On the lowest end, I saw a project where someone made an nuclear battery using an over the counter tritium keychain and solar panel. Sure it could only power an LED (with less total lumens then the keychain) but had a half life of about 12 years. So there you have an extreme example of just your point.
So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?
This strikes me as a blatant misuse fugitive disentitlement which is more intended for situations where someone is on the run and unlocatable or in a hostile country with no extradition treaty. NZ has a treaty and Dotcom (wow I hate that name) is going through the appeals system. That is not really 'evading' since evasion implies extrajudicial methods.... it strikes me more as the JoD wanting to circumvent international law when things do not immediately go their way.
Yeah, but administrators, being seen as 'business' people, are seen as more deserving of above average pay. Teachers on the other hand are seen as 'less capable' and thus people get pissy if they are not paid less than the regional average.
I am not sure it is really a case of the law not having caught up to new platforms and abilities. While one can argue how good of a solution it has been, the problems current investment law was put in place to deal with are just a present in the new platforms as they were with the old ones, so the situation has not really changed. Putting a fancy UI on an old practice is not really a new ability.
Ahm, actually, once you get past day traders and other people with short term focus, a great deal of the 'growing' people get out of the market comes from dividends, investors receive a percentage of the company's profits based off percentage owned. So the market is only a 'partial information game' if one is playing it that way, in which case one is playing against other people who are doing the same. Long term investors are playing a differnt one entirely.
'grown ups' investing also have legal resources available to them that kickstarter funders do not, and because of investment regulations they are required to have the assets necessary to actually fight a legal battle, it makes them a lot riskier to take advantage of.
I think it is less a factor of not wanting to make AI/content and more a new generation of developers and what they grew up playing with their friends. Unfortunately often the people who go into development are not representative of the wider population and in the case of the multiplayer-centric teams they have a pretty strong self reinforcing tunnel vision linked to their social group. They do not even see single players people among their peers since multiplayer is such a big part of how they build community (which includes who they hire).
"undeniable lies" has the same basic problem as "obvious truth", it is generally just a rhetorical tactic and bares little resemblance to reality. There seems to be a pretty strong relationship between the extremeness in someone's language and the shakeyness of their argument. There are good reasons why this stuff comes up 'ancient alien' documentaries so much more then actual science ones.
There is also another advantage of things like this, Tor becomes more effective as more people are using it for general tasks. I can recall a while back someone being caught for sending fake bomb threats via Tor. How did they find the person? They were the only one using Tor on their entire network and only used it at the same times the emails were sent.
So there is an advantage to people simply using Tor for their normal everyday activities like this.
Ok, so you don't actually have a car, but there is a parking lot, and you have pieces of cars and their antipieces (statistically, for every crankshaft, there is a crankshaft sized hole somewhere else), and given enough time a whole car worth of pieces appears in the parking lot, at which point the driver, who is now quite sick of having to watch where they are going due to the materialization of random heavy metal chunks in the air, can finally leave and get to their job at the car factory.
Oh, and probably something involving proprietary gas. All the cars made at the plant after this one all use Void brand gasoline and explode unexpectedly if you try using any other kind.
(1) You could read the rest of my post since I addressed this.
(2) Ahm, yeah, there has been. Even today the demand is higher and more common then people like to think, it is a very 'swept under the rug' problem in the US.
(3) Drug laws pre-date the US. If we are going to reference chinese immigrants then we can go back and look at the devistating economic impact opium addiction had on the chinese population not long before that, resulting in the Chinese government putting laws in place to try to deal with the problem and then the UK government bombing the country into opening up its market again. Chinese economic collapse was actually good for the UK at the the time, one could go even further and point out that racism was a major factor in pressuring for the removal of such laws in China while strenghting their own.... in general you want the other guy to have the weak economy and not your own
Which is a good argument for why cannabis should not be illegal.
My point was not that the laws are right or well balanced, but that there is some rational behind why such laws exist and that over focusing on individualism is just sticking heads in sand.
Yes, too much of anything can kill you. The difference is you can drink enough water to slate your thirst while being well within the range of safe. MDMA however, any dosage that is high enough to be worth taking is also within that dangerous range.
The problem with 'let things sort themselves out', keep in mind there is no biological or neurological difference between those who end up in the gutter dieing and those who do not. It pretty much comes down to chance, chance that is often taken during the phase of people's brain development where their ability to weigh risk is severely diminished.
Sad thing is, while I can not speak for the UK, the people I have met and known in the US who work for institutions like the NSA, CIA, RSO, FBI, etc, are generally good people who honestly do mean well, but are stuck in institutional problems where perspectives and priorities, not to mention wagon circling, can turn their good intentions into bad results.
It is kinda like LEO in general, lots of really great individuals who honestly want to do good and care about stopping bad people from doing bad things, but the institutions they are embedded in can be toxic and shift entire departments to doing more harm to the local citizens then good.
Well everyone knows most journalists and 'civil rights' lawyers are just terrorist and criminal sympathizes! Otherwise they would not be giving all that professional treatment to people who do not deserve it, and sometimes they even embarrass important people and we know how bad that is for the economy.
