If they win, it will have an interesting side effect. All communications carried by Verizon could potentially be claimed by them as their property to dispose of as they wish. They could sell the content of your text messages or emails, or a list of who and by whom you are called.
I wonder if that would affect their status as a common carrier...?
I was under the impression that comment moderation was supposed to be based on the ideas presented (in this case, that the representations may have been inspired by things like singing bowls), rather than the circumstances leading to such an insight.:)
Yes. However, if you're on the inside of the damage, that doesn't help you much. The rest of the world can go on uninterrupted, but China's citizens are getting a very different view.
You're right, it was a poor example to say bank vs police station. However, there are arguably similar amounts of cash at a convenience store and The Restaurant The Cops Hang Out At, and only the dumb criminals would rob the latter.
re: Reservoir Dogs:
I didn't mean to imply it was meant as a Serious Research Resource -- sorry that it came off that way.:) However, it does give a hypothetical example of how Bad Shit can Happen to criminals when the victim is armed. My point was that when you think that a significant portion of the populace are also armed, you're less likely to make a nuisance of yourself (assuming you're rational... whether criminals can be considered rational is debatable;)).
Say there's a 5% chance that any given person is going to have a concealed carry permit. (This number is pulled out of nowhere, as I had trouble finding statistics on the total number of CC-permitted people there are in states which allow it.) That means that for any given number of people (N), there's 0.95^N chance that NO ONE is armed. For 5 people, this would would out to a little over 77%. As an armed, rational criminal, would you threaten the lives of more than 5 people, knowing that you have a noticeable chance that someone may have a weapon?
Let's look a little closer to the example at hand. Let's imagine that perhaps 2% of the population at Virginia Tech took place had concealed-carry handguns, permitted by school policy and the requisite laws. In a classroom of 30 people, there's a 54% chance that there isn't at least one armed person. If the proportion of the population which carried were 3%, or 4%, then the likelihood that at least one person in a room of 30 is armed rises to 60% and ~70%, respectively.
I guess my general arguments were: - rational criminals are risk-averse - irrational criminals are undeterred by risk, and seem to be only preventable via force. - large-scale killings by whack-jobs could potentially have a more-than-even chance that at least one potential victim would be carrying a means to defend themselves, were concealed-carry more acceptable and widespread.
That's a lot of hypotheticals, but it seems that the probability makes a decent argument.
Sure, the thug could pull a gun and kill you, but you have the ability to do the same. In this country even someones grandmother could be carrying a handgun in the big purse. She might even know how to use it. Firearms do put power in the hands of weaker people that they wouldn't have otherwise. Take a big guy who discovers he can get what he wants through force, now give the victim a firearm, big dude is less dangerous.
Predators go after WEAK PREY. Most criminals who might threaten others with violence tend to prefer targets that offer less risk to them. This is why people rob banks and not police stations, and mug old ladies more than bodybuilders, etc.
Anyone that has seen "Reservoir Dogs" will understand that even an unskilled person with a weapon can be a serious threat to a criminal's welfare. If people know that they have a 1 in 5 chance that the person they're accosting will be armed, and can either wound or kill them, rational criminals will either ratchet up the level of force (kill first, then steal), or will be more careful about their targets. Irrational criminals (such as anyone IMO nuts enough to go on a killing spree) will likely be undeterred by this (though they may take different precautions).
The thing is, an armed populace ensures that people KNOW that others can hold them responsible for actions (in an ultimate sense). As a potential victim, whether you're armed makes little difference in the attacker's actions (since they don't know you are armed), whereas YOUR personal chances are greatly improved by being armed (and competent w/ the weapon).
From an informal game theory perspective, the attacker will face the least risk by assuming all victims will be armed. Victims will face less risk by BEING armed, in that they have a chance to neutralize or deter an attacker (whether solely or by numbers).
You might have the occasional cluster-bomb of death when a room full of panicked people pull guns and no one knows who to shoot... but I am optimistic that this would be rare, as most humans seem able to quickly assess who is a potential co-victim with them.
You may have a right to LEAVE, but the trouble is (at least according to the GP) that your desired destinations may refuse you, thus leaving you less places to GO.
I agree. I find the Harry Potter books to be very enjoyable to read (even if I haven't re-read them;)). They aren't The Pinnacle of Fiction, but they WERE very entertaining. I had fun following the story, with its surprises and general soap-opera-feel. If I were a literature geek (like my wife;)), I would likely recognize more general themes and cliches, and maybe even criticise it for that. But, let's face it. I like Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, and pretty much any story involving magic, technology, technology and magic, or even just stories of A Geeky Kid who Makes Good.:D All of these reasons are why I love the Harry Potter series.
