I think there should be such a thing for certain types of software. Let's call them mission critical applications for the sake of brevity and ease. Now, for example, such would be a good thing for software contained withing medical devices, power plants, controllers used in managing the electrical grid, etc... They will always have flaws but they should do so with a failsafe and with recovery as well as security baked in and not tacked on.
I am not, nor do I profess to be, a programmer but I have written many lines of code. I would have no business acting on this sort of thing and should not be allowed to work anywhere near it. I can't say, with any certainty, that I'm a good judge but I think we could do something like this idea. Would it mean greater expense and a longer time to roll out? Probably, at least at first. Would we need special languages? Maybe - though I understand it *might* be easier with languages such as ADA. However, again, I'm not a programmer in the truest sense of the word (or even a pretty loose definition, honestly) so I'm not qualified to opine.
Will this mean fewer features? Probably. If computing is so damned difficult then why the hell are we basing so many things on it? It's like designing software for the lowest common denominator and those who advocate for 'user friendly.' Umm... If you can't operate a computer then, just maybe, you should consider either learning how to or not basing your fucking livelihood on it.
The idea of a computer on every desktop was crazy from the outset and still is - that we carry massive amounts of compute power in our pockets (often by folks who have no idea how to effectively use it and designed to be easy enough for a child to basically operate) is absurd from the word. If you don't know how to operate a hammer you don't base your career on working in the construction industry. (Not the most perfect analogy but it's what I've got.) If you can't operate a computer then you probably shouldn't base your livelihood on it - seemingly off topic but tangentially related and hopefully fills out the point I'm trying to express. I'm not that articulate, unfortunately.
We need good software (and we have plenty of it, to be honest). We've rushed the industry and, sure, the benefits have been phenomenal. However, with all that growth has been some equally phenomenal failures. There are certain industries, mission critical application types, where there should have been accountability from the beginning. I doubt that it's too late to start with it now, it will just be time consuming, expensive, and difficult. Oh well. You don't really get to decide "needs." You only get to decide "wants."
Separate fields of programming should, indeed, be populated by professionals who are willing to put their name on their work and to accept accountability for the flaws within it. Automobiles are one such sector and would probably be better for it. You programmers should have unionized a long time ago and formed the professional engineering group yourselves and the failure to do so means that some government is going to come along and do it for you.
If you're going to get screwed you might as well get to pick the position. Additionally, think of some of the benefits to belonging to this protected group. There could even be multiple layers of certification - such as classes in boiler room engineering. Accountability is key and, again, you should do this before the government forces you and you have little or no input into the decision making process.
Someone smarter and more familiar with this than I am should act on this - making a governing body as well as formalization of a working group to establish standards (this could so be open source and collaborative) should do this. It is, eventually, going to happen in certain sectors - wait until a power plant melts down because of a bug in the code or because of improperly implemented security.
Hmm... As an aside, this might be a good thing and approved of by that AJT fellow who advocates micr
I'm going to wait for it to bottom out and just as it starts to rise again, I'm going to buy a whole shit ton of shares. Literally, thousands. So, do me a favor, keep complaining about VW anywhere and everywhere. This is a huge gamble on my part but I have every reason to believe they'll weather this storm and come back to their regular price.
This, folks, is why I actually *do* base my investing strategy on the comments made on sites like this. It has been lucrative. Technically, I have more money now than I had after selling my business. They're not really liquid asset but, still, they're trivially liquefied. My 'major' score was based on the comments here at this site, the goobers at Fark, and the likes. They were all interested in this EV known as Tesla. I bought 2000 shares.
I'm actually kind of surprised that it has been as lucrative as it has been. Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea of what I'm doing which is why I keep a separate "play" portfolio that I manage myself though an online vendor (I don't suppose I'll shill for them). I mean, yeah, I now understand the general idea and probably understand the ins-and-outs more than many folks but I still don't really know what I'm doing except for just observing trends and acting on those.
Strangely enough, good investments seem to also be in food stuffs. Go and look at which company is selling the most breakfast cereal. They're usually under a mature parent company and make good returns on your investment though they are less volatile and the potential gambling winnings are less but the odds are better. Many (most?) even pay a dividend. It's like free money just from reading and commenting to ask questions on Slashdot.
I've been told (usually by people who profess to work in this industry) that my investment strategy is borderline retarded. I've been told this time and time again. They're probably right but my average is ~18% if I include the first few years where I failed miserably (buying low and selling even lower is not a good investment strategy). I regularly beat my investment manager but, to be honest, they are tasked with keeping my money protected and are after entirely different goals. I'd be kind of pissed if they took the risks I took.
One of the added benefits is that I often get to do things that encourage the more ethical businesses. In addition to being able to donate the profits, sometimes I get to invest in smaller companies or the likes. I could lie and say that this is altruism but, honestly, it's only partially so. There's the altruistic aspect but there's also the financial motivation. I try to find businesses that are 'trendy' and invest in those. I also look for things that are a near certainty - like VW's stock bouncing back. I am 100% certain that their stocks will return to normal, I'm not certain of the time-frame. However, the time-frame is fairly close to irrelevant because I know that frame will be short enough to ensure a decent yearly growth when averaged out - it will be higher than I'd get in a bank or in bonds. At the very least it will not be negative.
So... Thank you. I appreciate this. Crash the ever living hell out of the VW stocks - they're doing it on their own so you might as well help them. I can play the long-game (and always do, short term or day trades are too labor intensive for me and this is just a hobby) and wait it out. Bottom the hell out of VW, please. I even do nice things with the profits, such as donate to various causes - one of which is EFF. So, the more this stock drops the more potential benefit to EFF. There's some potential benefit to one of the organizations that we value here.
After I designed my place, including the various sub-drawings thanks, I actually helped the various contractors build my house. I even helped the electricians. In my area you can fun your own initial wiring but it has to be inspected before they'll hook you up to the mains. I did not help the roofers. That looked like work and it was August.
