Well in all the places I worked at (except UK) and this is almost whole of northern Europe the mix was colorful and included ladies. In fact some working with me now are from Spain, Mexico & Brasil - I guess that would be Hispanic except Brazilians then? Not sure if my experience is that much of an exception in Europe. I am surprised that that is so at your place. The fact is however that when I worked in UK the mix was much less balanced as on the continent esp. with regard to fe/male situation. Could this be UK/US situation you describe?
I think you missed the point. There are different types of interrogation as well as there are different types of goals for the interrogation. If your goal is to produce a villain then torture is working well for you. If you are interested in producing facts then you need to be really tough on yourself not to spoil the results.
If you want facts you cannot only apply pain and fear but also your brain. Good police officers do talk to suspects to establish contact and enable confession. It is not always possible but that is how they work in civilized world. There is afaik (but I am not a police officer so that is limited knowledge based on interest in these matters). no rule that allows you to do it. I believe however if you are outside of legal domain (like CIA were many times) then your options increase and in fact these things have been investigated. Often to the point where scientists became brutally inhumane (start your search with "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation").
That FBI now wants to include science is not the first time authorities do that. I guess we even pay them to become as effective as possible and including scientists is perceived as doing exactly that.It still feels spooky / not sure if I want them to be very effective or rather not.
Public has a very little say in what and how technology is used. FB for instance is not a public property and yet big enough to influence the way your private data is handled i.e. sold. Majority does not even understand the implications and consequences of using of particular technology or tool. How can they be held responsible then? Even private use of a company owned computer is not always a good reason to fire you - a case in Sweden when a company used pr0n watching as an excuse to fire somebody and lost in court. Similarly in Germany even if company has the right to monitor your activity on 'your' PC there is still expectation of privacy when it comes to mail communication.
It is also an exaggeration to generalize a silly and mostly annoying habit in which some bastards force you to listen to their mobile conversations. I mean that some minority does that does not mean that majority accepts this sort of behaviour and consequently wants to do away with their privacy?
I suppose in Europe (you know these 'socialists' on the others side of the small pond, some of them - OMG - speaking french) the expectations of privacy is still there. It may be our past playing with us - in Germany practice of secrete police from the old good times of painter from Vienna but also what DDR did back when it still existed, make authorities bit more careful about privacy. I would imagine the later applies at least in majority of ex-communist countries. Other than that we do not differ that much from US - some of my friends and neighbours etc do not even see anything wrong if state would watch us all - first 'we do not have anyting to hide, do you?' and second it is 'for the children'. I suppose another McCarthy style witch hunt in US with use of modern technology should, when it will be over, change the approach of the US public as well as that of the elected officials and authorities a bit. It seems public learns only the hard way.
Another thing is - modern technology may not be very useful in preventing crime etc but in helping police clearing crime under supervision of courts - that is another matter and should be considered with all the checks and balances you may need to keep the balance of power. It is not static you know - the fact that Zuckerberg seems to be winning now does not mean that US citizens cannot change it if they really want. The problem is only inertia of the system then as it is much bigger than that of the technology.
I do not think anybody is blaming anybody here except maybe police blaming the author of the flaming post. The action 'against fb' was precaution. I suppose they weighted benefits of letting it go and causing massive riots in a process or stopping it and having trouble with fb first. I guess as long as process is visible and transparent and status quo can be restored if action was unjust it is ok. There is always a problem between freedom of expression and other freedoms. It is more difficult to resolve in crowded places where tension is never going away. Going for extremes of freedom as with any other extremes - causes a lots of trouble. Be rational and practical instead of trying to teach people on the other side of earth how they should do their business.
what if they find that you are an enemy whacko (as in fact majority of such people would) ? Would you still opt for freedom of action to clean up the environment?
