horrible awful inhuman demons for not constantly talking about death in Syria? Instead of instructing me to "wake the fuck up, you coddled fat suburbanite" I suggest you consider the possibility that I am capable of consuming a very diverse range of news reports, this being one of a particular topic. And to stop assuming that this is the only coverage of Syria I'm being exposed to.
Here at Slashdot, games are art. Art is culture. And a destruction of culture is indeed an important topic. Syria appeared to be a major hub of game development in the Middle East and Arab World so of course it is important to note when their game industry is sent back to the stone age. This means that a large part of the world isn't getting something that is integral to our lifestyle and it will be a long time before that industry catches up with the West. Which is truly unfortunate because, unlike nuclear weapons, these are cultural experiences that can be enjoyed the world over.
He correctly understood that they wouldn't be used against him as evidence in a court of law.
Uh, perhaps the idea would be to use a strong encryption so that if someone did find them, they wouldn't give away all the people you are collaborating with? Sure, it would be broken 20 years down the road but ... surely even in death you would want to protect your cause and your allies? Seems like pretty common sense to me ... just another sign that he didn't really care about those around him or he didn't understand technology.
The less information you give your enemy the better. Even minute things that seem unimportant can be used against you.
Wind-up Usama Bin Laden doll says real life phrases like "Encryption is hard, let's go jihading!"
and with the millions of dollars they are paid, how many of them donated to research?
Well from the summary:
Malcom Gladwell stirred up controversy in 2009 by comparing professional football to dog fighting for the trauma the game inflicts on players' brains, but with mounting evidence that the repeated concussions football players receive during their careers causing a lifetime of brain problems
I recall Michael Vick had quite the experiment set up to study this but, of course, PETA shut him down.
Okay, now I'm going to hell officially.