Why is it always us poor male humans that have to sleep on the couch and never the women? I'm calling for a global emancipation movement. Put an end to the discrimination and fight for men's rights! We are humans too! Stupid couch!
Use of solar panels goes way back. I still can't believe Ronald Reagan took down those panels that Carter installed on the White House as well as axing the solar research program - weakass politics..:(
Google has grown from a little search engine provider into the power horse we know today. They have done so by creating or aquiring new applications that people like and use and they continue to improve it. A role model for any company, they use their increasing momentum to create services that benefit their user base (such as providing Gmail users with GBs of free eMail space) while at the same time consolidating their dominance.
This brings us to the flip side of a huge centralized corporate data hub, though. An example to illustrate the problem: Joe Schmoe likes to use many of Google's services, because they are neat and fun to use, nothing wrong with that per se. Joe sets his browser to remember that he's logged in, thus he doesn't need to reenter his password everytime he loads up his Google homepage or checks his Gmail account, it's more convenient that way (and isn't that what the 'remember password' feature is there for?). What this means is: Google is able to (and does) gather a humongous amount of information about him while he's online. Google "knows" what things he's searching for on the net (whether it be viagra, scientific research or just some pictures of cute pets) and at what time he is performing these searches; they "know" his exact current location (logged IP), his entire email correspondence on gMail, what kinds of videos he likes to watch, what kinds of (google) ads he responds to (by clicking on), and even to a certain extend which webpages he visits when.
It's actually quite unnerving how much information (both in terms of quantity and quality) they have about every such user. It would be possible for them to create a more or less accurate psychological profile of an 'active' user cross-reference with what appears to be his/her hobbies, habits, even daily schedules and pinpoint his/her exact location (at work or at home) at any given time he uses one of their increasing number of services. Now who or what is to guarantee this information is not going to fall into the wrong hands? What if a hacker (rogue blackhat, CIA, the Russian FSB or whatever) gains access to critical information stored on Google Servers? What if a corporation like Time Warner buys up Google (and expands its board of directors with less 'ethical' ones)? What if Google chooses to really cooperate with governments to comply with local laws put into place to fight 'dissidents' or 'terrorists'?
My point is: Google has undeniably evolved into a great suite of useful applications. They do us credit, but they could be made to serve Big Brother (or any other evil entity). And what controls are in place to make sure that this at one point in time or another is not going to happen? That they will not turn to the dark side of the force? (scnr;)
CNN is not THAT bad outside the US, because CNN international broadcasts significantly different and more diversified content, since it aims at a global audience (compared to an audience that is at least partly conditioned by Fox News and the like to view everything in a self-centered view).
Vote MacGyver for President! In Episode #56 he actually kicks the butts of a couple of these 'war is peace' neocon types. What better choice is there in 2008? He disarmes missiles with a paperclip and diffuses bombs with hockey tickets for crying out loud! - Oh yea, and of course Mr. T needs to be secretary of defence!
BTW, I do know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are nominally not part of the government, but seeing the role they play and their influence in governments' decisions there is no denying that there exists a very close tie between the both.
..was to make sure that, no matter what the circumstances, there would be fighter jets available and put in the air to avoid any such incident.
I know that average Joe Doe may never have thought about planes flying into buildings, but apart from some 'crazy conspiracy nuts' who e.g. watched the first episode of the Lone Gunmen or those architects actually responsible for designing the WTC even the government officials must have been aware of scenarios in which hijacked planes would be flown into civilian buildings or nuclear plants.
In fact during the cold war certain government officials were even far more creative in finding ways to start a war based on false or fabricated evidence. A plan had been put forth to the government detailinghow to createsupport for a warby laying false evidence (e.g. hijackings of civilian airplanes and attacking civilians by military aircraft). Those plans, due to Kennedy's refusal, have never been put into action, but they show what certain members of government (in this case up to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were willing to do; imagine what might have happened if the president had instead been GW Bush back then..
The government is (or should be) concerned about and has the means to evaluate any potential thread against its citizens and act accordingly so that the citizens don't have to. Instead this administration has let four airplanes slip through that killed thousands of civilians and afterwards starts a campaign aided by the media to scare its citizens shitless as to what could happen next? (tm)
What if the Martians are all like "Nice planet. We'll take it!" after receiving our transmission? Has anyone thought that through? - In any case just keep in mind: if a Martian draws a big circle into the air, it's not the international sign of the doughnut!
