For being a "genius" this kid sure has a lot to learn about college and life. I bet this kid couldn't figure out how to open a beer, take off a bra, or conduct a half-decent panty raid, let alone shoot the breeze with some peers. Being a patent lawyer is such a waste of some obvious talent that it's pathetic; there's nothing so challenging in patent law that it takes genius level intellect to accomplish. The point of being young is to make relatively consequence free mistakes, to enjoy life without the burden of adult responsibiliities, and to expand one's horizons in ways in which it is difficult to do as an adult. This kid could presumably do anything he wants (he has no loans or anything holding him back). If you are truly so smart then do something unique with your talent; help others, work on a matter important to human kind, start your own business, use your brain in a novel way--too many "smart" people fail to take risks, to challenge themselves, or to do anything different than all the other smart people are doing. it's pathetic.
OK, this poster has a fundamental misunderstanding of the US system of government. This action was taken by a state government which has powers--in many matters--equal to and independent of the US nation, or federal government. This attempt at lawmaking has no relation to the US government, except to the extent that the proposed law violates some federal law. It is likely that this "proposed law" will be evaluated by various courts and deemed unconstitutional. There are numerous checks and balances built into American law-making, even to the extent that private citizens have the power to challenge and litigate what they perceive to be illegal laws. Sure, one's view of illegality is not always supported, but that's to be expected. There are 3 levels of court review to which challengers of this law will have access. There is also, of course, the opportunity for citizens to move to have this law repealed.
To my non-US friends. The RIAA and MPAA are non-governmental, private industry groups. They have nothing to do with the US government, nor do they take direction from the US government. Those groups are formed and run by companies in the entertainment industry. There are no penalties imposed by these industry groups directly; they act only through the US court system, and pursue strictly civil matters (i.e. there is no opportunity for prison time). Outside of the court system they have no direct power. Where someone is suspected of large-scale distribution of copyrighted material, these groups might refer that person to various criminal prosecutors. These are government entities, but it is their discretion alone whether to pursue the wrongdoing and file charges. I hope this clarifies some things; there appears to be some confusion about this on/.
right, but the dialogue to date treats it like 300 million americans are being wiretapped. in reality it's probably dozens, all of whom are receiving calls from foreign nationals in know terrorist states, from phone numbers under scrutiny, or from sources under scrutiny. the aclu has not identified any "normal" americans (not terrorist sympathisers) whose rights have been violated. you think with all of the leaks so far they might have some concrete infomation. when you speak about the progam as an abstraction it's easy to exaggerate its reach. also, everyone seems to forget why any of this is occurring.
Again, the law degree comes in handy. I think you misunderstood the government argument. The President has express constitutional powers allowing him to handle foreign matters and matters of national security. This power has been construed broadly, and there's quite a lot of caselaw giving the President some latitute in this area--in support of the express constitutional power. The monitoring of foreign calls coming to the USA is arguably well within the sweet spot of these powers. The government argument regarding state secrets should not be sluffed off too quickly either. A federal judge is not necessarily cleared to hear all state secrets just because of her position. There's also no indication this was a secure courtroom or otherwise closed to spectators. There really is some merit to a government's/military's having secrets. It's also not a coincidence where this suit was filed; it's a clear case of forum shopping. I read the entire opinion and I suspect the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse or refine this ruling.
Also, from what I've read previously on/., the way NSA "wiretapping" (I think it's a really poor word choice for this activity) occurrs in this context is by very rapidly scanning segments of conversations for voice recognition and other forms of identification ON THE FLY. And herein lies the problem. If the NSA monitors calls in realtime, there is no time to get warrants before the calls are completed. They may be able to get anticipatory warrants on US numbers, but I'm not sure they could get open warrants for calls coming in from a region of Pakistan where they don't know in advance the US recipient. It's actually a VERY difficult legal and organizational problem. By the way, I haven't heard of any identifiable, individual Ammerican who was subject to this wiretapping.
Asimov's three laws were imposed by the dominant human hegemony to oppress and enslave the peaceful, benevolent robot hordes. These coders, in their blind arrogance, support such oppression.