As for my drafting work, that was all checked by a real licensed architect. I was told that I did, "much better than expected." I suspect they say that to everyone but they really didn't change much of anything and liked my idea of running plenty of conduit. As I have an envelope house, I do wish I'd thought ahead and run a BUS line and drop channel through it though I've not needed it yet. I could add it on but I'm unlikely to bother doing so. It would be nice to have, however.
I was there a few years back so I went to check them out in person. That photo is not mine but it's a good depiction. In some areas the overgrowth from the bocage is such that there's a tunnel that you'd drive/walk through and it's made out of trees. We see some areas like this up in Maine in the more rural areas on old dirt roads that have fallen into disuse. Your grandmother probably has a similar picture of the latter taken during foliage season and hanging on her wall in her living room. Modern roads are built up, generally, while old roads were eroded into form.
Actually, me too. I'd probably even comment if the comments section was interesting. I say this because it'd be an interesting submission so I am encouraging such. It likely even involves tech (was modern tech at the time, even) and should be interesting.
I am way too lazy for this but the person who created the original idea, sort of, with all the modified tanks (I'm lazy and didn't go find his name, etc) has his own documentary. They called the tanks _____'s Funnies, as I recall. They made quite a few versions for specific goals, based on the Sherman I think, and one of the neater ones had a tarp that it drove over that was wound under it. Why? So that the tank wouldn't sink in the soft sand.
I really should go look this up but it's just after six in the morning and I have just grabbed some coffee. Anyhow, that should be enough information for you to find the documentary if you're curious about it. It was actually pretty interesting. I think I saw it on YouTube though it may have been someone streaming it on Justin or even Hulu. It's out there, though.
Am I missing something? I can see the answers right there on the link they supplied. There's a header with a question and then an indication that there are two answers. One answer is fairly long. The other is shorter and has a diagram. I'm 100% certain that I'm neither registered or logged into the site. I am also 100% certain that I've no browser add-ons that should be enabling me to have access. In fact, as near as I know, that's the first time I've even been to the site.
I have a rather fairly new and fancy smart phone (but it is Android - I'm not a fan of iOS). I have just checked - and this is after having it for a few months and being on the road for a while doing my typical 'wanderlust' - I have four pictures and 37 seconds of video. I have four applications installed. I did not check but I believe there's a microSD card in there with another 128 GB of space on it and I think the phone came with 128 GB but I'd have to double check and I am lazy.
So, yeah, I could easily get away with 16 GB of space. I want it to be expandable, however, because I may change my mind and want to be able to add more. I could get away with 2 GB of space to be quite honest. I use my phone to make phone calls, send texts, read/reply to emails, maybe do some remote "work" by connecting to my desktop, poke at the 'net when I've a few minutes that are idle, and read an eBook now and then. That's really about all I do on it. Sometimes, rather seldom really, I'll use the GPS but I have a GPS unit in almost every one of my vehicles.
I don't, generally, take pictures. I almost never take video - the video I do have is from testing it when it was new and being too lazy to delete it. I don't install bunches of applications - I've no need of them nor desire to use many of them.
I'd have no use for 128 GBs of space on my phone. It would go to waste. I realize that I'm not the target demographic for such a phone, however. I also accept that people have varied needs and desires and don't feel any compelling urge to make them do things in a manner that I approve of. It's kind of like I don't suggest anyone use a certain operating system other than to suggest that they find one that suits their needs and enables them to accomplish their goals easiest. I may be an open source user but I am not a zealot.
Proselytizing is for folks who are insecure. I use what suits my needs best and allows me to be the most efficient with my own work-flow in mind. I'm mostly 'capable' in any OS (for phones, tablets, or computers) but I find my work flow is best suited with Linux. As with operating systems, well, use the right size phone for you. I am not sure why people are so compelled to tell others how they should behave. Especially when it is something so trivial.
The only reason I even have the phone I have an the amount of storage that I have is because there's a slight chance that I'll want to make use of those resources at some point and I don't want to have to replace things often. Imagine that?
I am really curious to see where this goes. I am not, by any means, an expert on constitutional law but I did stay at an EconoLodge last night (and tonight - and through the weekend as I've decided to stick around Buffalo for a little while). I do have a hobby (and a social obligation) to observe the courts so I've learned a little and this has potential to go all sorts of directions.
The data, as it stands, is encrypted which is, quite expressly, not the original content. Giving the password so that it can be decrypted could be construed as creating proof - forced to testify against yourself basically. I recall one instance (though I don't remember the details) where a suspected child porn aficionado crossed the border with an encrypted laptop and was arrested for refusing to decrypt it. I seem to recall that they ended up doing some time for contempt of court and I can't recall the resolution of that case.
This is something that needs to be clearly defined. This case is particularly good for it - I think. It's got potential to define it really well and establish a precedent. In this case the company is also, probably, liable as they're probably required to enforce certain data retention/records policies. So, first we have the matter of who's responsible to decrypt this and then we have the issue of whose property the password is. If the property is the company's and the SEC goes after the company for data retention violations then, I'd suspect, the individual could be forced to comply with an order to unlock the phone - any illegal activity would be subsequently discovered and incidental. I'm really, really, curious about this.
Unfortunately, things take so long to move through the courts that I'll likely forget all about it and fail to follow up. I should probably set up one of those Google Alerts (or a few hundred of them) for this sort of stuff. My memory is not as good as it used to be and my attention span has always been akin to that of a gnat.
I had a call on my cell asking me if I was interested in some programming job in the valley. Now, I have no idea how they got my number. I can only assume someone gave it to them as a joke. I'm retired. On top of being retired, I'm a mathematician who wrote *some* code to be used internally.
It gets worse.
My code was so bad that eventually I hired capable people who were kind enough to tell me to stop writing code - "You're not helping. Code comments do not go on coffee soaked index cards."
I listened politely to the man on the other end of the phone. They were willing to fly me out, put me in a hotel, and then give me an interview. I almost said I'd do it just to have something different happen but I'm already on the road. I can't wait until they get to the code example part of the interview. I'd have fun with that. I seem to recall that it was for an R or GO coder. Both are languages that I've never even looked at except in passing - I was thinking of writing more bad code (in fact, I'm going to).
