The document is so inflammatory that it could interest the FBI and DoJ and cause them to investigate the government officials involved
If the information is damning enough that it would interest the feds, send it to them. Why waste the time of Data-Wikileaks-PublicDisclosure-FedsGetInvolved when you can cut out the intermediate steps? If the information itself can be used to identify the source, why does it matter if it is posted off-shore?
Ideally, I think you'd want to do both: Wikileaks as a fail-safe guarantee that it won't disappear, and contact the feds (or, more accurately, have your friends contact the feds). If they want it anonymous for witness-protection types of reasons, I imagine the Feds are much better at that than we are, short of the "STFU" principle. If there is whistle-blowing that needs to go on, it CAN be done anonymously and still be given to the feds. Heck, post it to Wikileaks and then notify the feds, if necessary. Clearly, someone things enough shady is going on that there'll be an investigation anyways.
Lint doesn't fix the problems, just helps you find problems you have overlooked. It's like an editor or proofreader. No professional author is expected to be perfect, they have people whose job it is to proof writings to ensure they are correct -- Lint does the same thing for code. There's no weakness implied by using it.
I would surmise that anyone not using lint is either writing something trivial, or is unwilling to find out that their code is imperfect.
If you are in a public space, people can take your picture, and even publish it. C.f. gossip magazines. So, yes, if you want to ensure your face is never in someone's photo, you will need to wear a bag over your head, or stay in your house.... note that a bag on one's head is much more attention-drawing.;)
Better yet, put it on someone else's car (or in a trash bin) at the local mall. Trash is better: "I Saw some kids screwing with my car, and noticed something attached to my car. So, I threw it away."
BEFORE undertaking such a thing (or anything where others might question the legality). Then you can make an informed decision to be civilly disobedient, if it is indeed illegal.
... And, if he's doing a guided install, will it preserve all of his old data, migrate his Outlook mailbox to Thunderbird or Evolution, or salvage his ITunes playlists for Amarok (or the like) to play? Those were the reasons I put my dad back on XP, despite having a very smooth Linux installation.
You know, if I were faced (literally) with the prospect of being seriously injured with a jagged piece of wood, in an atmosphere where I could indeed be overpowered (and had just been), I don't think it's unreasonable to be fearful. "Are they joking or are they psychotic?" would be my thought process, and in a situation like that, I think it's prudent not to call their bluff.
I didn't know you could link directly to sub-portions of a youtube video. Thanks! (I was going to mod you informative, but hopefully someone else will now.)
For any mainstream game, the answer is either "$50-$60" (if you buy it) or "free" if you download it. Everyone knows this, so there's little to be gained from asking. The exceptions are things like Portal or other cheap-but-awesome games, or when something can be found for $5 in a bargain bin.
It's obscure enough that most of us have never heard of it. Many of us have memory neurons twitch at "Napster vs..." and the like, but it could very easily be that the judge has never heard of the paper.
(You could consider filing an amicus curiae sharing the paper and why it's important, though.. not that I think it would help.)
Having a gun at home optimizes for the uncommon risk; the rest of the time (which will more likely be all of the time), you have to bear the risks of having a gun in the home..... The problem is that all of these "defend my family and home from an attacker" scenarios used to justify gun ownership systematically assume the best circumstances to justify gun ownership. They assume [stuff]. It's fantasy self-defense.
I don't think it is a fantasy. Yes, it's far from perfect, and DOES have inherent risks. However, there is a set of situations where having an available weapon can keep you safe, but not having one will not.
If I am not home when the home is burglarized, I don't need a weapon. If people are stealing my stuff, I don't need a weapon. If someone invades my house with the intent to harm me or my family, though, I do need a weapon.
If you are unarmed when faced with hostiles, your only options are flight or surrender. In a home invasion, flight may be challenging (though, you should have multiple exits planned for fire safety reasons!). In the [i]very rare[/i] situation when flight is impractical, your choices are between being a soft unarmed target or being a threatening target. There's always a chance that you don't have the weapon nearby, but then you are no worse off than being unarmed. Having a weapon available is an asset when you NEED it, and can actually GET it. Those situations can and do happen, though.
Your other points all talk about the risks of gun ownership. Responsible gun owners take measures to reduce or eliminate those risks. Irresponsible owners deserve the trouble that they reap. (For what it's worth, I do not own a firearm. However, I fully believe in the value of a lethal defense option for personal and familial safety.)
Exactly. How is this different from citizens ofthe area forming a nonprofit organization for providing internet service? The prices would likely be much lower than TWC (or other providers), as they are not after making a profit, but providing better service.