I am rather surprised that this has not caused a massive abuse of the poor - what was it - investment manager. Apparently/. got older and does not get excited this much these days and the superfluous interest in things roughly associated with internet (what is internet???) are rather welcome. OTOH hand I find this a rather interesting that excell programming (among other such things) is so lowly rated - I know a few that earn a decent living out of programming massive system run as excel macros.
based on GP's logic we should try (we did) and learn from mistakes (we did not). The problem with nuclear is not even how bad the plumbers are or how evil owning corporations are but that complicated technology that is difficult to contain if things go wrong (take years to find out what was going on in broken nuclear reactors - ever wondered why?) and if they indeed go wrong then the price to pay in terms of evacuations & clean up etc is so enormous that even countries like Japan have problems with it. The again come people claiming that fluid metal reactors are a great solution because they are secure - well if radioactive elements carrying sodium comes in contact with air then of course everything is well or is it? This is just an example of what usually happens when solution to one problem is found - another set of problems come and these can cause as great havoc as the original problem. As stated before - the problem is that it the the ever so low risk is always there and the results are so dramatic that almost no country in the world can afford this to happen. By pushing the problem away we may have a good life now. This is possible because low probability of event. If things go bad in really bad way then you do what? This is not a question of risk - risk is something that may happen but it does not have to. Accidents happen whatever precautions. AT some point we (humans) may be forced to live with some level low of radioactive pollution whatever consequences because there will be simply no other way. Risk taking is good - it allows for progress. We know consequences now so we should possibly look for alternatives no0t only for electricity production but also consumption of less energy in more efficient way as well as many other solutions in different areas. Well of course w can take risk too for what I care. Probability is on my side - these are my and possibly your kids (if you ever leave the cellar) that may be paying the price.
I think GP's post was aimed at the leaches i.e. automatic trade machines and other such things used in so called High Frequency Trading which is a legalized fraud (as they can look in the future of other traders). There was interesting debate recently so you can have a look and see for yourself.
The only problem with technology that produces nuclear waste is the inevitable storage as well as inevitable accident problem. Storage is a great easier than with standard uranium fuel cycle they say still it is a problem for a bit longer than the average US president can prevail (even if you exclude those with led saturation). THe accident problem is still a problem for any fission reactor - it hardly matters if the accident in question is extremely rare thanx to (admittedly quite extensive and expensive) precautions that we take - if it ever happens and it does it creates havoc and misery among human neighbours as well as great financial problem for the state which (naturally) is going to pay for damage and clean up. So we may have no other option but if there is a chance of a shot at something else that is less dangerous then we should use this chance. The half arse attempts on fusion for energy are just a miserable excuse for research. Still the discussion is pointless decisions are made outside of civil society.
It would be nice if we could just snap our fingers, and suddenly everyone would have great working conditions, and enough money to live well on.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. A society has to work its way up. And companies like Foxconn are the the forefront of that. They pay better and have better working conditions than the average. Once enough people reach a higher standard of living, they can start demanding more, and
It is sometimes not very intelligent to protest vital regulation on basis that all regulation is evil as if it is vital then it will slip trough on lower levels which causes a mess that is costly to everybody. Sufficiently well thought trough regulation may be beneficial (either because indeed it was thought trough or because of luck). The good example is: USA had always better technology in mobile networks than Europe. Yet it was/is Europe where coverage and interoperability are better, it is also Europe where the mobile telephony actually grew to the level that mobile phones are cheap enough to purchase and use for almost everyone. The reason for all the success in Europe was that we had something called standards that were established by international bodies on basis of hints by few evil corporations that did sell mobiles and networks in which they could work. So TFA may be another attempt at organizing things right so that Canadians have service US Americans never will. I find it funny that it often enough ends so.....
So in other words you consider the rip off the eBooks usually are a price you pay for your convenience. There are plenty people like you. The only bad thing about this is that by doing so you corrupt the markets and increase prices for everybody else.