Release the code somewhere in public, maybe signed with a private key that you have stashed away (so, decades down the line, you'd be able to claim it, if you wanted to and if the statute of limitations had run out), and only communicate via Usenet dead-drops and anonymous remailers. The tools to remain completely hidden are all there -- heck, you could probably do interviews in Wired under a psuedonym, the only absolute would be keeping the Clark-Kent-esque secret of your true identity hidden, and I'm not sure if some people would be able to swallow their pride enough to do that.
The thing is, this is really difficult to do. He may have realized that he (like me) is insufficiently paranoid to remain eternally vigilant enough. The risk of accidentally including some identifying tidbits is too high for me to risk releasing something like this, if I ever came up with such a feat of coding. Code itself (style of naming variables, commenting preferences, whitespace preferences), information about what university (perhaps) or general geographic location, etc, might be hard to avoid. If he ever wants to defend the code, update it, or explain why it works, he'd have to be anonymous in THAT endeavor as well.
Once you release information to the Internet, you have to be sure that there is never any way to tie it back to you. If you're not willing to do that (or unable, whatever), then you don't risk it. In my opinion, that's a very viable choice.
If anything, make a notarized version of one's code that DOES do it, and put it under lock and key. That way, when J Random Hacker from Elbonia releases a hack, and the lawyers come after you (since you said you'd cracked it), you can point out that that released hack wasn't yours. (Tho, maybe you can't prove it that way, now that I think of it... and, perhaps having the notarized hard copy could be used as evidence that you HAD broken it... which is jsut the sticky situation he wants to avoid. D'oh.)
Agreed, to an extent. I imagine that any model from the past 5 or 6 years is more than adequate.
I had a TI-81 in high school, and then upgraded to a TI-85 in my senior year (or maybe it was freshman year in college?). Both were more than adequate for my calculus and phsyics courses. The newer calculators have better interfaces (overall, IMO), and more functions, etc... but I can't think of anything essential to a lower-division course that you couldn't use the -85 for. The advances really seemed to show in the number of functions, and ease of scripting it.
One advantage of a relatively common calculator is that others can help you -- I met one or two people with HPs who didn't know how to use them, and I couldnt answer a single one of their "how do I...?" questions. (But, once you DO learn the RPN calculators... I hear they're superior.:))
If you're in high school, your school may have a program that recommends or teaches to a specifica calculator. (Mine did.. and I bought a diff model, heh.) If you don't get that model, be ready to read your manual and experiment to try and get similar functionality.
In my college, they didn't let us use calculators in ANY of my math classes - though most of the science classes did. So... beware that you can't always use it as a crutch.;)
Don't buy a calculator based on the colored-ness of the screen, or whatnot. See if you can USE one (e.g., if you have friends willing to loan theirs), and get a feel for the UI. (e.g., how do you multiply matrices, or graph functions, or write your own programs?).
Current camera phones have the same quality as CCTV cameras did 10 years ago. I'm sorry (and will probably get modded down as a troll) this is one invention I could certainly do without.
It depends on what you choose to use it for. I generally don't use my phone to take photos of important things -- and yet, the best photos I have of my cats are on my phone. They're GREAT for impromptu shots, even if the quality is completely crappy.
I find that I use my phone most when I am at the bookstore -- taking pictures of books that look interesting so that I can look them up later, or prioritize them for when I feel they are within my means. For that, it's really handy.
Hierarchies are a horrible way to manage data, because no one "category" is always a subset of another. Pick the more general term here:
Pictures 2006 Christmas Trip
I've had significant trouble creating heirarchical filesystems for storage of my media which remain useable and flexible enough to last several years. Inevitably, I start saying, "where was that document I wrote for that one software project for that one class....?" Is it in.../code/Foo, or in.../university/Class_Bar/Foo, or in.../documents/Foo? It's because of this that I stopped organizing by file type (e.g.,/data/mp3 became/data/music, once I started using FLAC and Ogg in addition to mp3), and began organizing by... something different (which I dont even know now).
For example, I have digital photo albums for several things.
Family. Weddings -- my wedding, family weddings, friends' weddings. Vacations -- one of which was my honeymoon.
My dad has an even larger set of photos -- some organized by which child he was visiting (or they are pictures of), some by "$state trip $year", others by work project... others by what location is the subject. Anytime we go looking for pictures, we have to remember which single category we thought was most important.
