Most of the time they prescribe the wrong medicine for the wrong evil.
I am not against people stating their ideas, even if they are moronic. I am against people who doesn't have a clue about what they are saying being more respected than those who know something, just because they happen to sing some stupid song that plays on the radio.
For instance, anulating Third World Debit is really a bad idea. This is unjust with the creditors, and will only serve to perpetuate the politicians that took the money and funneled it into their private accounts offshore, instead of using it for development.
Thanks man, your country may be very rich, but I don't need your stars patronizing me. If you'd only send some scientists and engineers I would be glad, though:-)
Those are not strictly yours, but they are not theirs also. they are OURS! The government exists because we allow them to exist. So, they should also have our consent to install cameras to watch us.
What happened to the old "all fscking power from the fscking people, for the fscking people"?
Well. I still don't fully agree with you. I take the instance that we should not give that power to the government as the best way to avoid them to get tempted to abuse such power. We value freedom the same, but you believe that the law and public militancy will protect us from the abuses.
Well. Now, who was the s*head who modded you as Flamebait??
Surely, he used the term "probably". But then he comes in the lines of "how can someone argue against cameras in face of that, blah, blah..." So, it's reasonable to suppose that he was implying, or at least trying to subtly convince us that this particular criminal would not have been caught without the aid of those wonderful privacy-invading, 1984-style devices. (have you noticed how I used a rethoric device to try to convince you without any hard facts in my last sentence? isn't it wonderful?)
So, you're telling me that you also think, that just because he was got by the cameras, he would not be caught if it were not for the cameras, and thus cameras became an imperative necessity for law enforcement, as it seems that there is a new cathegory of crimes that can't be solved without the resort to cameras? "Over time, every psycho wannabe will pursue such kind of job."
Uh, it's not happening now and those jobs offer the same power. Why not now, but it will in the near future? You got a differentiating idea on that?
I don't know in which world you live in, but here, in the real world, just reading the newspapers you can find a lot of cases of pedophiles that got jobs as kid's teachers, power-hungry abusive freaks that decided to get into army just to have the chance to torture some third-world poor souls in a prison, wackos that entered the police force to beat people and so on. All you give is a cascading set of fears. The truth is far more mundane.
You said well, it's a set of fears, while we are at it, I have fear when a criminal points a gun at me, I have fear of driving under a storm with a lot of fog and I would also be frightened of diving in shark infested beach. Not all fears are unreasonable, and because of that, just classifying the scenarios I've described as "fears" doesn't make them automatically unplausible.
Would you care to explain why am I so wrong? Or should I just accept your word on it because you know more? After all, are you, the proponents of cameras, that are trying to introduce them. So, it seems reasonable that you have the burden to prove that the people's fears are unjustified.
There was a time when IBM was so convinced of their dominance that they didn't bother to find names for their things. So, if they had a System, they would call it System/, if they had a Database, well, call it DB! Now, things have changed, and they call everything Websphere.
1. A private camera footage, can be archived, thus enabling someone to build a pretty detailed account of your life 2. Who guarantees me the cameras are not being used to spy me? once they are there, they can do everything they want. 3. Once you have those cameras, is just a matter of time until facial recognition software gets good enough to be able to pinpoint everyone and build huge databases of personal habits of just about everyone. 4. A private camera in a private space is another thing. A private space is, by definition, private. A street is a public place, and that means it's everyone's property. Just as I can object for being watched at my home, I surely can object being watched and tracked in a place that is just as mine as it's your's place also. 5. If a policeman starts following me, I have a reasonable chance to notice that take protective measures like going to the court. With a camera, what are my chances? 6. If the government wants to unjustly incriminates me (maybe because they *need* to arrest *someone*), what will block them from using carefully selected footage to use as an "evidence" against me?
" Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today." How can you be so sure. Did Serial Killers never were arrested before that cameras were invented? Now, let's see the question from another angle: As you might be aware, lots of serial killers have been proven to have perfectly normal lives, with jobs, wifes and kids. From the outside, a psycho looks, most of the time, just like your average joe: a good employee, a loving and caring husband and father. Now, just for one moment, let's suppose your psycho joe works for law enforcement. What a wonder, isn't it? a psycho with lots of data and live footage of just about anyone he decided to chase. Over time, every psycho wannabe will pursue such kind of job. Now, add to this scenario: Corrupt police officers watching possible informants of their misdeeds. Blackmailers watching cheating husbands and wifes. Corrupt elected officers using this data to watch their adversaries. The IRS. Isn't it too much power over our lives? are you really willing to give your freedom away for the illusion of security?
At least theoretically, unions are an important element in a free market economy. It's when they divert from their core goal and become kind of a marxist party that they fail to do their job. There's a fundamental assimetry of power and information between large companies and their employees, and unions can help to equalize this, and thus, thus making the market truly competitive. Contrary to what anarcho-capitalists says, a functional competitive market, sometimes demands some kind of adjustments to stay competitive and to work correctly.
Basically, whetever HR says about having an open door, complaining about a boss, in most cases, is a sure way to get trouble sooner or later. Even in the worst cases, when a boss is later found guilty of criminal behaviour (like harassment), HR tends to mark complainers as trouble makers, detrimental to their schemas of universal "peace" and conformity. Really, the only two pragmatical options when you have a stupid OR abusive boss is: 1) Get another job. 2) Be patient and wait for him to get another job. Companies love to say they want people who will stand up and be proactive telling what is wrong. But that's bullshit. The messenger is, invariably, marked as a scape goat to be used when things get hot. If you can't stand it, stop working for others, and start your own business, and for christ sake, when your company grows, try always to keep in mind why you started it.
Most SW radios are also capable of receiving AM and FM commercial broadcasts. In impoverished coutries, portable radios are still very common. Men use it to hear music, sports and news. So, if you are a spy pretending to be a common guy, blended with the locals, having a small radio is far more discrete than going to an internet cafe or having a laptop. Having a laptop is even worse, because in impoverished countries, it will label you as a rich guy, and rich people tend to gather a lot of attention, which is exactly the opposite of what a spy wants.
As I've said here before, the similarities between Brazil's president Lula and George Bush are astoundingly big. Both of them find out that there's a huge proportion of their electorates that are people who don't like to read, and are resentful of intelectuals. Both of them realized that this people constitute the majority of the people of their countries. And both of them discovered that the best way to capitalize those votes was to *act* just like that people. So, whenever they are in public or TV they *intentionally* mispell words, use stupid arguments like bad-taste analogies and from time to time make some comment about how intelectuals and scientists are not really that smart. The masses exultate with that, thinking that finally they have "someone just like ourselves" in the office. Curiously enough, both of them have a sinister, and very inteligent figure behind them. For Bush, it's Dick Cheney, for Lula, it's José Dirceu. Those figures serve the purpose of being the resident "evil" brains to take the blame when things go wrong. After all, they are portraited as over-intelligent figures, and for the dumb masses, this is always something kind of sinister. Lula become president of Brasil being the leader of the workers party. Most of the college professors and intelectuals where once members of that party, so if Lula always managed to keep his leadership it's not reasonable to think he is not very, very intelligent. The same can be said about George Bush. It's plain fuck stupid to think that someone dumb would get this far, and it's plain fuck stupid to believe that someone that came from Yale can't spell nuclear. They are acting, and their acting have being very succesful so far. Everytime someone calls them dumb, they win. Because this makes their target electorate even more affectionaly bound to them, and it helps to spread the lie that they can't be really responsible for their wrongs. Everytime a comedian makes a sophisticated joke about Bush's or Lula's supposed dumbness, he/she is only contributing to the myth of "someone just like us in charge". think about it.
I blame Fox News for the increasing number of ignorant moderators, pushing their neocom's agenda by modding as troll everything they feel threatening to their rather narrow vision of the world.