I think much of it comes down to weighing the risks. The idea behind these rule are, as you point out, an attempt to deal with a class of serious threat where if the rules were not in place the risk of that threat would increase to unacceptable levels. However these rules also create or encourage other serious threats. Proper oversight should help balance these, but historically the people doing this balancing are effected by one set of consequences but not the other and thus lack the perspective to properly do their jobs.
Thus I would argue that the proper checks and balances to manage these competing interests not only will fail to be in place but inherently can not be in place since the people traditionally tasked with creating and maintaining this balance inherently lack the domain knowledge and incentive to do so.
On the other hand, it does open up the moral argument that other professions are free to target spies. Intelligence in general is a 'sensitive profession', so if morally they can violate other's in order to do their job, I do not see why the inverse should not also be true. Otherwise they would simply be creating rules that benefit their institution but not others!
It is not quite as simple as that though. There are a number of things that have high demand and a black market, but historically making the services legal was even worse. For instance, there is still a black market for slavery in the US, it is pretty hard to stamp out completely, but pushing it underground decreased the problem dramatically. The same can be said of rape and child molestation, two things that were not always illegal and there is enough of a demand that quite a bit of both are still going on, but I think people are generally happier with the police at least trying to stop them.
Now obviously these are different from the drug cases in that they address people's actions on people, but that is actually the rationale behind the drug laws. While the American ideal of individualism and personal responsibility sounds good on paper, but people's personal choices have a way of effecting the people around them, so one's personal choice to take drugs has consequences for people who did NOT choose this. A classic example that led to opium generally being cracked down on was as it spread through a community or region it could cause economic collapse. Sure it starts as the addicts themselves simply working less and not contributing, but it eats away at their family's economic capabilities (which has a direct impact on what the children will accomplish) and can have a runaway effect on the larger group. These were extreme examples but they were devastating and did not even take that large a percentage of the workforce to destroy the rest of it.
Having said that, while I see these as good reasons to have controls in place, I also rather strongly feel that the controls have gone WAY too far and are no longer serving to address the actual problems.
Slashdot Mirror
On the lowest end, I saw a project where someone made an nuclear battery using an over the counter tritium keychain and solar panel. Sure it could only power an LED (with less total lumens then the keychain) but had a half life of about 12 years. So there you have an extreme example of just your point.
So, because he is exercising his rights as a foreign citizen living in another country and going through the legally established international process for determining extradition, he is a 'fugitive' and thus his assets are fair game?
This strikes me as a blatant misuse fugitive disentitlement which is more intended for situations where someone is on the run and unlocatable or in a hostile country with no extradition treaty. NZ has a treaty and Dotcom (wow I hate that name) is going through the appeals system. That is not really 'evading' since evasion implies extrajudicial methods.... it strikes me more as the JoD wanting to circumvent international law when things do not immediately go their way.
Yeah, but administrators, being seen as 'business' people, are seen as more deserving of above average pay. Teachers on the other hand are seen as 'less capable' and thus people get pissy if they are not paid less than the regional average.
Ever seen 19th century levels of adequacy? Most schools pass that by the time their students hit middle school.
I am not sure it is really a case of the law not having caught up to new platforms and abilities. While one can argue how good of a solution it has been, the problems current investment law was put in place to deal with are just a present in the new platforms as they were with the old ones, so the situation has not really changed. Putting a fancy UI on an old practice is not really a new ability.
Ahm, actually, once you get past day traders and other people with short term focus, a great deal of the 'growing' people get out of the market comes from dividends, investors receive a percentage of the company's profits based off percentage owned. So the market is only a 'partial information game' if one is playing it that way, in which case one is playing against other people who are doing the same. Long term investors are playing a differnt one entirely.
'grown ups' investing also have legal resources available to them that kickstarter funders do not, and because of investment regulations they are required to have the assets necessary to actually fight a legal battle, it makes them a lot riskier to take advantage of.
I think it is less a factor of not wanting to make AI/content and more a new generation of developers and what they grew up playing with their friends. Unfortunately often the people who go into development are not representative of the wider population and in the case of the multiplayer-centric teams they have a pretty strong self reinforcing tunnel vision linked to their social group. They do not even see single players people among their peers since multiplayer is such a big part of how they build community (which includes who they hire).
In other words, you can not tell the difference between 'lie' and 'adjusting prediction as more information becomes available'.
"undeniable lies" has the same basic problem as "obvious truth", it is generally just a rhetorical tactic and bares little resemblance to reality. There seems to be a pretty strong relationship between the extremeness in someone's language and the shakeyness of their argument. There are good reasons why this stuff comes up 'ancient alien' documentaries so much more then actual science ones.
Other CEOs do not take him seriously either.
Actually both twitter and facebook have been used in activism like this already, it is one of their appeals in repressive countries.
The problem with namecoin is some already made that, and people love developing their own reduncent solutions instead.