The Mona Lisa? Seriously? Another idiotic analogy. Let's take a painting that is hundreds of years old, to which no one has copyrights, and compare it with the distribution of music and games and software and books for which people do have copyrights, which are much more recent (i.e., things tend to get entered into the public domain only after they age for long time), which still have people alive who depend on the money generated, most of which cannot be called a work of art in the same way the Mona Lisa have, which have no historical significance like the Mona Lisa has.... and then lets equate the two.
Absolutely compare it to copying of the Mona Lisa.
When the Mona Lisa was first painted, the artist was still dependent on creation of works (funded by patrons). Even if he were not, it was considered part of any true artist's training to go copy the works of Masters. This was considered acceptible, and part of "culture". Other artists could copy his works for other monarchs or patrons, but the art would still get created. The fact that it is historically significant has little bearing on whether it's copyable.
It might be illegal to infringe copyrights, but given the absurd lengths of copyright now, I'm hard pressed to call it unethical. Art will always be created. Ideally, we want Good Artists to be rewarded.. even patronized by the public which consumes them.
Filesharing might hurt the re-sell market of blockbuster movies, or highly-produced music. The genie is out, though, and the producers of music/movies need to adapt their business model. It might involve ensuring that theater experiences are Awesome, or it might involve producing less crap. The artistic value of movies (as a whole) is not usually in the CGI or special effects, but in the story that is being told, and the acting that is done. A century from now, we will likely have media which makes the viewer feel in the scene, and stimulates many senses. Hamlet will still be Hamlet, Star Wars will still be a story of redemption, and Gone with the Wind will still affect people, even if their shininess is gone. So, perhaps spending 2/3 of one's budget on special effects (or salaries...) is too much?
Why do movies cost so much? Actors' salaries, and lots of special effects or postprocessing, primarily. Why do actors have such high salaries? Because people are willing to pay it. Why do studios pay them? Because they make $$$ on ticket and DVD sales.
If people reduce their discretionary spending, I predict that movie sales will go down, and salaries will adjust based on that. Big name actors may consider it Too Little money... but if the movie budget is smaller, it just means they can start finding OTHER good actors as well. I doubt that a $10M actor is significantly better than some $1M actors.
I find my productivity improves when I sit down at my workstation and have everything already open and ready to use: My code editor, my code runtime, any models, spreadsheets, and reference resources that I have open. Normally, I would just Hibernate at the end of the day, and restart in the morning.
However, a key portion of my work environment requires a license from a license server; if I am offline, I lose the license, and nearly everything I have been working on dies irretrievably. If it took me only 5 minutes to get situated in the morning, that's 25 hours of my time wasted setting up my work environment over the course of a year. 25 hours of most professionals' salaries (at places that are large enough that computed power is a notable expense) is more than the savings in power.
Then there's the extra issue that I can't remotely access my machine on the weekend or some morning if necessary... but the main one for me is keeping my work environment set up.
I was under the impression that the Long Now's clock is intended to be a lasting monument, so durability and minimized maintenanced needs are likley a core design requirement -- in addition to technical accuracy.
Now, if you DID lock them in, and then proceeded to finish one's several-week journey... well, I hope they brought food and water with them. It'd be like Survivor, in some dingy corridors, with rifles and angry pirates.
What was wrong with the opening scene to Saving Private Ryan?
For any who haven't seen the movie, a Spoiler Warning.
By "opening scene" I am referring to the beach assault scene. Multiple people got absolutely obliterated, and it was immediately clear that this was not going to be a film where they would cut away at the last second and only have implied gore. The combat scene went on for what seemed like 20 minutes (though it may have been closer to 10). It was too much for me to watch. I am pretty squeamish. I don't enjoy seeing people get shot with large caliber rounds, watching heads, arms, and legs splatter all over. I pretty much shaded my eyes and glimpsed up when I hoped I would not be seeing more exploding heads.
Now, this wasn't bad. It was something I didn't enjoy, but having a semi-accurate depiction of what horrors those soldiers faced did (I think) more justice to it than many other movies or accounts have. We who weren't there or haven't seen combat have no clue how gruesome it can be. Another exceedingly memorable scene was when they had patched the one guy up with morphine, while watching blood just pulsate out of the hole in his chest, knowing that he would never make it, but trying to ease his passing. What a horrible prospect.
The movie was excellent -- it just had parts that I disliked watching. Intellectually, they were excellent, necessary, and central (IMO) to the themes of the movie. However, emotionally, they made me want to curl up in a tiny ball and pray and pray and pray that I would never be in combat.