..maybe. It depends on what type of blackhat hacker we're talking about. There may be hacker ethics, but every hacker will define these in their own way.
There will always be hackers that hack for their own profit and only care about covering their tracks, they believe the ability grants them the right, basically the 'predator ethos' (shared by so many managers out there as well *cough*HP*cough*). On the other side there are hackers that have deep convictions and use their ability to e.g. fight an oppressive government, that wages wars and makes the public believe it's for their own good; these are the idealists. And somewhere in between we'll find most of the hackers (including the disillusioned, cynical ones).
Whether they are suitable to serve as a gear in the machinery will be different from individual to individual.
Sounds exactly like one of those EA horror stories a while ago. Game companies develope for 'future mainstream' hardware so they develope on cutting edge tech, problem is they don't put too much effort into potential compatibility issues and focus more on the eye candy. Game companies are also notorious for working under 'creatively chaotic' conditions.
I wonder how games will look like that are written by anal-retentive accountants..;)
What's wrong with disecting oranges? Have you ever seen an orange suffer from heart disease? Neither have I! The only sensible way to save the human race is to create human-orange hybrids that are juicy yet sport opposing thumbs. We shall call them 'Homo orange'.
On first glance the problem looks to be credibility. We are more inclined to think of things we see on the net as fake compared to traditional media outlets, because admittedly there is far more fake stuff floating around on the net (and don't forget astroturfing etc.). Though the 'old media' can be very deceptive and even outright lie to it's viewers/readers they juice it up with a little truth here and there to not lose the credibility of their pliable crowd.
The fact is (unless you live in a country that effectively restricts access to certain media) that nowadays it is technically possible to get a more accurate picture of current (and past) events. The internet with its 'blogosphere' et al are doing a great job helping with that, but a lot of information is indeed already out there on traditional media. Watching BBC World and CNN International instead of Fox News and CNN US or reading foreign newspapers would give citizens a much broader perspective on current events.
The real problem though, is that most people just want 'simple' 'entertaining' news after a day's work and not delve into a battle in the search for the truth; this unfortunately appears to be only the privilege of journalists and people with spare time on their hands such as students and geeks;) - The system has been molded to work like this and even if certain websites would establish themselves as a credible news source it wouldn't counter this main problem.
What has become of this world? A world in which the greatest minds have discovered and researched new things 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
This site agglomerates information in order to restrict usage of it (akin to the patent system)! There is something terribly wrong with this, not only with the process but the basic ethical framework behind it. It promotes an egotistical philosophy that states "This is something I found out! You better not use that for your own research, or else!" People should be honored for things they 'find out', but others shouldn't be restricted to not use their work to create something new. I know this isn't exactly what this site does, but it stands for that kind of thinking.
Plagiarism has always more or less been part of science and art. It simply depends on how many works you mix together to create something 'new' and 'innovative' that doesn't resemble any one previous work. Do you think Mozart had created such great works if he had to make sure his tunes weren't used before? He (and not only him) sometimes actually knowingly "copied" melodies that were well know at the time and embellished them. So, not everyone can be a Mozart or a Beethoven, but at least we shouldn't punish people for trying.
I do see the problem of people being trained to fullfill their assignments by not thinking of their own but copying other's works word for word (especially when copy-pasting as opposed to writing it by hand), but in that case I would see the fault in the assignments themselves - why not ask questions that promote creative thinking instead of copy-pasting? In addition, what's the big deal wiht copy-pasting anyway? The assignments' function is to make the student research and learn stuff, which will eventually be tested in the exams where copy-pasting isn't possible. So the really lazy buns will be filtered out anyway, no?
I would think this will open up lots of new trade opportunities between Russia and North America. I don't know what that could mean, but it is certainly interesting.
Well, for one they have typhoon class nuclear subs with a stealth propulsion system, that just sit there and have nothing to do. Just ask for "Vilnius Nastavnyk" or "Ramius", he'll deliver the goods.