I look forward to being able to have my filesystem be labelled (or tagged? hehe) in such a way that I can access my information (or place it) with several different ways of searching, automagically -- i.e., without creating a mess of symbolic links all over creation to represent all the ways I COULD view them;)
If you didn't buy their music because it was DRM-infested, and they then give you an alternative, which you STILL don't take... what will convince them that it's any more viable than the failed DRM?
If they see both as losers, they will either not sell music online, or go back to DRM.
It seems to me that a better idea would be to BUY music which isn't DRM-ed. (What a pity that I want it in a lossless encoding, though.)
A. If a friend offers you a copy of a game or a software package, is it legal to accept it? B. When is it legal to download music from the Internet and when is it illegal? C. Why do Copyright laws exist?
I think it's a good thing that these questions are being asked. A large part of my experience in the Scouts involved discussing ethical decisions, learning what the legal way to do things were, etc. (E.g., the legal liabilities one might bring upon oneself if attempting CPR.) It's as much about being an educated and conscientious citizen as anything.
these questions give a Scout an option to spout the "party line", true -- but remember that their peers and advisors may be as geeky as we are. Scouts will also have the option to (and may be encouraged by advisors to seek out): - learn what IS legal, so that they may choose to do that - understand the controversies, so that they may understand why not everyone does it - learn about copyright, what it is intended for, and how it's currently being used as a cudgel by bug media.
I imagine that it would be very healthy to ask candidates for the merit badge about "edge cases" -- things where "No copies!" isn't always the answer. E.g., free/open source software, or ask them about what the doctrine of first sale means.
- is it legal to give (or sell) someone YOUR copy of a CD/DVD (and some would say software)? [yes] - is it legal to give (or sell) a COPY of your copy if a copyrighted work? Usually not, unless it's distributed under creative commons, GPL, or has a licensing agreement that allows further distribution.
Scouting, ostensibly, teaches one to be obedient, etc - but more than anything, it is an opportunity to teach one to THINK about issues, and make good decisions.
I agree. Artificial, "permanent" identification means aresomethign that will VERY QUICKLY be copied and used by anyone needing a faked ID. The general populace will never suspect that that guy with the Joe DoGooder ID-tattoo bought it on the black market, and actually is a terrorist.
The more and more I read things like this, the more I need to re-read the Diamond Age.
Excellent point. Rainbow Six is one of the games which I most like, in terms of immersion. (well, the series.;)) It has an amazing balance between the value placed on hostage lives (do NOT let them die!), but still isa great combat shooter.
In Half-Life, you can shoot scientists, and nothing happens. There's no accountability if you kill friendlies (if they even allow it). In Rainbow Six, it's possible to do -- but there are consequences (failed mission) for killing teammates or hostages. One of my MOST VIVID gaming memories, ever, is of failing a mission because a hostage ran between me and the terrorist as I was shooting him. A "Khaaaaaan!" moment if there ever was one.
I would LOVE to play Rainbow Six campaign scenarios which were based on historical incidents. Even if it were a "Kobayashi Maru" sort of run where the odds are stacked against you (and perhaps even impossible, for it to be truly KM-like). Kudos to any developer or fan that makes one that is any good.:)
What seems interesting about this game, is that it allows you to CHOOSE take (virtual) actions which many would consider are reprehensible. Even more interesting (to me at least) is that several players have reported that.. they just can't do it. I don't think I would derive any joy from it. I think this, in itself, makes it an interesting game -- that many people just cannot bring themselves to play it. Similar to how I don't want to watch a movie about the WTC, or flight 93 (did I get that right?), or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- it certainly doesn't appeal to my tastes. On the other hand, I don't feel that they should be banned, pulled, or considered Not Art.
if you (like me) are too selfish to be like these true patriots - soldiers, cops, firemen, etc.. - and put our lives on the line for the sake of others, perhaps our patriot duty, when we have nothing helpful to say, is not to continually carp and complain, but rather to STFU.
I disagree. A patriot is someone who acts with the best interest of their nation and fellow countrymen at heart. Notice that I said "best interest", not "agrees with the actions of". If one's nation is doing something reprehensible, which history will recognize (or should) as terrible, isn't it our duty to speak in protest of (or act to prevent) such actions? If so, then doing that is certainly patriotic. (Even if unpopular.)
This will step dangerously close to Godwin's Law, but -- as an example (because I'm too lazy to think of a better one;)), if one lived during pre-WWII Germany, and felt that the government's actions were wrong, I believe it would have been patriotic (though suicidal) to voice objection.