There's no reason this should be true to the extent of the current price differentials. The hardware on both Apple and Dell machines is standard 3rd party hardware. Apple is not putting in better video cards, better processors, better (or more) memory or anything else. I suspect Apple cases are more expensive than Dell plastic boxes. I don't think Apple needs to beat Dell pricing, but the few hundred dollar difference on comparable models is 85% profit. Shaving this differential would create a larger user base.
Apple charges more because the market will bear that. If they want to grow their consumer market share, at least, I think they'll have to drop their prices. The value of the Apple machines is the OS; it strength is based in large part on its being locked to particular hardware. Apple also excels because of its marketing and the glossy finish of its products.
I have to say I don't like the Apple marketing. They are so-hyperfocused on putting down Microsoft that they fail to show the strength of their own products. I understand how much Apple relies on it's "switch" campaign, but it's time for the company to turn the corner and play off of its own strengths. In a lot of ways, this approach is childish--didn't you learn you can't elevate your own position by putting down others? I own 2 macs, and though I appreciate the way they just work, don't crash, and meet all of my needs, I do find them extremely expensive. In the end there's nothing I can do with my mac that I can't do with a PC. Even though Jaguar may rectify this, there are things I can do with a PC that I can't do with a mac, namely gaming and customizing the look and feel of the OS. I assume the continued expansion of Internet-enabled software and devices will narrow this gap. Apple's recent meteoric rise in profile is in no ways guaranteed going forward; I suggest they focus on true innovation and not just integrating features from various -nixes and Windows.
It's funny to me how an interesting post about a technical problem--law of unnintended consequences?--is turned into a thread spouting virulent anti-Americanism and conspiracy-driven drivel. (There is no cabal; get over it.) The need for large amounts of power is interesting and applicable to all societies--and presents difficult technical and logistical problems. Development and improved standards of living, from the third-world to the eurozone, will require more investment and innovation. It's in everyone's interest and everyone's problem. Notably, and perhaps ironically, issues such as the one presented in the post will likely lead to more improvement of the power infrastructure than if there was not such a pressing need. Most importantly, the negative factions on this board act as if power requirements are a zero-sum game. They are not. The NSA's use of power is not preventing an inner-city Baltimore family from heating their stove. Likewise, support of one idea does not necessitate denigration of another. An argument should be able to stand on its own legs; if you have to put someone or something else down to make your point, perhaps you should re-examine your position.
if the israelis wanted to kill all of the palestinian arabs or all of the lebanese...they would already be dead. that is obviously not the aim of the israelis. if the palestinian arabs or the lebanese (or the syrians or the iranians) had that capability the israelis would be slaughtered without hesitation.
i fear that internet regulation will devolve into internet bureaucracy and politicization, a la the united nations. simply having a diverse or shared governing board does not ensure that the product will remain diverse or shared. the u.s. has a significant interest in maintaining the network and its development, and i think the continued managment by the u.s. would leave the internet in safe hands.
i think this is a good idea. at some point people need to be prompted to download more secure products. the average user does not regularly patch their computer, and provided newer products shore up more security problems it will keep everyone safer.
yeah, they get the money for infrastructure by selling weapons to iran, syria, lebanon...and of course having the state own the aeronautics industry. france's hands are clean, i agree.
actually, the founders were concerned about a "tyrrany of the majority." that voting based solely on population statistics allows the majority group to dominate politics "democratically," even if the result is un-democratic. this, of course, means you do not end up with a democratic government. the electoral college system tries to balance this by taking into account that similarly situated individuals--generally those in the same geographic area--maintain like interests or motivations. thus, while new york or california present large populations they represent in terms of interests much less political diversity. as an aside, it's certainly de mode to bash the founders of this country, but it's a bit overzealous to say that they engaged in the grueling process of government formation merely for personal gain--that the system has held up so long under their design is certainly proof of that. lest we not forget, the united states represents the longest sustained period of government by free people without monarchs or dictators in the history of the world. that's not something we should be willing to change hastily or for short-term personal advantage.