The answer to your question is No and No but living in Germany we have some other examples of copyright protection racket I know a lawyer whose main occupation is providing legal services to people that got letters demanding to pay a fine or face court proceedings. The crime is in the case always the same - theft and copyright violations. The fine is usually not very high: 1kE or 1.5kE sometimes more, depending on what was 'found' to be 'distributed' illegally according to their 'investigations'. What this lawyer told me is that you hardly stand a chance of fighting it. Not because you actually did something but mainly because your enemy has the right to chose any court in the whole country so they chose one where the judge is friendly and if that is possible the court room is far away from your residence. This makes the whole thing skewed against you in number different ways. There were funny cases in Germany we get to know too. It seems that the whole process of finding out where & (very important) when copyright violation took place is seriously flowed and yet copyright friendly courts decide against you. It seems that in case of copyright violations there is no assumption of innocence. On top of that the whole process of accusing people of violations is automated and run on base of address books not recorded violations i.e. whole streets receive letters from lawyers demanding fines to be paid etc.
None of this involves directly RIAA and majority does not involve court proceedings.
well it helps if language provides some help in form of structures and mechanisms but w/o them it is also possible and not that difficult at least if you know what you are doing. I use ancient language currently (probably older than c++) that was designed to do parallel processing and it does exactly that without concept of those threads that people are so hot about. Threads appears far below in VM to which me moved from dedicated processors that we used before. Not fancy but it works. The only concern is productivity but considering how scalable the system really is I wonder if other languages are something more than a silver bullets that are flying around every now and then.....
why some men like blonds more than red heads and then bound to brunettes? Well we are all different, have different addictions and end up bending under external pressure (this of course applies to all of human kind not only poor males from my analogy).
Now as for you love to python - I do not think GP actually did say anything against python, GP also did not say all is assembler and we should write our code in it. He generalized about languages and he was essentially right.
BTW: I believe your productivity with Python (to keep your example) would be null in place like I am at now where I use specialized and very old language to control a complex real time engine and this is not because Python is useless but it is just not suitable/feasible/possible for this particular purpose.
this and that any such move would not stop anybody from all the appalling activities just make the criminals making their business other ways. OTOH if US ever stops people from buying 'illegal' stuff by such technological measure what is that stops them from preventing you from doing some other evil activities. I mean delegalization of arbitrary things like drugs use, prostitution etc is just eeee arbitrary so why not prevent some other illegal activities like speaking French for instance. I think there is a noble notion of people not having to succumb to drug abuse for instance but if information is provided to them and they do not do direct damage to others or their property why delegalizing things in the first place? I wonder all these 'though on crime' bigots in US - do they have actually anything that they can think with or they use basic functions of spinal cord instead because there is nothing in their skulls but brown substance?
Slashdot Mirror
Well in all the places I worked at (except UK) and this is almost whole of northern Europe the mix was colorful and included ladies. In fact some working with me now are from Spain, Mexico & Brasil - I guess that would be Hispanic except Brazilians then? Not sure if my experience is that much of an exception in Europe. I am surprised that that is so at your place. The fact is however that when I worked in UK the mix was much less balanced as on the continent esp. with regard to fe/male situation. Could this be UK/US situation you describe?
I think you missed the point. There are different types of interrogation as well as there are different types of goals for the interrogation. If your goal is to produce a villain then torture is working well for you. If you are interested in producing facts then you need to be really tough on yourself not to spoil the results. If you want facts you cannot only apply pain and fear but also your brain. Good police officers do talk to suspects to establish contact and enable confession. It is not always possible but that is how they work in civilized world. There is afaik (but I am not a police officer so that is limited knowledge based on interest in these matters). no rule that allows you to do it. I believe however if you are outside of legal domain (like CIA were many times) then your options increase and in fact these things have been investigated. Often to the point where scientists became brutally inhumane (start your search with "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation"). That FBI now wants to include science is not the first time authorities do that. I guess we even pay them to become as effective as possible and including scientists is perceived as doing exactly that.It still feels spooky / not sure if I want them to be very effective or rather not.