Those that we recognize as "patriots" take risks. Often it's risking of life, but so is being the guy that prints leaflets, or hosts town meetings, etc. I don't feel I am in a position to judge who is and isn't a Patriot, but I certainly feel it is more inclusive than the subset you indicated. Remember that many of the patiors we revere were doing things that were considered subversive: - objecting, publically, to the policies of the Crown (e.g., boarding of soldiers in peoples' homes, or taxation) - planning and implementing a revolution.
From England's perspectives, these were NOT patriots, but rather were subversive revolutionaries. What's really interesting from this is that it seems like the property of whether someone is a patriot or not depends entirely on the perspective of who is judging. Are they working to protect what you perceive as your nation, as your way of life? Yes? Then they're a patriot. The opposite side of the fence will see them as detrimental to progress, as criminals, as enemies of the state, as terrorists, depending on how they act.
How does this tie back to political bloggers? Many of us feel that the actions of our nation's government (in general -- not to single out any particular branch) are going in a direction which we feel will harm us as a society. Some of us object to conflict in the middle east, some of us object to the seeming implicit embrace of DRM and the apparent kow-towing to Big Media in the creation of laws related to copyright, intellectual property, etc. I feel that someone working for change in these areas can justifiably be considered (from the perspective of those who share their goals) a patriot to some degree.
Many conservatives feel that conservative bloggers, lobbyists, and lawmakers are working for a Better Way of American Life, or to strengthen our position in the international community. They would undoubtedly consider these people to be patriotic.
Many liberals (which, yes, Slashdot seems to have many of) feel the opposite; the liberal bloggers, lobbyists, and politicians (are there any?) who are working towards copyright and IP law reform are working with the best interests of american society, and that those that are opposing the conflict in the middle east are working to improve our standing in the international community, and thus will consider them patriotic.
Wiktionary says a patriot is someone who "A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country." Remember that country does not equal the actions of one's current government. Also remember that history seems to be written by the winners (or survivors), and that the difference between being lauded as a patriot and being tried for war crimes can hinge on who is conducting the proceedings. (e.g.: Kissinger is never going to leave the US.)
Shared Whiteboard: http://www.imaginationcubed.com/LaunchPage Talk to the guy: Skype / IM / regular telephone... Anything else? The internet has most likely got it covered! Face-to-face time is only really needed these days for those who get some sort of warm, fuzzy reassurance from it.
I've found that there seems to be a HUGE difference between using a mouse on a virtual whiteboard (where writing's a pain) just does not seem to compare to being in a room with other people, using a white-board on the wall. It's like the difference between a home movie of the Sistine Chapel, and actually being there. The ability to easily scribble random stuff, curves, etc, are all really nice. If we all had tablet PCs, using virtual whiteboards might be more handy.
Similarly, I've noticed that the meetings where the team is in the same room seem to be much more productive than the meetings that were only telecons. I still puzzle over why, because it doesn't seem logical. I don't telecommute, but I am the only programmer in a satellite office of our main facility. It definitely gets old having to drive all the way there for meetings, but it's even worse to be the only guy on the other end of a phone.
Interestingly, it seems to apply to general atmosphere, as well. Here, I can't walk over to another coder's desk and ask them about the latest technology X, or probe their thoughts on the viability of my solution to Y. I can IM them, or e-mail them, but then you don't get the peripheral attention of OTHER coders who might prarie-dog up and contribute. I have no tangible proof that this is useful, but I will say that it contributed greatly to my happiness as a programmer when I was there. The "small office" atmosphere where you can go talk shop with other developers is VERY nice, and something I sorely miss. The closest thing I think would be an IRC channel for developers, and I don't think management would smile upon that.;)
So, yes... I live far enough in BFE that I sometimes feel like I'd like to telecommute, at least some of the time. Having a kick-ass workstation helps prevent that, but the factor of having to speak to everyone through a tiny tube, one person at a time, is also a major reason I really would prefer to work in an office, at least most of the time.
Sometimes just because it's illegal doesn't make it immoral and just because it is legal it doesn't make it moral.
The whole thing is that it tells you that the government doesn't always run things through their own personal sanity checks.
Yes, they do sanity check things. The trouble is, an organization like a government (or a corporation, even) does not operate with the same moral concepts as individual humans. (Should they? Many think so - but the point is that they don't.) A government's view of the country is that in order to do their job better, they need more control. Nearly any power-vested entity has a similar outlook. (That sounds like a rant, I don't mean it to.)
Our moral outlook is that our privacy is important to us. A government's fear-based outlook is that our "private" lives could potentially hide threats to their wellbeing, or to "society" in general. A corporation's perspective is that the most important thing to do is Whatever Makes More Money for Shareholders. This is why "Don't get caught" seems to be more of a governing rule for many non-individuals.