Agh, I was paraphrasing there; imho the quote actually warrents an accurate citation. What he said was more refined: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - see what he did there? He actually used 'human being' instead of 'human beings' as the plural as an artistic device to express the harmony between fish and men (since the plural of fish is also dindistinguishable from its singular form) thus building a symbolic linguistic bridge between both our species.
No, that's where the Ninja Party is located. You haven't heard about them yet? Why that's because everyone who knows about them is silently assassinated.
But you don't actually say that, so that if someone calls you on it, you can deny having said that and claim they misinterpreted you.
One example of this "implying without saying" technique would be daveschroeder's last paragraph:
As far as US foreign policy is concerned, I definitely do espouse neoconservative positions, and indeed believe in many of those principles firmly. [...] I legitimately believe that, e.g., Panislamic radicalism and continuing US/Western access to critical resources (in light of demands on the same from China and India, and even considering potential future alternative replacements) are the two greatest challenges of the next fifty years. Does not that not mean other things aren't important? Of course not. But I think those are two items of grave concern to the United States and Europe in particular.
My "interpretation" of it would be: the US needs a strong military, that is trained constantly and generates turnover to keep the machinery working. This basically boils down to: killing people and 'fighting evil' once in a while is the best training in case a real fight for life and death emerges; it also has the added benefit of quelling any element that could potentially become dangerous for the status quo.
I do see the need of military myself, because there will always be people willing to supress or attack other people for no other reason than greed and other lowly motives. That is what is evil and that is what has to be fought. Some might argue that invading another country is legitimate when it does just that, but they lost their argument (and moral highground) when hundreds or thousands of (potential) civilians casualties are disregarded or arbitrarily ignored. This lends to fascist thinking ("Better have 'them' die than 'us'", or more precisely "One of 'us' is worth ten of 'them'") and will lead to suffering and, in effect, evil.
The only way to secure the well-being of everyone including 'us' is to act in a morally upright way and show true virtue, it is the only way that will make everybody see that aggression is not the answer. For all believing Christians out there - this is actually the essence of Jesus teachings, this is why he was a pacifist. In fact all major religions center around this. Hindus believe if you burden yourself with bad karma by acting unethically (e.g. beating other people down to stay on top yourself) you will pay for it eventually in your coming lifes, usually even before that in you present life. Buddhists believe that killing anything or destroying anything that is part of the creation is an 'evil' deed and will make it harder for your soul to reach enlightenment, i.e. perfection. Mohammet's teachings are similar to Jesus' (same roots obviously). He does add though, that violence is justified for self-defence; in this he narrows the 'justified' use of violence down (from the old testament) to only be applied for the preservation of the integrity of your own soul (additionally, some even interpret this 'jihad' as a non-violent struggle for your own soul). This 'self defence' clause has been misused, but then again it wasn't the only religion that was misused for political gain.
I'm not a scholar of either religion, but I agree with Plato that there must be a universal good that is inherent in every serious ethical system and good can never be spread through evil. I mean what would have happened if Luke had listened to Vader saying "Give youself to the dark side, it is the only way you can save your friends!"?;)
In the end, we all die and it is just a matter of how we conduct our own lifes.
..backed by good or by bad evidence. That the earth isn't the center of the universe once was a conspiracy theory spread by those 'unbelieving heathons who "think" too much'.
Anyway, I'll do my part spreading the evidence; just found this clip a few days ago. I posted the link already, but I think it's worth reposting it for anyone who's interested. It's about a programmer who had been hired (by a politician) to write code to manipulate voting machines.
While the passwords weren't the best, they weren't exactly terrible. [...]
According to TFA it seems most passwords used on myspace are made up of dictionary words (mostly lower case) and a numeric suffix (usually <4 digits). Imho such a password does look horrible, especially after seeing how important some of the myspace pages seem to be for certain people.
There are Pirate Parties cropping up across the world, working together through the internet and having the same goals. I believe this is a step in the right direction: politics need to be globalized, because economies are globalized already - no big corporations gives a crap about national borders.
If you look at the forums (e.g. the Swedish one) it is inspiring to see people disregarding national boundaries and helping each other out as equals. Added to that the sentiment that 'You can use anything I create and vice versa it'll be interesting to see what will become of it.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is it always us poor male humans that have to sleep on the couch and never the women? I'm calling for a global emancipation movement. Put an end to the discrimination and fight for men's rights! We are humans too! Stupid couch!