It is also an exaggeration to generalize a silly and mostly annoying habit in which some bastards force you to listen to their mobile conversations. I mean that some minority does that does not mean that majority accepts this sort of behaviour and consequently wants to do away with their privacy? I suppose in Europe (you know these 'socialists' on the others side of the small pond, some of them - OMG - speaking french) the expectations of privacy is still there. It may be our past playing with us - in Germany practice of secrete police from the old good times of painter from Vienna but also what DDR did back when it still existed, make authorities bit more careful about privacy. I would imagine the later applies at least in majority of ex-communist countries. Other than that we do not differ that much from US - some of my friends and neighbours etc do not even see anything wrong if state would watch us all - first 'we do not have anyting to hide, do you?' and second it is 'for the children'. I suppose another McCarthy style witch hunt in US with use of modern technology should, when it will be over, change the approach of the US public as well as that of the elected officials and authorities a bit. It seems public learns only the hard way.
Another thing is - modern technology may not be very useful in preventing crime etc but in helping police clearing crime under supervision of courts - that is another matter and should be considered with all the checks and balances you may need to keep the balance of power. It is not static you know - the fact that Zuckerberg seems to be winning now does not mean that US citizens cannot change it if they really want. The problem is only inertia of the system then as it is much bigger than that of the technology.
Conditions like diabetes are best treated in ER of course or?
I do not think anybody is blaming anybody here except maybe police blaming the author of the flaming post. The action 'against fb' was precaution. I suppose they weighted benefits of letting it go and causing massive riots in a process or stopping it and having trouble with fb first. I guess as long as process is visible and transparent and status quo can be restored if action was unjust it is ok. There is always a problem between freedom of expression and other freedoms. It is more difficult to resolve in crowded places where tension is never going away. Going for extremes of freedom as with any other extremes - causes a lots of trouble. Be rational and practical instead of trying to teach people on the other side of earth how they should do their business.
what if they find that you are an enemy whacko (as in fact majority of such people would) ? Would you still opt for freedom of action to clean up the environment?
I am rather surprised that this has not caused a massive abuse of the poor - what was it - investment manager. Apparently /. got older and does not get excited this much these days and the superfluous interest in things roughly associated with internet (what is internet???) are rather welcome. OTOH hand I find this a rather interesting that excell programming (among other such things) is so lowly rated - I know a few that earn a decent living out of programming massive system run as excel macros.
based on GP's logic we should try (we did) and learn from mistakes (we did not). The problem with nuclear is not even how bad the plumbers are or how evil owning corporations are but that complicated technology that is difficult to contain if things go wrong (take years to find out what was going on in broken nuclear reactors - ever wondered why?) and if they indeed go wrong then the price to pay in terms of evacuations & clean up etc is so enormous that even countries like Japan have problems with it. The again come people claiming that fluid metal reactors are a great solution because they are secure - well if radioactive elements carrying sodium comes in contact with air then of course everything is well or is it? This is just an example of what usually happens when solution to one problem is found - another set of problems come and these can cause as great havoc as the original problem. As stated before - the problem is that it the the ever so low risk is always there and the results are so dramatic that almost no country in the world can afford this to happen. By pushing the problem away we may have a good life now. This is possible because low probability of event. If things go bad in really bad way then you do what? This is not a question of risk - risk is something that may happen but it does not have to. Accidents happen whatever precautions. AT some point we (humans) may be forced to live with some level low of radioactive pollution whatever consequences because there will be simply no other way. Risk taking is good - it allows for progress. We know consequences now so we should possibly look for alternatives no0t only for electricity production but also consumption of less energy in more efficient way as well as many other solutions in different areas. Well of course w can take risk too for what I care. Probability is on my side - these are my and possibly your kids (if you ever leave the cellar) that may be paying the price.
But this does not fit with the 'nuclear is the safest' story line - how dare you!!!!
I think GP's post was aimed at the leaches i.e. automatic trade machines and other such things used in so called High Frequency Trading which is a legalized fraud (as they can look in the future of other traders). There was interesting debate recently so you can have a look and see for yourself.