Rainbow Six did this. The effect was, if you got shot, you re-started and tried again. It could be very frustrating when you are clearing the final room of terrorists, and get shot... or worse, kill the terrorists but a hostage panics and runs in the line of fire. (That's still one of my most memorable "Nooooo!" moments from a game.)
We want games to get better recognition as an art form, as a narrative form, or something of other social value. Covering contemporary issues (not just Vietnam or Antietam or WWII) is, in my opinion, a GOOD thing. We already have games like Call of Duty ("modern warfare": a very current theme to the game) which have good narratives, which seem like they could be pulled from either a Tom Clancy novel or from the news. (And yes, there's the R6 series which *is* from Clancy.)
The soldiers' perspective, whether told in the form of unsanctioned Youtube postings, blogs, memoirs, embedded reporters, or a video game, is important. We all say "OMG the horror!" when talking about war, but few of us know the horror. We need things that portray the brutality of war, in a way which is unsettling for the viewer. Saving Private Ryan's incredibly graphic opening was almost un-watchable, for me, and yet I consider that movie one of the best war films I've seen, for that very reason (among many others).
We need video games that transcend the "Yay let's kill some nazis/terrorists/aliens!" theme, and portray also the sense of loss, uncertainty, or hard moral choices that can come with war. So, you might spend one "mission" being ambushed in the streets, or calling for a mortar strike on the roof of the building teeming with terrorists. The next, you would need to go clear the mosque or apartment building that they were at, and deal with the civilian casualties.
The hard part is making a game which tells a story well, and conveys the emotions or messages that these soldiers want, while also making it Not Suck -- otherwise few will play it.
Either way you're getting screwed without the niceties of being handed a cigarette.
I never quite understood that. "Now that we've screwed you, how about some lung cancer too!" I guess the idea of cigarettes with sex comes from when smoking was considered Awesome.
What is it with DVD ripping software anyway, the vast majority of it assumes people are frigging experts at bit rates, codecs, containers, video formats, audio formats, and on and on.
Many immature or domain-specific software tools assume that the user is an expert within that domain. Many engineering or technical analysis codes assume this. We tend in this direction because:
- The author is a domain expert, and wants optimal flexibility - The author(s) are interested in making sure it is technically correct. Being user-friendly can come at a later version. - The software, when it is young, might be only used by domain experts, and they often ask for the myriad options. - The authors may not have had funding to continue making it Nice to use, when their initial contract was just to demonstrate capability.
When the user pool expands, the expertise of the pool tends to drop, and only as the software matures will the interface get improved (if ever) to make this more friendly to non-experts. Outside of volunteers, sometimes it's not easy to get follow-on funding to make something "easy to use".
Slashdot Mirror
If the information is damning enough that it would interest the feds, send it to them. Why waste the time of Data-Wikileaks-PublicDisclosure-FedsGetInvolved when you can cut out the intermediate steps? If the information itself can be used to identify the source, why does it matter if it is posted off-shore?
Ideally, I think you'd want to do both: Wikileaks as a fail-safe guarantee that it won't disappear, and contact the feds (or, more accurately, have your friends contact the feds). If they want it anonymous for witness-protection types of reasons, I imagine the Feds are much better at that than we are, short of the "STFU" principle. If there is whistle-blowing that needs to go on, it CAN be done anonymously and still be given to the feds. Heck, post it to Wikileaks and then notify the feds, if necessary. Clearly, someone things enough shady is going on that there'll be an investigation anyways.
Lint doesn't fix the problems, just helps you find problems you have overlooked. It's like an editor or proofreader. No professional author is expected to be perfect, they have people whose job it is to proof writings to ensure they are correct -- Lint does the same thing for code. There's no weakness implied by using it.
I would surmise that anyone not using lint is either writing something trivial, or is unwilling to find out that their code is imperfect.
It's rare that I see something start out as interesting and insightful, and then transition into spiteful vitriol that I wish I'd never read.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQ-jv8g1YVI
There ya go!
If you are in a public space, people can take your picture, and even publish it. C.f. gossip magazines. So, yes, if you want to ensure your face is never in someone's photo, you will need to wear a bag over your head, or stay in your house. ... note that a bag on one's head is much more attention-drawing. ;)
Better yet, put it on someone else's car (or in a trash bin) at the local mall. Trash is better: "I Saw some kids screwing with my car, and noticed something attached to my car. So, I threw it away."
BEFORE undertaking such a thing (or anything where others might question the legality). Then you can make an informed decision to be civilly disobedient, if it is indeed illegal.