Anyhow, the gentleman on the phone asked if he could call again about new job offers. I didn't want to ruin a potential for amusement so I told him that he was welcome to call any time. He never did ask me any history questions or if I actually wanted a job.
Would not the password be giving testimony? Albeit not a statement in front of a judge but still I think it might qualify as testimony according to the dictionary. I'm curious as to where this goes. I seem to recall the courts tossing someone in jail over an encrypted laptop at one point in the past.
I'm pretty sure that they can't be forced to provide evidence that would implicate them in a criminal matter. That's why this is a matter of the 5th amendment and not the 4th amendment. The device (and probably even the content on it) belong to the company. The password belongs to the user.
If I wanted to troll then I'd point out that this is the courts upholding the idea of intellectual property.;)
Anyhow, as this information is likely covered under other laws (like the need to retain financial information or similar - there's probably some sort of law but I have no idea which one it would be specifically for I am not a lawyer) that will be used instead. Then, if that were prosecuted, I have no idea who would be culpable. Perhaps the person who set up the phones in such a manner that the company is unable to open them to comply with a request for the data that they're likely supposed to be preserving as a matter of course. I'm not sure how well that would fly and I'm not really qualified to opine.
I'm all sorts of willing to have you present a logical and rational (as well as reasoned) supporting argument for slavery. I mean, hell, I could argue that side. I'd not want to and I'm absolutely certain that it would be frowned upon so much that I'd never get break past their attempts to appeal to emotion or the likes. I mean, yeah, I could make that argument too but I don't want to be the one to do it.
In the end, I'd have to disagree with my own logic if I were to argue a pro-slavery side of a debate. I'd probably start by saying that we're already forced to live just by nature of our existence and we already are placing ourselves in a position of servitude in exchange for creature comforts. I mean, yeah, I could argue this but no - just no. At some point we have to enact laws to ensure rights that counter-act another's freedoms. Where that position lies is subject to debate, of course.
But, as I said, I'll listen to a well reasoned argument. There's a tiny chance that it will change my views but it's not very likely. I appreciate your patience in hearing me out. I wish I were more articulate but I'm verbose and ramble a great deal. They say I'm pretty much sane (oh, I've had them check) but I'm pretty sure that I think in really strange ways and my writing seems to demonstrate that. So, thanks for listening, I suppose.
I did touch on that issue - clearly (I thought). It is an inalienable right to own intellectual property much like it is an inalienable right to be free (not a slave). The ability to have your intellectual property protected with the force of law is akin to having your life protected by the full force of law. Just like we lost our freedom to own slaves (and having given them the right to be free) we have removed the right to take others labor by hook or by crook and that too is a restriction on our freedoms to afford rights to those who would be otherwise subjected to abuses because of their inability to protect themselves, or similar. I realize that is a really extreme way to describe it but that is what it is and what it has done and what its purpose is.
However, I claim no fair. Now I'm stoned. But, again, that's the gist of it right there. I mean, in a nutshell. We can't own slaves. We can't steal the labor of another person. They're much more alike than one might think.
How's that for a viable, reasonable, and logical conclusion to draw? I'd thought it was pretty well spelled out but, I suspect, I am not very articulate.
Would ownership, itself, not be a natural law? Since time immemorial, and I can think of no cultures that differ, there has always been property ownership. This is physical property, of course, but I expect it to be concluded that the idea extends to intangible goods as well. If you think, for example, such didn't exist (the immediate example that springs to mind would be land for Native Americans) then, by all means, I'd suggest you go try to take the headdress from the chieftain. Or, if you'd like, grab his tepee and run off with it.
I humbly submit that ownership has been a concept since the dawn of time when man realized he did not have an obligation to share his goods. Some societies have had certain communal goods, certainly, but this did not eliminate ownership. As for the commons and the benefits - even if that were true - there's no reasonable way (that I can think of - and I've tried) to conclude that one should be required to give up their rights to ownership for the benefit of society - that would be communism. Greed, human nature, and an intrinsic right to the fruits of your labor are going to prevent communism from working in anything larger than a tribe and only a small one at that. Even then, there's ownership to some extent - I don't know of any society that has done without it - ever.
So, in short, I'm not really able to accept the common good, the altruistic, or the likes. It just doesn't compute. What I make is mine and I have ownership of it. You're not free to make a copy unless I give you that right (and I will but that's besides the point). I have no right to the fruits of your labor - I could argue that I should be allowed to make derivatives of it and, legally, I'm afforded some rights to do so.
Do the lines need to be moved? Absolutely. Do they need to go (or even should they go) to the extreme? No, in either direction. Then again, I'm a pragmatic Buddhist (we often are, I think it's our default state) and see moderation as an important aspect in life. Note: I am not a monk. I'm not even a very good Buddhist. However, I simply can't accept that there's a natural state where the inalienable right is to take ownership of someone else's property without compensation. Immaterial or not, we call that theft and, in this specific case, we're stealing the afore mentioned potential which is an actual asset that's listed on balance sheets. (We could argue that it should not be but it's used as a metric for viability and listed as an asset under many terms including such names as expected market growth.)
Finally, screw the abusive pricks in charge of much of the media today. Pirate until you're unable to pirate more. Pirate it twice, just to piss them off. (Did I mention that I'm not a very good Buddhist?) They're abusive corporations with all sorts of behaviors that probably qualify as anti-trust antics. They're harmful and do nothing to help other than, maybe, providing initial funding for those who could not afford it themselves. I'd like to see VC work in that area - there is some already but I'd like to see more. I've been offered a few investments in that arena but haven't availed myself of such at this time. Hell, in sheer frustration, I'm going to go find someone else that wants to use my system as a seedbox and grab another dozen GBs for sharing of videos that I'm never going to watch myself. Bugger 'em, bugger 'em all I say.