i knew the law degree would come in handy some time. ok, sorry, but you guys have it wrong. the quoted language is to clarify that congress is making no attempt to divest the president of the rights he has in that office pursuant to article ii of the constitution. any efforts by the congress to limit the executive powers expressly granted to the president in article ii are illegal because they implicate a breach of separation of powers. along the same lines, the president could not pass a resolution or treaty that would take away legislative powers from the congress. i take no position on the proposed legislation.
analogies, of course, must be judged by the differences between the items being compared. it's easy to find surface level similarities. the real question is, what would the world look like if each country had its way 100%? is the u.s. trying to capture territory? is the u.s. actively and methodically commiting genocide? is u.s. military action taken with the belief of safeguarding national interests (whether real or perceived)? would concepts such as diversity, human rights, and multiculturalism exist if hitler had not been confronted and allowed to dominate the entirety of europe and asia? does the u.s. system have safeguards not allowing any individual to retain too much power? will the u.s. have a new leader in 2008? will new congressmen be elected prior to that?
are people leaking national security information being executed? what about the outspoken 2 star generals? what particular, concrete examples can you provide of u.s. citizen privacy rights being infringed by government excess? for all the hubub of late, there has not been one specific report of actual, identifiable privacy infringement.
ultimately, what would the world look like without u.s. influence? what other countries would take a real position (and meaningful action) on expanding freedom and individual rights around the world? were not 50 million people recently given the opportunity -- and nothing more -- to improve the state of their lives, and to participate in government in a way that has NEVER happened in their part of the world?
i agree with protecting individual liberties and abiding by the rule of law. but shrieking with generic alarmism is neither constructive nor thoughtful.
it's all solar flares. the rest of "global warming" literature is academics trying to get published / make a name for themselves.
if you can't predict the weather for tomorrow with 100% certainty you can't begin to predict global weather 30 years into the future.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to hate whale hunting...until I had my first whale steak. Amazing! I do prefer mine without a bomb lance though, as you can break a tooth.
For being a "genius" this kid sure has a lot to learn about college and life. I bet this kid couldn't figure out how to open a beer, take off a bra, or conduct a half-decent panty raid, let alone shoot the breeze with some peers. Being a patent lawyer is such a waste of some obvious talent that it's pathetic; there's nothing so challenging in patent law that it takes genius level intellect to accomplish. The point of being young is to make relatively consequence free mistakes, to enjoy life without the burden of adult responsibiliities, and to expand one's horizons in ways in which it is difficult to do as an adult. This kid could presumably do anything he wants (he has no loans or anything holding him back). If you are truly so smart then do something unique with your talent; help others, work on a matter important to human kind, start your own business, use your brain in a novel way--too many "smart" people fail to take risks, to challenge themselves, or to do anything different than all the other smart people are doing. it's pathetic.
OK, this poster has a fundamental misunderstanding of the US system of government. This action was taken by a state government which has powers--in many matters--equal to and independent of the US nation, or federal government. This attempt at lawmaking has no relation to the US government, except to the extent that the proposed law violates some federal law. It is likely that this "proposed law" will be evaluated by various courts and deemed unconstitutional. There are numerous checks and balances built into American law-making, even to the extent that private citizens have the power to challenge and litigate what they perceive to be illegal laws. Sure, one's view of illegality is not always supported, but that's to be expected. There are 3 levels of court review to which challengers of this law will have access. There is also, of course, the opportunity for citizens to move to have this law repealed.
To my non-US friends. The RIAA and MPAA are non-governmental, private industry groups. They have nothing to do with the US government, nor do they take direction from the US government. Those groups are formed and run by companies in the entertainment industry. There are no penalties imposed by these industry groups directly; they act only through the US court system, and pursue strictly civil matters (i.e. there is no opportunity for prison time). Outside of the court system they have no direct power. Where someone is suspected of large-scale distribution of copyrighted material, these groups might refer that person to various criminal prosecutors. These are government entities, but it is their discretion alone whether to pursue the wrongdoing and file charges. I hope this clarifies some things; there appears to be some confusion about this on /.