... And, if he's doing a guided install, will it preserve all of his old data, migrate his Outlook mailbox to Thunderbird or Evolution, or salvage his ITunes playlists for Amarok (or the like) to play? Those were the reasons I put my dad back on XP, despite having a very smooth Linux installation.
You know, if I were faced (literally) with the prospect of being seriously injured with a jagged piece of wood, in an atmosphere where I could indeed be overpowered (and had just been), I don't think it's unreasonable to be fearful. "Are they joking or are they psychotic?" would be my thought process, and in a situation like that, I think it's prudent not to call their bluff.
I didn't know you could link directly to sub-portions of a youtube video. Thanks! (I was going to mod you informative, but hopefully someone else will now.)
For any mainstream game, the answer is either "$50-$60" (if you buy it) or "free" if you download it. Everyone knows this, so there's little to be gained from asking. The exceptions are things like Portal or other cheap-but-awesome games, or when something can be found for $5 in a bargain bin.
It's obscure enough that most of us have never heard of it. Many of us have memory neurons twitch at "Napster vs ..." and the like, but it could very easily be that the judge has never heard of the paper.
(You could consider filing an amicus curiae sharing the paper and why it's important, though.. not that I think it would help.)
The hard part isn't WoW, it's Ventrilo. Much has been fixed, though, since I last looked into this.
I don't think it is a fantasy. Yes, it's far from perfect, and DOES have inherent risks. However, there is a set of situations where having an available weapon can keep you safe, but not having one will not.
If I am not home when the home is burglarized, I don't need a weapon.
If people are stealing my stuff, I don't need a weapon.
If someone invades my house with the intent to harm me or my family, though, I do need a weapon.
If you are unarmed when faced with hostiles, your only options are flight or surrender. In a home invasion, flight may be challenging (though, you should have multiple exits planned for fire safety reasons!). In the [i]very rare[/i] situation when flight is impractical, your choices are between being a soft unarmed target or being a threatening target. There's always a chance that you don't have the weapon nearby, but then you are no worse off than being unarmed. Having a weapon available is an asset when you NEED it, and can actually GET it. Those situations can and do happen, though.
Your other points all talk about the risks of gun ownership. Responsible gun owners take measures to reduce or eliminate those risks. Irresponsible owners deserve the trouble that they reap. (For what it's worth, I do not own a firearm. However, I fully believe in the value of a lethal defense option for personal and familial safety.)
Exactly. How is this different from citizens ofthe area forming a nonprofit organization for providing internet service? The prices would likely be much lower than TWC (or other providers), as they are not after making a profit, but providing better service.
Absolutely compare it to copying of the Mona Lisa.
When the Mona Lisa was first painted, the artist was still dependent on creation of works (funded by patrons). Even if he were not, it was considered part of any true artist's training to go copy the works of Masters. This was considered acceptible, and part of "culture". Other artists could copy his works for other monarchs or patrons, but the art would still get created. The fact that it is historically significant has little bearing on whether it's copyable.
It might be illegal to infringe copyrights, but given the absurd lengths of copyright now, I'm hard pressed to call it unethical. Art will always be created. Ideally, we want Good Artists to be rewarded .. even patronized by the public which consumes them.
Filesharing might hurt the re-sell market of blockbuster movies, or highly-produced music. The genie is out, though, and the producers of music/movies need to adapt their business model. It might involve ensuring that theater experiences are Awesome, or it might involve producing less crap. The artistic value of movies (as a whole) is not usually in the CGI or special effects, but in the story that is being told, and the acting that is done. A century from now, we will likely have media which makes the viewer feel in the scene, and stimulates many senses. Hamlet will still be Hamlet, Star Wars will still be a story of redemption, and Gone with the Wind will still affect people, even if their shininess is gone. So, perhaps spending 2/3 of one's budget on special effects (or salaries ...) is too much?
Why do movies cost so much? Actors' salaries, and lots of special effects or postprocessing, primarily.
Why do actors have such high salaries? Because people are willing to pay it.
Why do studios pay them? Because they make $$$ on ticket and DVD sales.
If people reduce their discretionary spending, I predict that movie sales will go down, and salaries will adjust based on that. Big name actors may consider it Too Little money ... but if the movie budget is smaller, it just means they can start finding OTHER good actors as well. I doubt that a $10M actor is significantly better than some $1M actors.
I find my productivity improves when I sit down at my workstation and have everything already open and ready to use: My code editor, my code runtime, any models, spreadsheets, and reference resources that I have open. Normally, I would just Hibernate at the end of the day, and restart in the morning.