I was first exposed to the site back in the early 2000s. It's never really been a hangout though I've had some interesting conversations there. They're not all retarded children. The signal to noise ratio is pretty high, currently, but it's dieing down to a dull roar now that the kids have gone back to school and it is losing favor in the media. I think it can be summed up, sort of, as Eternal September(ish) but with fluctuations in the signal to noise ratio.
I'm still wondering if the sale is a hoax or not. Moot's made claims to getting rid of the site a number of times. So, we'll see. Trust nothing!!!
I think a good way to describe it is that we, as a society, take all of our freedoms and put them into a pool. From this pool we decide, as a whole (generally - we are ruled by consent, after all), which liberties we pull from this pool. It is how we end up with laws, all laws are (and I can not think of any exceptions) are a restriction of someone's freedoms.
A good example would be slavery - seeing as you mentioned it. Laws against slavery restrict my freedom to buy another person and rightfully so. Laws against theft, murder, fraud, etc... Those, too, are restrictions on freedoms. All rights are, in essence, constructs and without them we have anarchy. We'd have a situation where I own, and am well trained in the use of - as well as reasonably practiced, a number of firearms which would enable me to take your freedoms from you by threat or act of force. In a free world I can enslave you if I have the means to do so. I'm not sure that I'd argue on that side, I'm not sure how anyone can argue that side. I am sure that I've seen some confused people do so but I digress.
So, absolutely, it's a construct. One made by man. So? That doesn't mean you've an inalienable right to deprive another or to benefit from another's deprivation. I simply have yet to hear this argued logically - and I'm an open source aficionado. (I should not be confused with a zealot, such should be obvious.) I also believe that we should amend copyright law, there should be a finite limit. However, I don't believe that we've a universal right to declare all works of an individual or a group as communal property, that's outlandish and yet it's an oft parroted sentiment here.
Just because we're capable does not mean that we're entitled. I can, and probably would should there be circumstances that allowed it, be a complete and total prick that strips others of their liberties for my own benefits. Fortunately, for you sake, we've thrown those freedoms into a communal pot and withdrawn our rights and give ourselves restrictions. I've yet to see a viable, reasoned, argument that supports the idea that my constructs, be they as minimal as an idea, become someone else's property.
Now, in my case, I'd give those away - those constructs of the mind or whatnot. That's my choice and I'm free to do so - I have a right to do so. They were my property. What I do not have is the right to force someone else to match my ideals. This sure as hell doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't make sweeping changes to intellectual property laws. This does mean that I can not agree that I have an inalienable right to your work or the right to deprive you of assets.
For such a smart group of people there are some conclusions reached that make no sense to me. I've argued this on this site a number of times and, to be honest, that's exactly why I'd no hope or intention of altering your views. At the best I may give you some insight as to my views and, frankly, I'd not expect it to change your actions.
By all means, pirate the ever living hell out of anything you want until the laws are changed and until some sense is beaten into the industry. I expect draconian reactions but, well, I'm okay with that - the more the draconian responses the more normal people will be impacted and the greater the outrage and, as such, the sooner the things change. (That's my hope, at any rate.)
Over the years, especially faced with this intellectually stimulating group (often very good at debating), I've had the chance to refine my argument. Well, not really an argument as I don't intend to change any views or behaviors. Instead, I give you my own conclusions based on logic and reasoning. This has been gifted to me by the denizens here at this site. I get many things from you - including the chance to learn, grow, and see things in alternative ways. I've seldom been anything other than a moderate - in most aspects of my life. You could say that I'm zealous about being moderate.;)
To be fair, the question I was addressing specifically said "need." What we need to have is smart people. What we do have is a bunch of idiots. I guess, if we want, we can say we need laws because we have decided that culling the stupid is socially unacceptable. I guess I can sort of agree with that. However, really, what we need is smarter people if we're really going to have any long-term solutions.
At some point, realistically, there can only be so many laws before the mass is so great that it collapses into itself. What makes me giggle is when people point out the post-scarcity Star Trek world. I like to ask them how many stupid people they see on that show. Not a whole hell of a lot. Our utopia won't exist until we have smarter people. Stupid, herd-like, irrational persons elect similar to rule them, but I digress.
Yeah, I'm thinking we can solve this by simply having smarter people. Now, how do we get smarter people?
I'd not expect to change your mind, not even remotely. I'd not even hope to. At best, I can share my opinion.
First, let me tell you that I'm a pirating fool. I'll pirate more than I'll ever consume. I have more movies downloaded than I'll ever watch and seldom delete them. I usually pay for software, however. I have more music than I'll ever need - though, honestly, I also own a lot of CDs.
Anyhow, you're always free to remember and to tell someone about a movie you watched. What you don't have is an inalienable right to take someone else's work and give it to another. I'd say that you have a right to share a copy, of a physical medium, so long as that copy was rightfully paid for. You don't have a right to make multiple, unpaid, copies and distribute those.
There is harm to a business. It's something called 'potential.' Even if I was never going to buy the movie, if you rip and it give it to me, there's less potential for me to buy my own copy in the future. In fact, I dare say it is so unlikely that I'll risk calling it impossible in my particular case. When you've done that, when you've shared a copy, you've deprived another from the potential to make that sale. What that value is, for what it is worth, is immaterial - it may be an almost trivial amount but it is deprivation nonetheless.
When we say we've not stolen anything, we have. We've stolen the potential sale when we share it, enable sharing, or make a copy without paying it. The potential has been reduced.
Now, certainly, we've every right (inalienable even) to share our experiences - we can recount the movie verbatim and even draw really nice pictures and make a flip-book if we want. What we don't have, however, is an inalienable right to make copies of the works and to deprive them or their potential. Even if you way you'd never buy it anyhow, the potential is reduced simply by your act of making a copy. This is deprivation of an intangible asset. Businesses often work with intangible assets - we call them intellectual property at times. Sometimes they are sales projections.
I could go on, I could describe how investors are real people (snickers) and that they may have real financial losses incurred due to piracy. The gist is, basically, that there is deprivation and there is no inalienable right to the actual content. Just because you have the freedom does not mean you have the right. You're a pirate and depriving a business, and real people, of their assets every single time you engage in piracy.