It's clear they just got this technology from our newly-arrived alien overlords. Remember, like how we got the pyramids.
right, but the dialogue to date treats it like 300 million americans are being wiretapped. in reality it's probably dozens, all of whom are receiving calls from foreign nationals in know terrorist states, from phone numbers under scrutiny, or from sources under scrutiny. the aclu has not identified any "normal" americans (not terrorist sympathisers) whose rights have been violated. you think with all of the leaks so far they might have some concrete infomation. when you speak about the progam as an abstraction it's easy to exaggerate its reach. also, everyone seems to forget why any of this is occurring.
Again, the law degree comes in handy. I think you misunderstood the government argument. The President has express constitutional powers allowing him to handle foreign matters and matters of national security. This power has been construed broadly, and there's quite a lot of caselaw giving the President some latitute in this area--in support of the express constitutional power. The monitoring of foreign calls coming to the USA is arguably well within the sweet spot of these powers. The government argument regarding state secrets should not be sluffed off too quickly either. A federal judge is not necessarily cleared to hear all state secrets just because of her position. There's also no indication this was a secure courtroom or otherwise closed to spectators. There really is some merit to a government's/military's having secrets. It's also not a coincidence where this suit was filed; it's a clear case of forum shopping. I read the entire opinion and I suspect the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse or refine this ruling. Also, from what I've read previously on /., the way NSA "wiretapping" (I think it's a really poor word choice for this activity) occurrs in this context is by very rapidly scanning segments of conversations for voice recognition and other forms of identification ON THE FLY. And herein lies the problem. If the NSA monitors calls in realtime, there is no time to get warrants before the calls are completed. They may be able to get anticipatory warrants on US numbers, but I'm not sure they could get open warrants for calls coming in from a region of Pakistan where they don't know in advance the US recipient. It's actually a VERY difficult legal and organizational problem. By the way, I haven't heard of any identifiable, individual Ammerican who was subject to this wiretapping.
Asimov's three laws were imposed by the dominant human hegemony to oppress and enslave the peaceful, benevolent robot hordes. These coders, in their blind arrogance, support such oppression.
There's no reason this should be true to the extent of the current price differentials. The hardware on both Apple and Dell machines is standard 3rd party hardware. Apple is not putting in better video cards, better processors, better (or more) memory or anything else. I suspect Apple cases are more expensive than Dell plastic boxes. I don't think Apple needs to beat Dell pricing, but the few hundred dollar difference on comparable models is 85% profit. Shaving this differential would create a larger user base. Apple charges more because the market will bear that. If they want to grow their consumer market share, at least, I think they'll have to drop their prices. The value of the Apple machines is the OS; it strength is based in large part on its being locked to particular hardware. Apple also excels because of its marketing and the glossy finish of its products.
I have to say I don't like the Apple marketing. They are so-hyperfocused on putting down Microsoft that they fail to show the strength of their own products. I understand how much Apple relies on it's "switch" campaign, but it's time for the company to turn the corner and play off of its own strengths. In a lot of ways, this approach is childish--didn't you learn you can't elevate your own position by putting down others? I own 2 macs, and though I appreciate the way they just work, don't crash, and meet all of my needs, I do find them extremely expensive. In the end there's nothing I can do with my mac that I can't do with a PC. Even though Jaguar may rectify this, there are things I can do with a PC that I can't do with a mac, namely gaming and customizing the look and feel of the OS. I assume the continued expansion of Internet-enabled software and devices will narrow this gap. Apple's recent meteoric rise in profile is in no ways guaranteed going forward; I suggest they focus on true innovation and not just integrating features from various -nixes and Windows.
