The case is ridiculous, but not quite for that reason. If a minor sends an adult explicit pictures of herself, implicitly "by her own will", then he's still soliciting child porn and committing a crime (assuming he asked her to). However, the reason why this is ridiculous is that 1.) the kids were of the same age, and that 2.) she is getting charged, when if there were any crime at all, she would be the victim, not the criminal.
Teach them how to use Tor, OTR and PGP encryption, as well as basic counter-surveillance. The way our privacy laws are going, they're going to need it.
Nature either works in a way that allows humans to survive, or it works in a way that does not. The research into how to ensure the former may be inspired by intuition, but it cannot be replaced by it - and assigning any kind of "intent" to nature is a potentially dangerous error.
For high-tech methods of electronic surveillance, I thought Stephenson's van-Eck phreaking in Cryptonomicon held the record. But laser microphones clearly win as far as range is concerned.:)
That is a very good idea - have the government keep the real list under locks and only distribute an officially sanctioned hash-list.
However, you make the assumption that the stated reason the list is classified is the actual reason. The government doesn't want you to vet the list, even for a URL you already know. That's the point of censorship; to make information disappear as thoroughly as if it were never there.
The government could just take down the child porn sites. But instead they create filters and blacklists for those pages as well as other websites that might be against their ideals. You're not allowed to check those lists for any illegitimate censorship because then you would also look at child porn.
Concurred. This pro-patent analysis seems very unreasonable in a time where patent lawsuits are mostly crazy monkey trials where an unproductive, greedy company seeks to prevent people from innovating by protecting things that have long become common knowledge or accepted practice.
Thanks to the accelerated rate of innovation enabled by technology, there is a turning point where the damage done by keeping the lid on an invention outweighs the incentive.
Nowadays, ideas are becoming cheaper, whereas implementing them to enable new ideas is a costly and risky investment. The result is people trying to patent what boils down to day-dreams and doodles (approximately "adding a scroll-bar to a window to allow that window to contain more text than it has space for"), not in order to actually accomplish anything with them, but in order to prevent other people from putting these ideas into practice without a cut of the profit.
I was sort of hoping the Myyearbook guys would carry the vote, because then the case would have been even clearer: There is no way they'd have used such a ridiculous name. With Colbert, I'm less sure but I can still hope.
I concur with the summary: They should have never allowed write-ins.
Because science is not about proving anything, it is about disproving hypothesis
That's completely correct. But to start with, a theory has to be able to be disproved. That means it must make a prediction which can be shown to be wrong (or not) by an experiment. This "falsifiability" is a very important quality in any scientific theory. For example, I could tell you that the entire world is a figment of my imagination. Any choice you make and any random event that occurs is decided by me. There is nothing you can do to scientifically disprove my claim (I could just say I arranged for your proof to work), despite its stupidity.
Creationism makes no predictions, so it cannot be disproved by any experiment. Ergo, it is not falsifiable, which means it is not a scientific hypothesis.:)
That would work if creationism or intelligent design were actually taught in a matter that promotes critical thinking.
Or, come to think of it, if it were replaced with an alternate origin idea that actually makes any sense whatsoever. Students don't learn skepticism by hearing the equivalent of "Darwin said that we evolved from monkeys. But this is a theory, not a fact. We might also have been created by space aliens. Which do you think is cooler, a boring old monkey or a big space alien?"
Simple. Print the filled-out ballot, let the voter look at it, then make them throw it in the bin on their way out before they leave.
The best part is that you can count the bin contents to match the electronic outcome. That would basically be returning to the traditional ballot system, but the difference is that you only need a manual count if the electronic outcome is close (within, say, 5%) or in doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
And murder is murder. And copyright violation is copyright violation, and is the same as murder about as much as it is the same as theft.
The case is ridiculous, but not quite for that reason. If a minor sends an adult explicit pictures of herself, implicitly "by her own will", then he's still soliciting child porn and committing a crime (assuming he asked her to). However, the reason why this is ridiculous is that 1.) the kids were of the same age, and that 2.) she is getting charged, when if there were any crime at all, she would be the victim, not the criminal.