To them, we are a statistic -- 1 of 298 million. If 1% of your constituents (or customers) gets royally screwed by the system, who cares? Mistakes, accidents, etc harm more than that, and besides -- how many of that group actually deserved such screwing?
As individuals, the potential screw-ees, we obviously care a lot more. We see the marginalization of rights, "security theater", and inconveniences which make our individual lives harder, with little noticeable increase in safety, satisfaction, or other intangibles which we value. We see how it impacts US.
For example: Whenever I walk into many stores (e.g., Best Buy, Fry's, Costco), there are security people (or even employees) monitoring the exits, assuming that I could be the next shoplifter. So, they want me to show receipts, walk through a detector, etc. Great - I am not having to prove that I'm not a thief, every time I leave a store. From their perspective, it reduces shoplifting by X%, and thereby reducing their losses and increasing profits -- it's hard to see the business sense in NOT doing it (especially when all your competitors are too).
Similarly, when we go to the airport, we're herded as cattle, and need to produce ID and other documentation at many stages, all because it's viewed as "making travel more secure". Honestly, I imagine it might... but most of us feel that it won't stop any determined attacker, and only makes the rest of us feel degraded. I'm reminded of the opening scenes of Half Life 2. (Hmm... I need to actually play that game sometime, instead of just the demo...;)) The government sees this as providing an increase in security for its citizens (or, more cynically, satisfying the constituents' cries to "protect" them from the bogeyman), and so forth.
So yes -- rest assured that many people have "sanity-checked" the practices and systems by which the government operates. They just are operating with different goals and values, so their sanity checks will return different values than yours or mine.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if that would affect their status as a common carrier
I was under the impression that comment moderation was supposed to be based on the ideas presented (in this case, that the representations may have been inspired by things like singing bowls), rather than the circumstances leading to such an insight. :)
Yes. However, if you're on the inside of the damage, that doesn't help you much. The rest of the world can go on uninterrupted, but China's citizens are getting a very different view.
You're right, it was a poor example to say bank vs police station. However, there are arguably similar amounts of cash at a convenience store and The Restaurant The Cops Hang Out At, and only the dumb criminals would rob the latter.
:) However, it does give a hypothetical example of how Bad Shit can Happen to criminals when the victim is armed. My point was that when you think that a significant portion of the populace are also armed, you're less likely to make a nuisance of yourself (assuming you're rational... whether criminals can be considered rational is debatable ;)).
re: Reservoir Dogs:
I didn't mean to imply it was meant as a Serious Research Resource -- sorry that it came off that way.
Say there's a 5% chance that any given person is going to have a concealed carry permit. (This number is pulled out of nowhere, as I had trouble finding statistics on the total number of CC-permitted people there are in states which allow it.) That means that for any given number of people (N), there's 0.95^N chance that NO ONE is armed. For 5 people, this would would out to a little over 77%. As an armed, rational criminal, would you threaten the lives of more than 5 people, knowing that you have a noticeable chance that someone may have a weapon?
Let's look a little closer to the example at hand. Let's imagine that perhaps 2% of the population at Virginia Tech took place had concealed-carry handguns, permitted by school policy and the requisite laws. In a classroom of 30 people, there's a 54% chance that there isn't at least one armed person. If the proportion of the population which carried were 3%, or 4%, then the likelihood that at least one person in a room of 30 is armed rises to 60% and ~70%, respectively.
I guess my general arguments were:
- rational criminals are risk-averse
- irrational criminals are undeterred by risk, and seem to be only preventable via force.
- large-scale killings by whack-jobs could potentially have a more-than-even chance that at least one potential victim would be carrying a means to defend themselves, were concealed-carry more acceptable and widespread.
That's a lot of hypotheticals, but it seems that the probability makes a decent argument.
Predators go after WEAK PREY. Most criminals who might threaten others with violence tend to prefer targets that offer less risk to them. This is why people rob banks and not police stations, and mug old ladies more than bodybuilders, etc.
Anyone that has seen "Reservoir Dogs" will understand that even an unskilled person with a weapon can be a serious threat to a criminal's welfare. If people know that they have a 1 in 5 chance that the person they're accosting will be armed, and can either wound or kill them, rational criminals will either ratchet up the level of force (kill first, then steal), or will be more careful about their targets. Irrational criminals (such as anyone IMO nuts enough to go on a killing spree) will likely be undeterred by this (though they may take different precautions).