Some years ago, President Lula, from Brasil, got a little upset with some data published by the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Statistics and Geographics). The published data was relative to poverty reduction and kind of contradicted what government was saying. After that, it was officially ordered that the IBGE should submit every publication to the presidency, 48 hours before public delivery. Here in Brasil we have a joke about Bush and Lula that goes along the line that both of them don't know English (well, Lula also is not very good with portuguese, our official language). It seems to me, that being authoritarian is another common trace between the presidents of the US and Brasil.
Sorry, but if Apple, with way less resources, was able to completely change their OS, change platform and still provide a migration path for developers, why microsoft, with vastly superior resources and cash, would not?
I think that there's no economical reason for microsoft to do so, but I don't think that they couldn't if they wanted.
There's really no much room for improvement left on the OS field, after more than 40 years of research. They could write a new OS, a new kernel, with Jesus Christ and Satan themselves as architects, but they would not be able to discover something so radically new that would make their OS an absurdely compelling value proposition for customers.
Unix Mainframes? Geez, there was never such a thing until recently with Linux. There was lot of mini-computers and Super Computers on the other side with Unix or Unix-like OSes, but not Unix mainframes. And what do you mean with "server-side technologies such as javascript", pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of such a thing.
No, not the data-crunching engine, not the indexer, not the ranker.... Python (and java, and ruby) is cool, but, frankly... sometimes you need the most of your hardware.
Re:Teens Making Parents Come to the Dinner Table?
on
The BlackBerry Orphans
·
· Score: 1
Funny thing is that this is how things worked for the most part of our history. Kids will get involved on their parents jobs very soon as apprentices or helpers. Of course, things like that are now somewhat impossible, because our technological society needs kids to have a hefty ammount of schooling. But, anyway, I think it's healthy to let your kids know something about your work. I don't think that it's feasible to make them help you, but if you discuss issues with them, try to explain how your work is done, have them visit your office from time to time, will make them feel more loved, and will help them decide what they want to do when they become adults.
Slashdot Mirror
I really think it's about time to some public scrutiny on how public money for research is being spent.
Most of the time they prescribe the wrong medicine for the wrong evil. I am not against people stating their ideas, even if they are moronic. I am against people who doesn't have a clue about what they are saying being more respected than those who know something, just because they happen to sing some stupid song that plays on the radio. For instance, anulating Third World Debit is really a bad idea. This is unjust with the creditors, and will only serve to perpetuate the politicians that took the money and funneled it into their private accounts offshore, instead of using it for development. Thanks man, your country may be very rich, but I don't need your stars patronizing me. If you'd only send some scientists and engineers I would be glad, though :-)
I don't know about you in the rest of the world. But here in Brasil, we would be very thankful if they stoped talking about politics also.
Hey! I am a scientologist also, you insensitive clod! (for chrissake!! I am just kidding!)
Those are not strictly yours, but they are not theirs also. they are OURS! The government exists because we allow them to exist. So, they should also have our consent to install cameras to watch us. What happened to the old "all fscking power from the fscking people, for the fscking people"?
Well. I still don't fully agree with you. I take the instance that we should not give that power to the government as the best way to avoid them to get tempted to abuse such power. We value freedom the same, but you believe that the law and public militancy will protect us from the abuses. Well. Now, who was the s*head who modded you as Flamebait??
Run
Surely, he used the term "probably". But then he comes in the lines of "how can someone argue against cameras in face of that, blah, blah..."
So, it's reasonable to suppose that he was implying, or at least trying to subtly convince us that this particular criminal would not have been caught without the aid of those wonderful privacy-invading, 1984-style devices. (have you noticed how I used a rethoric device to try to convince you without any hard facts in my last sentence? isn't it wonderful?)
So, you're telling me that you also think, that just because he was got by the cameras, he would not be caught if it were not for the cameras, and thus cameras became an imperative necessity for law enforcement, as it seems that there is a new cathegory of crimes that can't be solved without the resort to cameras?
"Over time, every psycho wannabe will pursue such kind of job." Uh, it's not happening now and those jobs offer the same power. Why not now, but it will in the near future? You got a differentiating idea on that?