Now, we can go off and come up with all sorts of justifications to make us feel better about piracy if we want. Hell, I pirate stuff all the time and I can easily afford to buy them. My personal issues are simplicity, control, invasive behaviors, and a desire to actively harm those who'd harm others. I deprive them of their intangible properties because I don't like them, I'm an asshole, and because I will do what I can to be a thorn in their side. I have, right this minute, about 20 GB of television shows that I'm seeding at the request of someone on Kick Ass Torrents. I'm not even going to EVER watch those shows.
However, I don't have a right to do so. Nor do I have a right to consume those shows. I certainly have no inalienable or legal rights to those. I sure as shit don't have a right to be seeding them. You don't have an inalienable right to it because we, as a society, have determined that such doesn't exist. You WISH there were such rights (and I tend to agree though I'd worry about the quality and availability but that's too much to type about today and this is already long enough). Just because you're physically able to do something doesn't mean you're entitled to do so. We can go back to the freedom to kill and the right to do so for an extreme example.
Again, I can only share my opinion and I have no desire to change your views. A conversation needn't be about making arguments that are intended to change another's views. It needn't be some sort of fight to see who has some sort of superiority. I
Slashdot Mirror
I think there should be such a thing for certain types of software. Let's call them mission critical applications for the sake of brevity and ease. Now, for example, such would be a good thing for software contained withing medical devices, power plants, controllers used in managing the electrical grid, etc... They will always have flaws but they should do so with a failsafe and with recovery as well as security baked in and not tacked on.
I am not, nor do I profess to be, a programmer but I have written many lines of code. I would have no business acting on this sort of thing and should not be allowed to work anywhere near it. I can't say, with any certainty, that I'm a good judge but I think we could do something like this idea. Would it mean greater expense and a longer time to roll out? Probably, at least at first. Would we need special languages? Maybe - though I understand it *might* be easier with languages such as ADA. However, again, I'm not a programmer in the truest sense of the word (or even a pretty loose definition, honestly) so I'm not qualified to opine.
Will this mean fewer features? Probably. If computing is so damned difficult then why the hell are we basing so many things on it? It's like designing software for the lowest common denominator and those who advocate for 'user friendly.' Umm... If you can't operate a computer then, just maybe, you should consider either learning how to or not basing your fucking livelihood on it.
The idea of a computer on every desktop was crazy from the outset and still is - that we carry massive amounts of compute power in our pockets (often by folks who have no idea how to effectively use it and designed to be easy enough for a child to basically operate) is absurd from the word. If you don't know how to operate a hammer you don't base your career on working in the construction industry. (Not the most perfect analogy but it's what I've got.) If you can't operate a computer then you probably shouldn't base your livelihood on it - seemingly off topic but tangentially related and hopefully fills out the point I'm trying to express. I'm not that articulate, unfortunately.
We need good software (and we have plenty of it, to be honest). We've rushed the industry and, sure, the benefits have been phenomenal. However, with all that growth has been some equally phenomenal failures. There are certain industries, mission critical application types, where there should have been accountability from the beginning. I doubt that it's too late to start with it now, it will just be time consuming, expensive, and difficult. Oh well. You don't really get to decide "needs." You only get to decide "wants."
Separate fields of programming should, indeed, be populated by professionals who are willing to put their name on their work and to accept accountability for the flaws within it. Automobiles are one such sector and would probably be better for it. You programmers should have unionized a long time ago and formed the professional engineering group yourselves and the failure to do so means that some government is going to come along and do it for you.
If you're going to get screwed you might as well get to pick the position. Additionally, think of some of the benefits to belonging to this protected group. There could even be multiple layers of certification - such as classes in boiler room engineering. Accountability is key and, again, you should do this before the government forces you and you have little or no input into the decision making process.
Someone smarter and more familiar with this than I am should act on this - making a governing body as well as formalization of a working group to establish standards (this could so be open source and collaborative) should do this. It is, eventually, going to happen in certain sectors - wait until a power plant melts down because of a bug in the code or because of improperly implemented security.
Hmm... As an aside, this might be a good thing and approved of by that AJT fellow who advocates micr
I'm going to wait for it to bottom out and just as it starts to rise again, I'm going to buy a whole shit ton of shares. Literally, thousands. So, do me a favor, keep complaining about VW anywhere and everywhere. This is a huge gamble on my part but I have every reason to believe they'll weather this storm and come back to their regular price.
This, folks, is why I actually *do* base my investing strategy on the comments made on sites like this. It has been lucrative. Technically, I have more money now than I had after selling my business. They're not really liquid asset but, still, they're trivially liquefied. My 'major' score was based on the comments here at this site, the goobers at Fark, and the likes. They were all interested in this EV known as Tesla. I bought 2000 shares.
I'm actually kind of surprised that it has been as lucrative as it has been. Honestly, I don't have the foggiest idea of what I'm doing which is why I keep a separate "play" portfolio that I manage myself though an online vendor (I don't suppose I'll shill for them). I mean, yeah, I now understand the general idea and probably understand the ins-and-outs more than many folks but I still don't really know what I'm doing except for just observing trends and acting on those.
Strangely enough, good investments seem to also be in food stuffs. Go and look at which company is selling the most breakfast cereal. They're usually under a mature parent company and make good returns on your investment though they are less volatile and the potential gambling winnings are less but the odds are better. Many (most?) even pay a dividend. It's like free money just from reading and commenting to ask questions on Slashdot.
I've been told (usually by people who profess to work in this industry) that my investment strategy is borderline retarded. I've been told this time and time again. They're probably right but my average is ~18% if I include the first few years where I failed miserably (buying low and selling even lower is not a good investment strategy). I regularly beat my investment manager but, to be honest, they are tasked with keeping my money protected and are after entirely different goals. I'd be kind of pissed if they took the risks I took.