Use of solar panels goes way back. I still can't believe Ronald Reagan took down those panels that Carter installed on the White House as well as axing the solar research program - weakass politics.. :(
Would be fun so see a bunch of orcs and necromancers raid congress though.. ;)
I also highly doubt the funniest joke in the world can be translated accurately into Arabic by a computer, though it would prove a formidable weapon.
Google has grown from a little search engine provider into the power horse we know today. They have done so by creating or aquiring new applications that people like and use and they continue to improve it. A role model for any company, they use their increasing momentum to create services that benefit their user base (such as providing Gmail users with GBs of free eMail space) while at the same time consolidating their dominance.
;)
This brings us to the flip side of a huge centralized corporate data hub, though. An example to illustrate the problem: Joe Schmoe likes to use many of Google's services, because they are neat and fun to use, nothing wrong with that per se. Joe sets his browser to remember that he's logged in, thus he doesn't need to reenter his password everytime he loads up his Google homepage or checks his Gmail account, it's more convenient that way (and isn't that what the 'remember password' feature is there for?). What this means is: Google is able to (and does) gather a humongous amount of information about him while he's online. Google "knows" what things he's searching for on the net (whether it be viagra, scientific research or just some pictures of cute pets) and at what time he is performing these searches; they "know" his exact current location (logged IP), his entire email correspondence on gMail, what kinds of videos he likes to watch, what kinds of (google) ads he responds to (by clicking on), and even to a certain extend which webpages he visits when.
It's actually quite unnerving how much information (both in terms of quantity and quality) they have about every such user. It would be possible for them to create a more or less accurate psychological profile of an 'active' user cross-reference with what appears to be his/her hobbies, habits, even daily schedules and pinpoint his/her exact location (at work or at home) at any given time he uses one of their increasing number of services. Now who or what is to guarantee this information is not going to fall into the wrong hands? What if a hacker (rogue blackhat, CIA, the Russian FSB or whatever) gains access to critical information stored on Google Servers? What if a corporation like Time Warner buys up Google (and expands its board of directors with less 'ethical' ones)? What if Google chooses to really cooperate with governments to comply with local laws put into place to fight 'dissidents' or 'terrorists'?
My point is: Google has undeniably evolved into a great suite of useful applications. They do us credit, but they could be made to serve Big Brother (or any other evil entity). And what controls are in place to make sure that this at one point in time or another is not going to happen? That they will not turn to the dark side of the force? (scnr
Hehe, I like your sig. Something is rotten in the state of slashdot..
CNN is not THAT bad outside the US, because CNN international broadcasts significantly different and more diversified content, since it aims at a global audience (compared to an audience that is at least partly conditioned by Fox News and the like to view everything in a self-centered view).
Vote MacGyver for President! In Episode #56 he actually kicks the butts of a couple of these 'war is peace' neocon types. What better choice is there in 2008? He disarmes missiles with a paperclip and diffuses bombs with hockey tickets for crying out loud! - Oh yea, and of course Mr. T needs to be secretary of defence!
BTW, I do know that the Joint Chiefs of Staff are nominally not part of the government, but seeing the role they play and their influence in governments' decisions there is no denying that there exists a very close tie between the both.
..was to make sure that, no matter what the circumstances, there would be fighter jets available and put in the air to avoid any such incident.
I know that average Joe Doe may never have thought about planes flying into buildings, but apart from some 'crazy conspiracy nuts' who e.g. watched the first episode of the Lone Gunmen or those architects actually responsible for designing the WTC even the government officials must have been aware of scenarios in which hijacked planes would be flown into civilian buildings or nuclear plants.
In fact during the cold war certain government officials were even far more creative in finding ways to start a war based on false or fabricated evidence. A plan had been put forth to the government detailing how to create support for a war by laying false evidence (e.g. hijackings of civilian airplanes and attacking civilians by military aircraft). Those plans, due to Kennedy's refusal, have never been put into action, but they show what certain members of government (in this case up to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) were willing to do; imagine what might have happened if the president had instead been GW Bush back then..