The thing is, an armed populace ensures that people KNOW that others can hold them responsible for actions (in an ultimate sense). As a potential victim, whether you're armed makes little difference in the attacker's actions (since they don't know you are armed), whereas YOUR personal chances are greatly improved by being armed (and competent w/ the weapon).
From an informal game theory perspective, the attacker will face the least risk by assuming all victims will be armed. Victims will face less risk by BEING armed, in that they have a chance to neutralize or deter an attacker (whether solely or by numbers).
You might have the occasional cluster-bomb of death when a room full of panicked people pull guns and no one knows who to shoot
I'd always heard that FORTRAN came about through necromancy
You may have a right to LEAVE, but the trouble is (at least according to the GP) that your desired destinations may refuse you, thus leaving you less places to GO.
Now I know why my cats are always watching TV shows about travel to Europe...
I agree. I find the Harry Potter books to be very enjoyable to read (even if I haven't re-read them ;)). They aren't The Pinnacle of Fiction, but they WERE very entertaining. I had fun following the story, with its surprises and general soap-opera-feel. If I were a literature geek (like my wife ;)), I would likely recognize more general themes and cliches, and maybe even criticise it for that. But, let's face it. I like Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings, and pretty much any story involving magic, technology, technology and magic, or even just stories of A Geeky Kid who Makes Good. :D All of these reasons are why I love the Harry Potter series.
Once you release information to the Internet, you have to be sure that there is never any way to tie it back to you. If you're not willing to do that (or unable, whatever), then you don't risk it. In my opinion, that's a very viable choice.
If anything, make a notarized version of one's code that DOES do it, and put it under lock and key. That way, when J Random Hacker from Elbonia releases a hack, and the lawyers come after you (since you said you'd cracked it), you can point out that that released hack wasn't yours. (Tho, maybe you can't prove it that way, now that I think of it
Stupid DMCA.
Agreed, to an extent. I imagine that any model from the past 5 or 6 years is more than adequate.
... but I can't think of anything essential to a lower-division course that you couldn't use the -85 for. The advances really seemed to show in the number of functions, and ease of scripting it.
...?" questions. (But, once you DO learn the RPN calculators ... I hear they're superior. :))
.. and I bought a diff model, heh.) If you don't get that model, be ready to read your manual and experiment to try and get similar functionality.
... beware that you can't always use it as a crutch. ;)
I had a TI-81 in high school, and then upgraded to a TI-85 in my senior year (or maybe it was freshman year in college?). Both were more than adequate for my calculus and phsyics courses. The newer calculators have better interfaces (overall, IMO), and more functions, etc
One advantage of a relatively common calculator is that others can help you -- I met one or two people with HPs who didn't know how to use them, and I couldnt answer a single one of their "how do I
If you're in high school, your school may have a program that recommends or teaches to a specifica calculator. (Mine did
In my college, they didn't let us use calculators in ANY of my math classes - though most of the science classes did. So
Don't buy a calculator based on the colored-ness of the screen, or whatnot. See if you can USE one (e.g., if you have friends willing to loan theirs), and get a feel for the UI. (e.g., how do you multiply matrices, or graph functions, or write your own programs?).
Mmmn, I've been coveting SW:MGLERTLAoLM for a LONG time!
... ;)
Well, if it's a playable sequel to to the TIE or XvT series, that is
It depends on what you choose to use it for. I generally don't use my phone to take photos of important things -- and yet, the best photos I have of my cats are on my phone. They're GREAT for impromptu shots, even if the quality is completely crappy.
I find that I use my phone most when I am at the bookstore -- taking pictures of books that look interesting so that I can look them up later, or prioritize them for when I feel they are within my means. For that, it's really handy.
I've had significant trouble creating heirarchical filesystems for storage of my media which remain useable and flexible enough to last several years. Inevitably, I start saying, "where was that document I wrote for that one software project for that one class....?" Is it in
For example, I have digital photo albums for several things.
Family.
Weddings -- my wedding, family weddings, friends' weddings.
Vacations -- one of which was my honeymoon.
My dad has an even larger set of photos -- some organized by which child he was visiting (or they are pictures of), some by "$state trip $year", others by work project
I look forward to being able to have my filesystem be labelled (or tagged? hehe) in such a way that I can access my information (or place it) with several different ways of searching, automagically -- i.e., without creating a mess of symbolic links all over creation to represent all the ways I COULD view them
If you didn't buy their music because it was DRM-infested, and they then give you an alternative, which you STILL don't take ... what will convince them that it's any more viable than the failed DRM?
If they see both as losers, they will either not sell music online, or go back to DRM.
It seems to me that a better idea would be to BUY music which isn't DRM-ed. (What a pity that I want it in a lossless encoding, though.)