One of the added benefits is that I often get to do things that encourage the more ethical businesses. In addition to being able to donate the profits, sometimes I get to invest in smaller companies or the likes. I could lie and say that this is altruism but, honestly, it's only partially so. There's the altruistic aspect but there's also the financial motivation. I try to find businesses that are 'trendy' and invest in those. I also look for things that are a near certainty - like VW's stock bouncing back. I am 100% certain that their stocks will return to normal, I'm not certain of the time-frame. However, the time-frame is fairly close to irrelevant because I know that frame will be short enough to ensure a decent yearly growth when averaged out - it will be higher than I'd get in a bank or in bonds. At the very least it will not be negative.
So... Thank you. I appreciate this. Crash the ever living hell out of the VW stocks - they're doing it on their own so you might as well help them. I can play the long-game (and always do, short term or day trades are too labor intensive for me and this is just a hobby) and wait it out. Bottom the hell out of VW, please. I even do nice things with the profits, such as donate to various causes - one of which is EFF. So, the more this stock drops the more potential benefit to EFF. There's some potential benefit to one of the organizations that we value here.
After I designed my place, including the various sub-drawings thanks, I actually helped the various contractors build my house. I even helped the electricians. In my area you can fun your own initial wiring but it has to be inspected before they'll hook you up to the mains. I did not help the roofers. That looked like work and it was August.
As for my drafting work, that was all checked by a real licensed architect. I was told that I did, "much better than expected." I suspect they say that to everyone but they really didn't change much of anything and liked my idea of running plenty of conduit. As I have an envelope house, I do wish I'd thought ahead and run a BUS line and drop channel through it though I've not needed it yet. I could add it on but I'm unlikely to bother doing so. It would be nice to have, however.
Have a picture:
http://dereksweetoys.com/wp-co...
I was there a few years back so I went to check them out in person. That photo is not mine but it's a good depiction. In some areas the overgrowth from the bocage is such that there's a tunnel that you'd drive/walk through and it's made out of trees. We see some areas like this up in Maine in the more rural areas on old dirt roads that have fallen into disuse. Your grandmother probably has a similar picture of the latter taken during foliage season and hanging on her wall in her living room. Modern roads are built up, generally, while old roads were eroded into form.
Actually, me too. I'd probably even comment if the comments section was interesting. I say this because it'd be an interesting submission so I am encouraging such. It likely even involves tech (was modern tech at the time, even) and should be interesting.
If you want a good "fiction" novel (it's not really entirely fiction I suppose), read Battle Cry, by Leon Uris.
I am way too lazy for this but the person who created the original idea, sort of, with all the modified tanks (I'm lazy and didn't go find his name, etc) has his own documentary. They called the tanks _____'s Funnies, as I recall. They made quite a few versions for specific goals, based on the Sherman I think, and one of the neater ones had a tarp that it drove over that was wound under it. Why? So that the tank wouldn't sink in the soft sand.
I really should go look this up but it's just after six in the morning and I have just grabbed some coffee. Anyhow, that should be enough information for you to find the documentary if you're curious about it. It was actually pretty interesting. I think I saw it on YouTube though it may have been someone streaming it on Justin or even Hulu. It's out there, though.
Am I missing something? I can see the answers right there on the link they supplied. There's a header with a question and then an indication that there are two answers. One answer is fairly long. The other is shorter and has a diagram. I'm 100% certain that I'm neither registered or logged into the site. I am also 100% certain that I've no browser add-ons that should be enabling me to have access. In fact, as near as I know, that's the first time I've even been to the site.
I have a rather fairly new and fancy smart phone (but it is Android - I'm not a fan of iOS). I have just checked - and this is after having it for a few months and being on the road for a while doing my typical 'wanderlust' - I have four pictures and 37 seconds of video. I have four applications installed. I did not check but I believe there's a microSD card in there with another 128 GB of space on it and I think the phone came with 128 GB but I'd have to double check and I am lazy.
So, yeah, I could easily get away with 16 GB of space. I want it to be expandable, however, because I may change my mind and want to be able to add more. I could get away with 2 GB of space to be quite honest. I use my phone to make phone calls, send texts, read/reply to emails, maybe do some remote "work" by connecting to my desktop, poke at the 'net when I've a few minutes that are idle, and read an eBook now and then. That's really about all I do on it. Sometimes, rather seldom really, I'll use the GPS but I have a GPS unit in almost every one of my vehicles.
I don't, generally, take pictures. I almost never take video - the video I do have is from testing it when it was new and being too lazy to delete it. I don't install bunches of applications - I've no need of them nor desire to use many of them.
I'd have no use for 128 GBs of space on my phone. It would go to waste. I realize that I'm not the target demographic for such a phone, however. I also accept that people have varied needs and desires and don't feel any compelling urge to make them do things in a manner that I approve of. It's kind of like I don't suggest anyone use a certain operating system other than to suggest that they find one that suits their needs and enables them to accomplish their goals easiest. I may be an open source user but I am not a zealot.
Proselytizing is for folks who are insecure. I use what suits my needs best and allows me to be the most efficient with my own work-flow in mind. I'm mostly 'capable' in any OS (for phones, tablets, or computers) but I find my work flow is best suited with Linux. As with operating systems, well, use the right size phone for you. I am not sure why people are so compelled to tell others how they should behave. Especially when it is something so trivial.
The only reason I even have the phone I have an the amount of storage that I have is because there's a slight chance that I'll want to make use of those resources at some point and I don't want to have to replace things often. Imagine that?
I am really curious to see where this goes. I am not, by any means, an expert on constitutional law but I did stay at an EconoLodge last night (and tonight - and through the weekend as I've decided to stick around Buffalo for a little while). I do have a hobby (and a social obligation) to observe the courts so I've learned a little and this has potential to go all sorts of directions.
The data, as it stands, is encrypted which is, quite expressly, not the original content. Giving the password so that it can be decrypted could be construed as creating proof - forced to testify against yourself basically. I recall one instance (though I don't remember the details) where a suspected child porn aficionado crossed the border with an encrypted laptop and was arrested for refusing to decrypt it. I seem to recall that they ended up doing some time for contempt of court and I can't recall the resolution of that case.