There is also another advantage of things like this, Tor becomes more effective as more people are using it for general tasks. I can recall a while back someone being caught for sending fake bomb threats via Tor. How did they find the person? They were the only one using Tor on their entire network and only used it at the same times the emails were sent.
So there is an advantage to people simply using Tor for their normal everyday activities like this.
Ok, so you don't actually have a car, but there is a parking lot, and you have pieces of cars and their antipieces (statistically, for every crankshaft, there is a crankshaft sized hole somewhere else), and given enough time a whole car worth of pieces appears in the parking lot, at which point the driver, who is now quite sick of having to watch where they are going due to the materialization of random heavy metal chunks in the air, can finally leave and get to their job at the car factory.
Oh, and probably something involving proprietary gas. All the cars made at the plant after this one all use Void brand gasoline and explode unexpectedly if you try using any other kind.
Words rarely mean 'the same thing', esp when you are talking about domain specific language with an explicit taxonomy/lexicon.
(1) You could read the rest of my post since I addressed this. (2) Ahm, yeah, there has been. Even today the demand is higher and more common then people like to think, it is a very 'swept under the rug' problem in the US. (3) Drug laws pre-date the US. If we are going to reference chinese immigrants then we can go back and look at the devistating economic impact opium addiction had on the chinese population not long before that, resulting in the Chinese government putting laws in place to try to deal with the problem and then the UK government bombing the country into opening up its market again. Chinese economic collapse was actually good for the UK at the the time, one could go even further and point out that racism was a major factor in pressuring for the removal of such laws in China while strenghting their own.... in general you want the other guy to have the weak economy and not your own
Which is a good argument for why cannabis should not be illegal.
My point was not that the laws are right or well balanced, but that there is some rational behind why such laws exist and that over focusing on individualism is just sticking heads in sand.
Yes, too much of anything can kill you. The difference is you can drink enough water to slate your thirst while being well within the range of safe. MDMA however, any dosage that is high enough to be worth taking is also within that dangerous range.
The problem with 'let things sort themselves out', keep in mind there is no biological or neurological difference between those who end up in the gutter dieing and those who do not. It pretty much comes down to chance, chance that is often taken during the phase of people's brain development where their ability to weigh risk is severely diminished.
Sad thing is, while I can not speak for the UK, the people I have met and known in the US who work for institutions like the NSA, CIA, RSO, FBI, etc, are generally good people who honestly do mean well, but are stuck in institutional problems where perspectives and priorities, not to mention wagon circling, can turn their good intentions into bad results.
It is kinda like LEO in general, lots of really great individuals who honestly want to do good and care about stopping bad people from doing bad things, but the institutions they are embedded in can be toxic and shift entire departments to doing more harm to the local citizens then good.
Well everyone knows most journalists and 'civil rights' lawyers are just terrorist and criminal sympathizes! Otherwise they would not be giving all that professional treatment to people who do not deserve it, and sometimes they even embarrass important people and we know how bad that is for the economy.
I think much of it comes down to weighing the risks. The idea behind these rule are, as you point out, an attempt to deal with a class of serious threat where if the rules were not in place the risk of that threat would increase to unacceptable levels. However these rules also create or encourage other serious threats. Proper oversight should help balance these, but historically the people doing this balancing are effected by one set of consequences but not the other and thus lack the perspective to properly do their jobs.
Thus I would argue that the proper checks and balances to manage these competing interests not only will fail to be in place but inherently can not be in place since the people traditionally tasked with creating and maintaining this balance inherently lack the domain knowledge and incentive to do so.
On the other hand, it does open up the moral argument that other professions are free to target spies. Intelligence in general is a 'sensitive profession', so if morally they can violate other's in order to do their job, I do not see why the inverse should not also be true. Otherwise they would simply be creating rules that benefit their institution but not others!
It is not quite as simple as that though. There are a number of things that have high demand and a black market, but historically making the services legal was even worse. For instance, there is still a black market for slavery in the US, it is pretty hard to stamp out completely, but pushing it underground decreased the problem dramatically. The same can be said of rape and child molestation, two things that were not always illegal and there is enough of a demand that quite a bit of both are still going on, but I think people are generally happier with the police at least trying to stop them.
Now obviously these are different from the drug cases in that they address people's actions on people, but that is actually the rationale behind the drug laws. While the American ideal of individualism and personal responsibility sounds good on paper, but people's personal choices have a way of effecting the people around them, so one's personal choice to take drugs has consequences for people who did NOT choose this. A classic example that led to opium generally being cracked down on was as it spread through a community or region it could cause economic collapse. Sure it starts as the addicts themselves simply working less and not contributing, but it eats away at their family's economic capabilities (which has a direct impact on what the children will accomplish) and can have a runaway effect on the larger group. These were extreme examples but they were devastating and did not even take that large a percentage of the workforce to destroy the rest of it.
Having said that, while I see these as good reasons to have controls in place, I also rather strongly feel that the controls have gone WAY too far and are no longer serving to address the actual problems.
One the other hand, demand does not make something right either.