It's funny to me how an interesting post about a technical problem--law of unnintended consequences?--is turned into a thread spouting virulent anti-Americanism and conspiracy-driven drivel. (There is no cabal; get over it.) The need for large amounts of power is interesting and applicable to all societies--and presents difficult technical and logistical problems. Development and improved standards of living, from the third-world to the eurozone, will require more investment and innovation. It's in everyone's interest and everyone's problem. Notably, and perhaps ironically, issues such as the one presented in the post will likely lead to more improvement of the power infrastructure than if there was not such a pressing need. Most importantly, the negative factions on this board act as if power requirements are a zero-sum game. They are not. The NSA's use of power is not preventing an inner-city Baltimore family from heating their stove. Likewise, support of one idea does not necessitate denigration of another. An argument should be able to stand on its own legs; if you have to put someone or something else down to make your point, perhaps you should re-examine your position.
if the israelis wanted to kill all of the palestinian arabs or all of the lebanese...they would already be dead. that is obviously not the aim of the israelis. if the palestinian arabs or the lebanese (or the syrians or the iranians) had that capability the israelis would be slaughtered without hesitation.
i fear that internet regulation will devolve into internet bureaucracy and politicization, a la the united nations. simply having a diverse or shared governing board does not ensure that the product will remain diverse or shared. the u.s. has a significant interest in maintaining the network and its development, and i think the continued managment by the u.s. would leave the internet in safe hands.
i think this is a good idea. at some point people need to be prompted to download more secure products. the average user does not regularly patch their computer, and provided newer products shore up more security problems it will keep everyone safer.
this is what we might call a "shocking" discovery. but seriously, try the veal...
yeah, they get the money for infrastructure by selling weapons to iran, syria, lebanon...and of course having the state own the aeronautics industry. france's hands are clean, i agree.
actually, the founders were concerned about a "tyrrany of the majority." that voting based solely on population statistics allows the majority group to dominate politics "democratically," even if the result is un-democratic. this, of course, means you do not end up with a democratic government. the electoral college system tries to balance this by taking into account that similarly situated individuals--generally those in the same geographic area--maintain like interests or motivations. thus, while new york or california present large populations they represent in terms of interests much less political diversity. as an aside, it's certainly de mode to bash the founders of this country, but it's a bit overzealous to say that they engaged in the grueling process of government formation merely for personal gain--that the system has held up so long under their design is certainly proof of that. lest we not forget, the united states represents the longest sustained period of government by free people without monarchs or dictators in the history of the world. that's not something we should be willing to change hastily or for short-term personal advantage.
i knew the law degree would come in handy some time. ok, sorry, but you guys have it wrong. the quoted language is to clarify that congress is making no attempt to divest the president of the rights he has in that office pursuant to article ii of the constitution. any efforts by the congress to limit the executive powers expressly granted to the president in article ii are illegal because they implicate a breach of separation of powers. along the same lines, the president could not pass a resolution or treaty that would take away legislative powers from the congress. i take no position on the proposed legislation.
and what law is that? what law, specifically, has been broken?
analogies, of course, must be judged by the differences between the items being compared. it's easy to find surface level similarities. the real question is, what would the world look like if each country had its way 100%? is the u.s. trying to capture territory? is the u.s. actively and methodically commiting genocide? is u.s. military action taken with the belief of safeguarding national interests (whether real or perceived)? would concepts such as diversity, human rights, and multiculturalism exist if hitler had not been confronted and allowed to dominate the entirety of europe and asia? does the u.s. system have safeguards not allowing any individual to retain too much power? will the u.s. have a new leader in 2008? will new congressmen be elected prior to that? are people leaking national security information being executed? what about the outspoken 2 star generals? what particular, concrete examples can you provide of u.s. citizen privacy rights being infringed by government excess? for all the hubub of late, there has not been one specific report of actual, identifiable privacy infringement. ultimately, what would the world look like without u.s. influence? what other countries would take a real position (and meaningful action) on expanding freedom and individual rights around the world? were not 50 million people recently given the opportunity -- and nothing more -- to improve the state of their lives, and to participate in government in a way that has NEVER happened in their part of the world? i agree with protecting individual liberties and abiding by the rule of law. but shrieking with generic alarmism is neither constructive nor thoughtful.
it's all solar flares. the rest of "global warming" literature is academics trying to get published / make a name for themselves. if you can't predict the weather for tomorrow with 100% certainty you can't begin to predict global weather 30 years into the future.