This is something that needs to be clearly defined. This case is particularly good for it - I think. It's got potential to define it really well and establish a precedent. In this case the company is also, probably, liable as they're probably required to enforce certain data retention/records policies. So, first we have the matter of who's responsible to decrypt this and then we have the issue of whose property the password is. If the property is the company's and the SEC goes after the company for data retention violations then, I'd suspect, the individual could be forced to comply with an order to unlock the phone - any illegal activity would be subsequently discovered and incidental. I'm really, really, curious about this.
Unfortunately, things take so long to move through the courts that I'll likely forget all about it and fail to follow up. I should probably set up one of those Google Alerts (or a few hundred of them) for this sort of stuff. My memory is not as good as it used to be and my attention span has always been akin to that of a gnat.
I suspect that "most countries" is incorrect. Do you have some numbers to back that up?
I suppose the counter might be the adage concerning a bird in the hand being better than two in the bush but, in many cases, you're likely correct.
I had a call on my cell asking me if I was interested in some programming job in the valley. Now, I have no idea how they got my number. I can only assume someone gave it to them as a joke. I'm retired. On top of being retired, I'm a mathematician who wrote *some* code to be used internally.
It gets worse.
My code was so bad that eventually I hired capable people who were kind enough to tell me to stop writing code - "You're not helping. Code comments do not go on coffee soaked index cards."
I listened politely to the man on the other end of the phone. They were willing to fly me out, put me in a hotel, and then give me an interview. I almost said I'd do it just to have something different happen but I'm already on the road. I can't wait until they get to the code example part of the interview. I'd have fun with that. I seem to recall that it was for an R or GO coder. Both are languages that I've never even looked at except in passing - I was thinking of writing more bad code (in fact, I'm going to).
Anyhow, the gentleman on the phone asked if he could call again about new job offers. I didn't want to ruin a potential for amusement so I told him that he was welcome to call any time. He never did ask me any history questions or if I actually wanted a job.
Would not the password be giving testimony? Albeit not a statement in front of a judge but still I think it might qualify as testimony according to the dictionary. I'm curious as to where this goes. I seem to recall the courts tossing someone in jail over an encrypted laptop at one point in the past.
They can physically cut the safe open. We don't allow for monkey-wrench decryption in our justice system (yet).
I'm pretty sure that they can't be forced to provide evidence that would implicate them in a criminal matter. That's why this is a matter of the 5th amendment and not the 4th amendment. The device (and probably even the content on it) belong to the company. The password belongs to the user.
If I wanted to troll then I'd point out that this is the courts upholding the idea of intellectual property. ;)
Anyhow, as this information is likely covered under other laws (like the need to retain financial information or similar - there's probably some sort of law but I have no idea which one it would be specifically for I am not a lawyer) that will be used instead. Then, if that were prosecuted, I have no idea who would be culpable. Perhaps the person who set up the phones in such a manner that the company is unable to open them to comply with a request for the data that they're likely supposed to be preserving as a matter of course. I'm not sure how well that would fly and I'm not really qualified to opine.
I'm all sorts of willing to have you present a logical and rational (as well as reasoned) supporting argument for slavery. I mean, hell, I could argue that side. I'd not want to and I'm absolutely certain that it would be frowned upon so much that I'd never get break past their attempts to appeal to emotion or the likes. I mean, yeah, I could make that argument too but I don't want to be the one to do it.
In the end, I'd have to disagree with my own logic if I were to argue a pro-slavery side of a debate. I'd probably start by saying that we're already forced to live just by nature of our existence and we already are placing ourselves in a position of servitude in exchange for creature comforts. I mean, yeah, I could argue this but no - just no. At some point we have to enact laws to ensure rights that counter-act another's freedoms. Where that position lies is subject to debate, of course.
But, as I said, I'll listen to a well reasoned argument. There's a tiny chance that it will change my views but it's not very likely. I appreciate your patience in hearing me out. I wish I were more articulate but I'm verbose and ramble a great deal. They say I'm pretty much sane (oh, I've had them check) but I'm pretty sure that I think in really strange ways and my writing seems to demonstrate that. So, thanks for listening, I suppose.
Disregard that. I suck cocks.
I did touch on that issue - clearly (I thought). It is an inalienable right to own intellectual property much like it is an inalienable right to be free (not a slave). The ability to have your intellectual property protected with the force of law is akin to having your life protected by the full force of law. Just like we lost our freedom to own slaves (and having given them the right to be free) we have removed the right to take others labor by hook or by crook and that too is a restriction on our freedoms to afford rights to those who would be otherwise subjected to abuses because of their inability to protect themselves, or similar. I realize that is a really extreme way to describe it but that is what it is and what it has done and what its purpose is.
However, I claim no fair. Now I'm stoned. But, again, that's the gist of it right there. I mean, in a nutshell. We can't own slaves. We can't steal the labor of another person. They're much more alike than one might think.
How's that for a viable, reasonable, and logical conclusion to draw? I'd thought it was pretty well spelled out but, I suspect, I am not very articulate.
Pfft... Back in my day we had Zork and didn't even have lower case letters. Hell, some of us even loaded our games off of cassette tapes.
Would ownership, itself, not be a natural law? Since time immemorial, and I can think of no cultures that differ, there has always been property ownership. This is physical property, of course, but I expect it to be concluded that the idea extends to intangible goods as well. If you think, for example, such didn't exist (the immediate example that springs to mind would be land for Native Americans) then, by all means, I'd suggest you go try to take the headdress from the chieftain. Or, if you'd like, grab his tepee and run off with it.
I humbly submit that ownership has been a concept since the dawn of time when man realized he did not have an obligation to share his goods. Some societies have had certain communal goods, certainly, but this did not eliminate ownership. As for the commons and the benefits - even if that were true - there's no reasonable way (that I can think of - and I've tried) to conclude that one should be required to give up their rights to ownership for the benefit of society - that would be communism. Greed, human nature, and an intrinsic right to the fruits of your labor are going to prevent communism from working in anything larger than a tribe and only a small one at that. Even then, there's ownership to some extent - I don't know of any society that has done without it - ever.