I think it's a good thing that these questions are being asked. A large part of my experience in the Scouts involved discussing ethical decisions, learning what the legal way to do things were, etc. (E.g., the legal liabilities one might bring upon oneself if attempting CPR.) It's as much about being an educated and conscientious citizen as anything.
these questions give a Scout an option to spout the "party line", true -- but remember that their peers and advisors may be as geeky as we are. Scouts will also have the option to (and may be encouraged by advisors to seek out):
- learn what IS legal, so that they may choose to do that
- understand the controversies, so that they may understand why not everyone does it
- learn about copyright, what it is intended for, and how it's currently being used as a cudgel by bug media.
I imagine that it would be very healthy to ask candidates for the merit badge about "edge cases" -- things where "No copies!" isn't always the answer. E.g., free/open source software, or ask them about what the doctrine of first sale means.
- is it legal to give (or sell) someone YOUR copy of a CD/DVD (and some would say software)? [yes]
- is it legal to give (or sell) a COPY of your copy if a copyrighted work? Usually not, unless it's distributed under creative commons, GPL, or has a licensing agreement that allows further distribution.
Scouting, ostensibly, teaches one to be obedient, etc - but more than anything, it is an opportunity to teach one to THINK about issues, and make good decisions.
I wish that the one-page version (when one exists) could be the one linked in the summary.
I agree. Artificial, "permanent" identification means aresomethign that will VERY QUICKLY be copied and used by anyone needing a faked ID. The general populace will never suspect that that guy with the Joe DoGooder ID-tattoo bought it on the black market, and actually is a terrorist.
The more and more I read things like this, the more I need to re-read the Diamond Age.
Excellent point. Rainbow Six is one of the games which I most like, in terms of immersion. (well, the series. ;)) It has an amazing balance between the value placed on hostage lives (do NOT let them die!), but still isa great combat shooter.
:)
.. they just can't do it. I don't think I would derive any joy from it. I think this, in itself, makes it an interesting game -- that many people just cannot bring themselves to play it. Similar to how I don't want to watch a movie about the WTC, or flight 93 (did I get that right?), or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- it certainly doesn't appeal to my tastes. On the other hand, I don't feel that they should be banned, pulled, or considered Not Art.
In Half-Life, you can shoot scientists, and nothing happens. There's no accountability if you kill friendlies (if they even allow it). In Rainbow Six, it's possible to do -- but there are consequences (failed mission) for killing teammates or hostages. One of my MOST VIVID gaming memories, ever, is of failing a mission because a hostage ran between me and the terrorist as I was shooting him. A "Khaaaaaan!" moment if there ever was one.
I would LOVE to play Rainbow Six campaign scenarios which were based on historical incidents. Even if it were a "Kobayashi Maru" sort of run where the odds are stacked against you (and perhaps even impossible, for it to be truly KM-like). Kudos to any developer or fan that makes one that is any good.
What seems interesting about this game, is that it allows you to CHOOSE take (virtual) actions which many would consider are reprehensible. Even more interesting (to me at least) is that several players have reported that
I disagree. A patriot is someone who acts with the best interest of their nation and fellow countrymen at heart. Notice that I said "best interest", not "agrees with the actions of". If one's nation is doing something reprehensible, which history will recognize (or should) as terrible, isn't it our duty to speak in protest of (or act to prevent) such actions? If so, then doing that is certainly patriotic. (Even if unpopular.)
This will step dangerously close to Godwin's Law, but -- as an example (because I'm too lazy to think of a better one
Those that we recognize as "patriots" take risks. Often it's risking of life, but so is being the guy that prints leaflets, or hosts town meetings, etc. I don't feel I am in a position to judge who is and isn't a Patriot, but I certainly feel it is more inclusive than the subset you indicated. Remember that many of the patiors we revere were doing things that were considered subversive:
- objecting, publically, to the policies of the Crown (e.g., boarding of soldiers in peoples' homes, or taxation)
- planning and implementing a revolution.
From England's perspectives, these were NOT patriots, but rather were subversive revolutionaries. What's really interesting from this is that it seems like the property of whether someone is a patriot or not depends entirely on the perspective of who is judging. Are they working to protect what you perceive as your nation, as your way of life? Yes? Then they're a patriot. The opposite side of the fence will see them as detrimental to progress, as criminals, as enemies of the state, as terrorists, depending on how they act.