I don't know in which world you live in, but here, in the real world, just reading the newspapers you can find a lot of cases of pedophiles that got jobs as kid's teachers, power-hungry abusive freaks that decided to get into army just to have the chance to torture some third-world poor souls in a prison, wackos that entered the police force to beat people and so on.
All you give is a cascading set of fears. The truth is far more mundane.
You said well, it's a set of fears, while we are at it, I have fear when a criminal points a gun at me, I have fear of driving under a storm with a lot of fog and I would also be frightened of diving in shark infested beach. Not all fears are unreasonable, and because of that, just classifying the scenarios I've described as "fears" doesn't make them automatically unplausible.
Would you care to explain why am I so wrong? Or should I just accept your word on it because you know more? After all, are you, the proponents of cameras, that are trying to introduce them. So, it seems reasonable that you have the burden to prove that the people's fears are unjustified.
There was a time when IBM was so convinced of their dominance that they didn't bother to find names for their things. So, if they had a System, they would call it System/, if they had a Database, well, call it DB! Now, things have changed, and they call everything Websphere.
1. A private camera footage, can be archived, thus enabling someone to build a pretty detailed account of your life
2. Who guarantees me the cameras are not being used to spy me? once they are there, they can do everything they want.
3. Once you have those cameras, is just a matter of time until facial recognition software gets good enough to be able to pinpoint everyone and build huge databases of personal habits of just about everyone.
4. A private camera in a private space is another thing. A private space is, by definition, private. A street is a public place, and that means it's everyone's property. Just as I can object for being watched at my home, I surely can object being watched and tracked in a place that is just as mine as it's your's place also.
5. If a policeman starts following me, I have a reasonable chance to notice that take protective measures like going to the court. With a camera, what are my chances?
6. If the government wants to unjustly incriminates me (maybe because they *need* to arrest *someone*), what will block them from using carefully selected footage to use as an "evidence" against me?
" Without these cameras this killer would probably be stalking the streets of Philadelphia today."
How can you be so sure. Did Serial Killers never were arrested before that cameras were invented?
Now, let's see the question from another angle:
As you might be aware, lots of serial killers have been proven to have perfectly normal lives, with jobs, wifes and kids. From the outside, a psycho looks, most of the time, just like your average joe: a good employee, a loving and caring husband and father.
Now, just for one moment, let's suppose your psycho joe works for law enforcement. What a wonder, isn't it? a psycho with lots of data and live footage of just about anyone he decided to chase. Over time, every psycho wannabe will pursue such kind of job. Now, add to this scenario:
Corrupt police officers watching possible informants of their misdeeds.
Blackmailers watching cheating husbands and wifes.
Corrupt elected officers using this data to watch their adversaries.
The IRS.
Isn't it too much power over our lives? are you really willing to give your freedom away for the illusion of security?
At least theoretically, unions are an important element in a free market economy. It's when they divert from their core goal and become kind of a marxist party that they fail to do their job.
There's a fundamental assimetry of power and information between large companies and their employees, and unions can help to equalize this, and thus, thus making the market truly competitive.
Contrary to what anarcho-capitalists says, a functional competitive market, sometimes demands some kind of adjustments to stay competitive and to work correctly.
Basically, whetever HR says about having an open door, complaining about a boss, in most cases, is a sure way to get trouble sooner or later. Even in the worst cases, when a boss is later found guilty of criminal behaviour (like harassment), HR tends to mark complainers as trouble makers, detrimental to their schemas of universal "peace" and conformity.
Really, the only two pragmatical options when you have a stupid OR abusive boss is:
1) Get another job.
2) Be patient and wait for him to get another job.
Companies love to say they want people who will stand up and be proactive telling what is wrong. But that's bullshit. The messenger is, invariably, marked as a scape goat to be used when things get hot.
If you can't stand it, stop working for others, and start your own business, and for christ sake, when your company grows, try always to keep in mind why you started it.
Most SW radios are also capable of receiving AM and FM commercial broadcasts. In impoverished coutries, portable radios are still very common. Men use it to hear music, sports and news. So, if you are a spy pretending to be a common guy, blended with the locals, having a small radio is far more discrete than going to an internet cafe or having a laptop. Having a laptop is even worse, because in impoverished countries, it will label you as a rich guy, and rich people tend to gather a lot of attention, which is exactly the opposite of what a spy wants.