The government is (or should be) concerned about and has the means to evaluate any potential thread against its citizens and act accordingly so that the citizens don't have to. Instead this administration has let four airplanes slip through that killed thousands of civilians and afterwards starts a campaign aided by the media to scare its citizens shitless as to what could happen next? (tm)
What if the Martians are all like "Nice planet. We'll take it!" after receiving our transmission? Has anyone thought that through? - In any case just keep in mind: if a Martian draws a big circle into the air, it's not the international sign of the doughnut!
..maybe. It depends on what type of blackhat hacker we're talking about. There may be hacker ethics, but every hacker will define these in their own way.
There will always be hackers that hack for their own profit and only care about covering their tracks, they believe the ability grants them the right, basically the 'predator ethos' (shared by so many managers out there as well *cough*HP*cough*). On the other side there are hackers that have deep convictions and use their ability to e.g. fight an oppressive government, that wages wars and makes the public believe it's for their own good; these are the idealists. And somewhere in between we'll find most of the hackers (including the disillusioned, cynical ones).
Whether they are suitable to serve as a gear in the machinery will be different from individual to individual.
Sounds exactly like one of those EA horror stories a while ago. Game companies develope for 'future mainstream' hardware so they develope on cutting edge tech, problem is they don't put too much effort into potential compatibility issues and focus more on the eye candy. Game companies are also notorious for working under 'creatively chaotic' conditions.
;)
I wonder how games will look like that are written by anal-retentive accountants..
What's wrong with disecting oranges? Have you ever seen an orange suffer from heart disease? Neither have I! The only sensible way to save the human race is to create human-orange hybrids that are juicy yet sport opposing thumbs. We shall call them 'Homo orange'.
On first glance the problem looks to be credibility. We are more inclined to think of things we see on the net as fake compared to traditional media outlets, because admittedly there is far more fake stuff floating around on the net (and don't forget astroturfing etc.). Though the 'old media' can be very deceptive and even outright lie to it's viewers/readers they juice it up with a little truth here and there to not lose the credibility of their pliable crowd.
;) - The system has been molded to work like this and even if certain websites would establish themselves as a credible news source it wouldn't counter this main problem.
The fact is (unless you live in a country that effectively restricts access to certain media) that nowadays it is technically possible to get a more accurate picture of current (and past) events. The internet with its 'blogosphere' et al are doing a great job helping with that, but a lot of information is indeed already out there on traditional media. Watching BBC World and CNN International instead of Fox News and CNN US or reading foreign newspapers would give citizens a much broader perspective on current events.
The real problem though, is that most people just want 'simple' 'entertaining' news after a day's work and not delve into a battle in the search for the truth; this unfortunately appears to be only the privilege of journalists and people with spare time on their hands such as students and geeks
What has become of this world? A world in which the greatest minds have discovered and researched new things 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
This site agglomerates information in order to restrict usage of it (akin to the patent system)! There is something terribly wrong with this, not only with the process but the basic ethical framework behind it. It promotes an egotistical philosophy that states "This is something I found out! You better not use that for your own research, or else!" People should be honored for things they 'find out', but others shouldn't be restricted to not use their work to create something new. I know this isn't exactly what this site does, but it stands for that kind of thinking.
Plagiarism has always more or less been part of science and art. It simply depends on how many works you mix together to create something 'new' and 'innovative' that doesn't resemble any one previous work. Do you think Mozart had created such great works if he had to make sure his tunes weren't used before? He (and not only him) sometimes actually knowingly "copied" melodies that were well know at the time and embellished them. So, not everyone can be a Mozart or a Beethoven, but at least we shouldn't punish people for trying.
I do see the problem of people being trained to fullfill their assignments by not thinking of their own but copying other's works word for word (especially when copy-pasting as opposed to writing it by hand), but in that case I would see the fault in the assignments themselves - why not ask questions that promote creative thinking instead of copy-pasting? In addition, what's the big deal wiht copy-pasting anyway? The assignments' function is to make the student research and learn stuff, which will eventually be tested in the exams where copy-pasting isn't possible. So the really lazy buns will be filtered out anyway, no?
I would think this will open up lots of new trade opportunities between Russia and North America. I don't know what that could mean, but it is certainly interesting.
Well, for one they have typhoon class nuclear subs with a stealth propulsion system, that just sit there and have nothing to do. Just ask for "Vilnius Nastavnyk" or "Ramius", he'll deliver the goods.