How does this tie back to political bloggers? Many of us feel that the actions of our nation's government (in general -- not to single out any particular branch) are going in a direction which we feel will harm us as a society. Some of us object to conflict in the middle east, some of us object to the seeming implicit embrace of DRM and the apparent kow-towing to Big Media in the creation of laws related to copyright, intellectual property, etc. I feel that someone working for change in these areas can justifiably be considered (from the perspective of those who share their goals) a patriot to some degree.
Many conservatives feel that conservative bloggers, lobbyists, and lawmakers are working for a Better Way of American Life, or to strengthen our position in the international community. They would undoubtedly consider these people to be patriotic.
Many liberals (which, yes, Slashdot seems to have many of) feel the opposite; the liberal bloggers, lobbyists, and politicians (are there any?) who are working towards copyright and IP law reform are working with the best interests of american society, and that those that are opposing the conflict in the middle east are working to improve our standing in the international community, and thus will consider them patriotic.
Wiktionary says a patriot is someone who "A person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country." Remember that country does not equal the actions of one's current government. Also remember that history seems to be written by the winners (or survivors), and that the difference between being lauded as a patriot and being tried for war crimes can hinge on who is conducting the proceedings. (e.g.: Kissinger is never going to leave the US.)
I've found that there seems to be a HUGE difference between using a mouse on a virtual whiteboard (where writing's a pain) just does not seem to compare to being in a room with other people, using a white-board on the wall. It's like the difference between a home movie of the Sistine Chapel, and actually being there. The ability to easily scribble random stuff, curves, etc, are all really nice. If we all had tablet PCs, using virtual whiteboards might be more handy.
Similarly, I've noticed that the meetings where the team is in the same room seem to be much more productive than the meetings that were only telecons. I still puzzle over why, because it doesn't seem logical. I don't telecommute, but I am the only programmer in a satellite office of our main facility. It definitely gets old having to drive all the way there for meetings, but it's even worse to be the only guy on the other end of a phone.
Interestingly, it seems to apply to general atmosphere, as well. Here, I can't walk over to another coder's desk and ask them about the latest technology X, or probe their thoughts on the viability of my solution to Y. I can IM them, or e-mail them, but then you don't get the peripheral attention of OTHER coders who might prarie-dog up and contribute. I have no tangible proof that this is useful, but I will say that it contributed greatly to my happiness as a programmer when I was there. The "small office" atmosphere where you can go talk shop with other developers is VERY nice, and something I sorely miss. The closest thing I think would be an IRC channel for developers, and I don't think management would smile upon that.
So, yes... I live far enough in BFE that I sometimes feel like I'd like to telecommute, at least some of the time. Having a kick-ass workstation helps prevent that, but the factor of having to speak to everyone through a tiny tube, one person at a time, is also a major reason I really would prefer to work in an office, at least most of the time.
Yes, they do sanity check things. The trouble is, an organization like a government (or a corporation, even) does not operate with the same moral concepts as individual humans. (Should they? Many think so - but the point is that they don't.) A government's view of the country is that in order to do their job better, they need more control. Nearly any power-vested entity has a similar outlook. (That sounds like a rant, I don't mean it to.)
Our moral outlook is that our privacy is important to us. A government's fear-based outlook is that our "private" lives could potentially hide threats to their wellbeing, or to "society" in general. A corporation's perspective is that the most important thing to do is Whatever Makes More Money for Shareholders. This is why "Don't get caught" seems to be more of a governing rule for many non-individuals.
To them, we are a statistic -- 1 of 298 million. If 1% of your constituents (or customers) gets royally screwed by the system, who cares? Mistakes, accidents, etc harm more than that, and besides -- how many of that group actually deserved such screwing?
As individuals, the potential screw-ees, we obviously care a lot more. We see the marginalization of rights, "security theater", and inconveniences which make our individual lives harder, with little noticeable increase in safety, satisfaction, or other intangibles which we value. We see how it impacts US.
For example: Whenever I walk into many stores (e.g., Best Buy, Fry's, Costco), there are security people (or even employees) monitoring the exits, assuming that I could be the next shoplifter. So, they want me to show receipts, walk through a detector, etc. Great - I am not having to prove that I'm not a thief, every time I leave a store. From their perspective, it reduces shoplifting by X%, and thereby reducing their losses and increasing profits -- it's hard to see the business sense in NOT doing it (especially when all your competitors are too).
Similarly, when we go to the airport, we're herded as cattle, and need to produce ID and other documentation at many stages, all because it's viewed as "making travel more secure". Honestly, I imagine it might
So yes -- rest assured that many people have "sanity-checked" the practices and systems by which the government operates. They just are operating with different goals and values, so their sanity checks will return different values than yours or mine.
My brain hurts. I wish I had points to mod you up. :)