As I've said here before, the similarities between Brazil's president Lula and George Bush are astoundingly big.
Both of them find out that there's a huge proportion of their electorates that are people who don't like to read, and are resentful of intelectuals. Both of them realized that this people constitute the majority of the people of their countries. And both of them discovered that the best way to capitalize those votes was to *act* just like that people. So, whenever they are in public or TV they *intentionally* mispell words, use stupid arguments like bad-taste analogies and from time to time make some comment about how intelectuals and scientists are not really that smart. The masses exultate with that, thinking that finally they have "someone just like ourselves" in the office.
Curiously enough, both of them have a sinister, and very inteligent figure behind them. For Bush, it's Dick Cheney, for Lula, it's José Dirceu. Those figures serve the purpose of being the resident "evil" brains to take the blame when things go wrong. After all, they are portraited as over-intelligent figures, and for the dumb masses, this is always something kind of sinister.
Lula become president of Brasil being the leader of the workers party. Most of the college professors and intelectuals where once members of that party, so if Lula always managed to keep his leadership it's not reasonable to think he is not very, very intelligent.
The same can be said about George Bush. It's plain fuck stupid to think that someone dumb would get this far, and it's plain fuck stupid to believe that someone that came from Yale can't spell nuclear.
They are acting, and their acting have being very succesful so far. Everytime someone calls them dumb, they win. Because this makes their target electorate even more affectionaly bound to them, and it helps to spread the lie that they can't be really responsible for their wrongs. Everytime a comedian makes a sophisticated joke about Bush's or Lula's supposed dumbness, he/she is only contributing to the myth of "someone just like us in charge". think about it.
I am sure the DEA will have serious restrictions about your trip to planet Dune... Be prepared to enter soon in a no-fly list.
I blame Fox News for the increasing number of ignorant moderators, pushing their neocom's agenda by modding as troll everything they feel threatening to their rather narrow vision of the world.
Some years ago, President Lula, from Brasil, got a little upset with some data published by the IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Statistics and Geographics). The published data was relative to poverty reduction and kind of contradicted what government was saying. After that, it was officially ordered that the IBGE should submit every publication to the presidency, 48 hours before public delivery.
Here in Brasil we have a joke about Bush and Lula that goes along the line that both of them don't know English (well, Lula also is not very good with portuguese, our official language). It seems to me, that being authoritarian is another common trace between the presidents of the US and Brasil.
Even risking being modded redundant, I second that. this is by far, one of the best comments.
you're right. I apologize
Sorry, but if Apple, with way less resources, was able to completely change their OS, change platform and still provide a migration path for developers, why microsoft, with vastly superior resources and cash, would not? I think that there's no economical reason for microsoft to do so, but I don't think that they couldn't if they wanted. There's really no much room for improvement left on the OS field, after more than 40 years of research. They could write a new OS, a new kernel, with Jesus Christ and Satan themselves as architects, but they would not be able to discover something so radically new that would make their OS an absurdely compelling value proposition for customers.
Unix Mainframes? Geez, there was never such a thing until recently with Linux. There was lot of mini-computers and Super Computers on the other side with Unix or Unix-like OSes, but not Unix mainframes.
And what do you mean with "server-side technologies such as javascript", pardon my ignorance, but I am not aware of such a thing.
No, not the data-crunching engine, not the indexer, not the ranker.... Python (and java, and ruby) is cool, but, frankly... sometimes you need the most of your hardware.
Funny thing is that this is how things worked for the most part of our history. Kids will get involved on their parents jobs very soon as apprentices or helpers. Of course, things like that are now somewhat impossible, because our technological society needs kids to have a hefty ammount of schooling. But, anyway, I think it's healthy to let your kids know something about your work. I don't think that it's feasible to make them help you, but if you discuss issues with them, try to explain how your work is done, have them visit your office from time to time, will make them feel more loved, and will help them decide what they want to do when they become adults.