I wouldn't like to start a heated debate about this - even less a flame war.
Agh, I was paraphrasing there; imho the quote actually warrents an accurate citation. What he said was more refined: "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - see what he did there? He actually used 'human being' instead of 'human beings' as the plural as an artistic device to express the harmony between fish and men (since the plural of fish is also dindistinguishable from its singular form) thus building a symbolic linguistic bridge between both our species.
The quote is on the video at 2:22.
Now I understand what Bush meant when he said "I believe that men and fish can live together in harmony!" - More Bushisms here.
No, that's where the Ninja Party is located. You haven't heard about them yet? Why that's because everyone who knows about them is silently assassinated.
But you don't actually say that, so that if someone calls you on it, you can deny having said that and claim they misinterpreted you.
;)
One example of this "implying without saying" technique would be daveschroeder's last paragraph:
As far as US foreign policy is concerned, I definitely do espouse neoconservative positions, and indeed believe in many of those principles firmly. [...] I legitimately believe that, e.g., Panislamic radicalism and continuing US/Western access to critical resources (in light of demands on the same from China and India, and even considering potential future alternative replacements) are the two greatest challenges of the next fifty years. Does not that not mean other things aren't important? Of course not. But I think those are two items of grave concern to the United States and Europe in particular.
My "interpretation" of it would be: the US needs a strong military, that is trained constantly and generates turnover to keep the machinery working. This basically boils down to: killing people and 'fighting evil' once in a while is the best training in case a real fight for life and death emerges; it also has the added benefit of quelling any element that could potentially become dangerous for the status quo.
I do see the need of military myself, because there will always be people willing to supress or attack other people for no other reason than greed and other lowly motives. That is what is evil and that is what has to be fought. Some might argue that invading another country is legitimate when it does just that, but they lost their argument (and moral highground) when hundreds or thousands of (potential) civilians casualties are disregarded or arbitrarily ignored. This lends to fascist thinking ("Better have 'them' die than 'us'", or more precisely "One of 'us' is worth ten of 'them'") and will lead to suffering and, in effect, evil.
The only way to secure the well-being of everyone including 'us' is to act in a morally upright way and show true virtue, it is the only way that will make everybody see that aggression is not the answer. For all believing Christians out there - this is actually the essence of Jesus teachings, this is why he was a pacifist. In fact all major religions center around this. Hindus believe if you burden yourself with bad karma by acting unethically (e.g. beating other people down to stay on top yourself) you will pay for it eventually in your coming lifes, usually even before that in you present life. Buddhists believe that killing anything or destroying anything that is part of the creation is an 'evil' deed and will make it harder for your soul to reach enlightenment, i.e. perfection. Mohammet's teachings are similar to Jesus' (same roots obviously). He does add though, that violence is justified for self-defence; in this he narrows the 'justified' use of violence down (from the old testament) to only be applied for the preservation of the integrity of your own soul (additionally, some even interpret this 'jihad' as a non-violent struggle for your own soul). This 'self defence' clause has been misused, but then again it wasn't the only religion that was misused for political gain.
I'm not a scholar of either religion, but I agree with Plato that there must be a universal good that is inherent in every serious ethical system and good can never be spread through evil. I mean what would have happened if Luke had listened to Vader saying "Give youself to the dark side, it is the only way you can save your friends!"?
In the end, we all die and it is just a matter of how we conduct our own lifes.
..backed by good or by bad evidence. That the earth isn't the center of the universe once was a conspiracy theory spread by those 'unbelieving heathons who "think" too much'.
Anyway, I'll do my part spreading the evidence; just found this clip a few days ago. I posted the link already, but I think it's worth reposting it for anyone who's interested. It's about a programmer who had been hired (by a politician) to write code to manipulate voting machines.
There are Pirate Parties cropping up across the world, working together through the internet and having the same goals. I believe this is a step in the right direction: politics need to be globalized, because economies are globalized already - no big corporations gives a crap about national borders.
If you look at the forums (e.g. the Swedish one) it is inspiring to see people disregarding national boundaries and helping each other out as equals. Added to that the sentiment that 'You can use anything I create and vice versa it'll be interesting to see what will become of it.