However, a key portion of my work environment requires a license from a license server; if I am offline, I lose the license, and nearly everything I have been working on dies irretrievably. If it took me only 5 minutes to get situated in the morning, that's 25 hours of my time wasted setting up my work environment over the course of a year. 25 hours of most professionals' salaries (at places that are large enough that computed power is a notable expense) is more than the savings in power.
Then there's the extra issue that I can't remotely access my machine on the weekend or some morning if necessary... but the main one for me is keeping my work environment set up.
I was under the impression that the Long Now's clock is intended to be a lasting monument, so durability and minimized maintenanced needs are likley a core design requirement -- in addition to technical accuracy.
Unfortunately, it would be pretty illegal.
Now, if you DID lock them in, and then proceeded to finish one's several-week journey... well, I hope they brought food and water with them. It'd be like Survivor, in some dingy corridors, with rifles and angry pirates.
For any who haven't seen the movie, a Spoiler Warning.
By "opening scene" I am referring to the beach assault scene. Multiple people got absolutely obliterated, and it was immediately clear that this was not going to be a film where they would cut away at the last second and only have implied gore. The combat scene went on for what seemed like 20 minutes (though it may have been closer to 10). It was too much for me to watch. I am pretty squeamish. I don't enjoy seeing people get shot with large caliber rounds, watching heads, arms, and legs splatter all over. I pretty much shaded my eyes and glimpsed up when I hoped I would not be seeing more exploding heads.
Now, this wasn't bad. It was something I didn't enjoy, but having a semi-accurate depiction of what horrors those soldiers faced did (I think) more justice to it than many other movies or accounts have. We who weren't there or haven't seen combat have no clue how gruesome it can be. Another exceedingly memorable scene was when they had patched the one guy up with morphine, while watching blood just pulsate out of the hole in his chest, knowing that he would never make it, but trying to ease his passing. What a horrible prospect.
The movie was excellent -- it just had parts that I disliked watching. Intellectually, they were excellent, necessary, and central (IMO) to the themes of the movie. However, emotionally, they made me want to curl up in a tiny ball and pray and pray and pray that I would never be in combat.
Rainbow Six did this. The effect was, if you got shot, you re-started and tried again. It could be very frustrating when you are clearing the final room of terrorists, and get shot ... or worse, kill the terrorists but a hostage panics and runs in the line of fire. (That's still one of my most memorable "Nooooo!" moments from a game.)
We want games to get better recognition as an art form, as a narrative form, or something of other social value. Covering contemporary issues (not just Vietnam or Antietam or WWII) is, in my opinion, a GOOD thing. We already have games like Call of Duty ("modern warfare": a very current theme to the game) which have good narratives, which seem like they could be pulled from either a Tom Clancy novel or from the news. (And yes, there's the R6 series which *is* from Clancy.)
The soldiers' perspective, whether told in the form of unsanctioned Youtube postings, blogs, memoirs, embedded reporters, or a video game, is important. We all say "OMG the horror!" when talking about war, but few of us know the horror. We need things that portray the brutality of war, in a way which is unsettling for the viewer. Saving Private Ryan's incredibly graphic opening was almost un-watchable, for me, and yet I consider that movie one of the best war films I've seen, for that very reason (among many others).
We need video games that transcend the "Yay let's kill some nazis/terrorists/aliens!" theme, and portray also the sense of loss, uncertainty, or hard moral choices that can come with war. So, you might spend one "mission" being ambushed in the streets, or calling for a mortar strike on the roof of the building teeming with terrorists. The next, you would need to go clear the mosque or apartment building that they were at, and deal with the civilian casualties.
The hard part is making a game which tells a story well, and conveys the emotions or messages that these soldiers want, while also making it Not Suck -- otherwise few will play it.
We fight "wars", but not against anyone we think has hydrogen to helium conversion devices. (I love the name, btw.)
I never quite understood that. "Now that we've screwed you, how about some lung cancer too!" I guess the idea of cigarettes with sex comes from when smoking was considered Awesome.
Many immature or domain-specific software tools assume that the user is an expert within that domain. Many engineering or technical analysis codes assume this. We tend in this direction because:
- The author is a domain expert, and wants optimal flexibility
- The author(s) are interested in making sure it is technically correct. Being user-friendly can come at a later version.
- The software, when it is young, might be only used by domain experts, and they often ask for the myriad options.
- The authors may not have had funding to continue making it Nice to use, when their initial contract was just to demonstrate capability.
When the user pool expands, the expertise of the pool tends to drop, and only as the software matures will the interface get improved (if ever) to make this more friendly to non-experts. Outside of volunteers, sometimes it's not easy to get follow-on funding to make something "easy to use".