Teach them how to use Tor, OTR and PGP encryption, as well as basic counter-surveillance. The way our privacy laws are going, they're going to need it.
Nature intends nothing.
Nature either works in a way that allows humans to survive, or it works in a way that does not. The research into how to ensure the former may be inspired by intuition, but it cannot be replaced by it - and assigning any kind of "intent" to nature is a potentially dangerous error.
For high-tech methods of electronic surveillance, I thought Stephenson's van-Eck phreaking in Cryptonomicon held the record. But laser microphones clearly win as far as range is concerned. :)
...
A delicious irony lies in that sentence. :)
In the words of one of my favorite webcomics:
"No, then you'll really be terrorists." :P
That is a very good idea - have the government keep the real list under locks and only distribute an officially sanctioned hash-list.
However, you make the assumption that the stated reason the list is classified is the actual reason. The government doesn't want you to vet the list, even for a URL you already know. That's the point of censorship; to make information disappear as thoroughly as if it were never there.
Catch 22!
Oh come on. How can you pass it up?
"In Soviet Russia, KGB makes you leaky."
So wait, are you criticizing him for considering to donate, or for not actually donating?
So have you found a way to keep inelegant viruses from being dangerous?
Wait, are you arguing with a post that says this?
I think this doesn't even qualify for a "don't feed the trolls" anymore; more of a "whooosh". :P
Concurred. This pro-patent analysis seems very unreasonable in a time where patent lawsuits are mostly crazy monkey trials where an unproductive, greedy company seeks to prevent people from innovating by protecting things that have long become common knowledge or accepted practice.
Thanks to the accelerated rate of innovation enabled by technology, there is a turning point where the damage done by keeping the lid on an invention outweighs the incentive.
Nowadays, ideas are becoming cheaper, whereas implementing them to enable new ideas is a costly and risky investment. The result is people trying to patent what boils down to day-dreams and doodles (approximately "adding a scroll-bar to a window to allow that window to contain more text than it has space for"), not in order to actually accomplish anything with them, but in order to prevent other people from putting these ideas into practice without a cut of the profit.
And I hope they will.
I was sort of hoping the Myyearbook guys would carry the vote, because then the case would have been even clearer: There is no way they'd have used such a ridiculous name. With Colbert, I'm less sure but I can still hope.
I concur with the summary: They should have never allowed write-ins.
I'd estimate it employs a good number of engineers, scientists, and anyone at the factories who manufacture this stuff.
When you pay money to produce something, it doesn't just vanish into thin air.
OW!
This news item is only one week old - this is surely a record for timely reporting. :)
Technically, it's somewhat easier to hammer nails in with a screwdriver than it is to drive in screws with a hammer. :P
That's completely correct. But to start with, a theory has to be able to be disproved. That means it must make a prediction which can be shown to be wrong (or not) by an experiment. This "falsifiability" is a very important quality in any scientific theory. For example, I could tell you that the entire world is a figment of my imagination. Any choice you make and any random event that occurs is decided by me. There is nothing you can do to scientifically disprove my claim (I could just say I arranged for your proof to work), despite its stupidity.
Creationism makes no predictions, so it cannot be disproved by any experiment. Ergo, it is not falsifiable, which means it is not a scientific hypothesis. :)
That would work if creationism or intelligent design were actually taught in a matter that promotes critical thinking.
Or, come to think of it, if it were replaced with an alternate origin idea that actually makes any sense whatsoever. Students don't learn skepticism by hearing the equivalent of "Darwin said that we evolved from monkeys. But this is a theory, not a fact. We might also have been created by space aliens. Which do you think is cooler, a boring old monkey or a big space alien?"
I prepared explosive runes this morning.
Simple. Print the filled-out ballot, let the voter look at it, then make them throw it in the bin on their way out before they leave.
The best part is that you can count the bin contents to match the electronic outcome. That would basically be returning to the traditional ballot system, but the difference is that you only need a manual count if the electronic outcome is close (within, say, 5%) or in doubt.
So what was wrong with the analogy again? ;)