The only problem with technology that produces nuclear waste is the inevitable storage as well as inevitable accident problem. Storage is a great easier than with standard uranium fuel cycle they say still it is a problem for a bit longer than the average US president can prevail (even if you exclude those with led saturation). THe accident problem is still a problem for any fission reactor - it hardly matters if the accident in question is extremely rare thanx to (admittedly quite extensive and expensive) precautions that we take - if it ever happens and it does it creates havoc and misery among human neighbours as well as great financial problem for the state which (naturally) is going to pay for damage and clean up. So we may have no other option but if there is a chance of a shot at something else that is less dangerous then we should use this chance. The half arse attempts on fusion for energy are just a miserable excuse for research. Still the discussion is pointless decisions are made outside of civil society.
It would be nice if we could just snap our fingers, and suddenly everyone would have great working conditions, and enough money to live well on.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. A society has to work its way up. And companies like Foxconn are the the forefront of that. They pay better and have better working conditions than the average. Once enough people reach a higher standard of living, they can start demanding more, and
watch their jobs go to Zamunda.
I fixed that for you :)
It is sometimes not very intelligent to protest vital regulation on basis that all regulation is evil as if it is vital then it will slip trough on lower levels which causes a mess that is costly to everybody. Sufficiently well thought trough regulation may be beneficial (either because indeed it was thought trough or because of luck). The good example is: USA had always better technology in mobile networks than Europe. Yet it was/is Europe where coverage and interoperability are better, it is also Europe where the mobile telephony actually grew to the level that mobile phones are cheap enough to purchase and use for almost everyone. The reason for all the success in Europe was that we had something called standards that were established by international bodies on basis of hints by few evil corporations that did sell mobiles and networks in which they could work. So TFA may be another attempt at organizing things right so that Canadians have service US Americans never will. I find it funny that it often enough ends so.....
this is interesting - it may mean at the end that all human translators will have to pay royalties from now on?
So in other words you consider the rip off the eBooks usually are a price you pay for your convenience. There are plenty people like you. The only bad thing about this is that by doing so you corrupt the markets and increase prices for everybody else.
None of this involves directly RIAA and majority does not involve court proceedings.
well it helps if language provides some help in form of structures and mechanisms but w/o them it is also possible and not that difficult at least if you know what you are doing. I use ancient language currently (probably older than c++) that was designed to do parallel processing and it does exactly that without concept of those threads that people are so hot about. Threads appears far below in VM to which me moved from dedicated processors that we used before. Not fancy but it works. The only concern is productivity but considering how scalable the system really is I wonder if other languages are something more than a silver bullets that are flying around every now and then.....
Now as for you love to python - I do not think GP actually did say anything against python, GP also did not say all is assembler and we should write our code in it. He generalized about languages and he was essentially right.
BTW: I believe your productivity with Python (to keep your example) would be null in place like I am at now where I use specialized and very old language to control a complex real time engine and this is not because Python is useless but it is just not suitable/feasible/possible for this particular purpose.
oc you have to pay every time you use it for cooking or?
this is pure pr0n - I got a hard on already....
Gosh what happen with your republic???
even if it is not the intention it will happen eventually.
it is an evil communist country in Europe with some fancy name.
this and that any such move would not stop anybody from all the appalling activities just make the criminals making their business other ways. OTOH if US ever stops people from buying 'illegal' stuff by such technological measure what is that stops them from preventing you from doing some other evil activities. I mean delegalization of arbitrary things like drugs use, prostitution etc is just eeee arbitrary so why not prevent some other illegal activities like speaking French for instance. I think there is a noble notion of people not having to succumb to drug abuse for instance but if information is provided to them and they do not do direct damage to others or their property why delegalizing things in the first place? I wonder all these 'though on crime' bigots in US - do they have actually anything that they can think with or they use basic functions of spinal cord instead because there is nothing in their skulls but brown substance?
you exaggerate a bit and if a real s. offender wants a 'treatment' then why not? If it helps of course. Not sure if that only would help.