So, in short, I'm not really able to accept the common good, the altruistic, or the likes. It just doesn't compute. What I make is mine and I have ownership of it. You're not free to make a copy unless I give you that right (and I will but that's besides the point). I have no right to the fruits of your labor - I could argue that I should be allowed to make derivatives of it and, legally, I'm afforded some rights to do so.
Do the lines need to be moved? Absolutely. Do they need to go (or even should they go) to the extreme? No, in either direction. Then again, I'm a pragmatic Buddhist (we often are, I think it's our default state) and see moderation as an important aspect in life. Note: I am not a monk. I'm not even a very good Buddhist. However, I simply can't accept that there's a natural state where the inalienable right is to take ownership of someone else's property without compensation. Immaterial or not, we call that theft and, in this specific case, we're stealing the afore mentioned potential which is an actual asset that's listed on balance sheets. (We could argue that it should not be but it's used as a metric for viability and listed as an asset under many terms including such names as expected market growth.)
Finally, screw the abusive pricks in charge of much of the media today. Pirate until you're unable to pirate more. Pirate it twice, just to piss them off. (Did I mention that I'm not a very good Buddhist?) They're abusive corporations with all sorts of behaviors that probably qualify as anti-trust antics. They're harmful and do nothing to help other than, maybe, providing initial funding for those who could not afford it themselves. I'd like to see VC work in that area - there is some already but I'd like to see more. I've been offered a few investments in that arena but haven't availed myself of such at this time. Hell, in sheer frustration, I'm going to go find someone else that wants to use my system as a seedbox and grab another dozen GBs for sharing of videos that I'm never going to watch myself. Bugger 'em, bugger 'em all I say.
> implying /b/ was ever good
I was first exposed to the site back in the early 2000s. It's never really been a hangout though I've had some interesting conversations there. They're not all retarded children. The signal to noise ratio is pretty high, currently, but it's dieing down to a dull roar now that the kids have gone back to school and it is losing favor in the media. I think it can be summed up, sort of, as Eternal September(ish) but with fluctuations in the signal to noise ratio.
I'm still wondering if the sale is a hoax or not. Moot's made claims to getting rid of the site a number of times. So, we'll see. Trust nothing!!!
I think a good way to describe it is that we, as a society, take all of our freedoms and put them into a pool. From this pool we decide, as a whole (generally - we are ruled by consent, after all), which liberties we pull from this pool. It is how we end up with laws, all laws are (and I can not think of any exceptions) are a restriction of someone's freedoms.
A good example would be slavery - seeing as you mentioned it. Laws against slavery restrict my freedom to buy another person and rightfully so. Laws against theft, murder, fraud, etc... Those, too, are restrictions on freedoms. All rights are, in essence, constructs and without them we have anarchy. We'd have a situation where I own, and am well trained in the use of - as well as reasonably practiced, a number of firearms which would enable me to take your freedoms from you by threat or act of force. In a free world I can enslave you if I have the means to do so. I'm not sure that I'd argue on that side, I'm not sure how anyone can argue that side. I am sure that I've seen some confused people do so but I digress.
So, absolutely, it's a construct. One made by man. So? That doesn't mean you've an inalienable right to deprive another or to benefit from another's deprivation. I simply have yet to hear this argued logically - and I'm an open source aficionado. (I should not be confused with a zealot, such should be obvious.) I also believe that we should amend copyright law, there should be a finite limit. However, I don't believe that we've a universal right to declare all works of an individual or a group as communal property, that's outlandish and yet it's an oft parroted sentiment here.
Just because we're capable does not mean that we're entitled. I can, and probably would should there be circumstances that allowed it, be a complete and total prick that strips others of their liberties for my own benefits. Fortunately, for you sake, we've thrown those freedoms into a communal pot and withdrawn our rights and give ourselves restrictions. I've yet to see a viable, reasoned, argument that supports the idea that my constructs, be they as minimal as an idea, become someone else's property.
Now, in my case, I'd give those away - those constructs of the mind or whatnot. That's my choice and I'm free to do so - I have a right to do so. They were my property. What I do not have is the right to force someone else to match my ideals. This sure as hell doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't make sweeping changes to intellectual property laws. This does mean that I can not agree that I have an inalienable right to your work or the right to deprive you of assets.
For such a smart group of people there are some conclusions reached that make no sense to me. I've argued this on this site a number of times and, to be honest, that's exactly why I'd no hope or intention of altering your views. At the best I may give you some insight as to my views and, frankly, I'd not expect it to change your actions.
By all means, pirate the ever living hell out of anything you want until the laws are changed and until some sense is beaten into the industry. I expect draconian reactions but, well, I'm okay with that - the more the draconian responses the more normal people will be impacted and the greater the outrage and, as such, the sooner the things change. (That's my hope, at any rate.)
Over the years, especially faced with this intellectually stimulating group (often very good at debating), I've had the chance to refine my argument. Well, not really an argument as I don't intend to change any views or behaviors. Instead, I give you my own conclusions based on logic and reasoning. This has been gifted to me by the denizens here at this site. I get many things from you - including the chance to learn, grow, and see things in alternative ways. I've seldom been anything other than a moderate - in most aspects of my life. You could say that I'm zealous about being moderate. ;)
To be fair, the question I was addressing specifically said "need." What we need to have is smart people. What we do have is a bunch of idiots. I guess, if we want, we can say we need laws because we have decided that culling the stupid is socially unacceptable. I guess I can sort of agree with that. However, really, what we need is smarter people if we're really going to have any long-term solutions.
At some point, realistically, there can only be so many laws before the mass is so great that it collapses into itself. What makes me giggle is when people point out the post-scarcity Star Trek world. I like to ask them how many stupid people they see on that show. Not a whole hell of a lot. Our utopia won't exist until we have smarter people. Stupid, herd-like, irrational persons elect similar to rule them, but I digress.
Yeah, I'm thinking we can solve this by simply having smarter people. Now, how do we get smarter people?
I'd not expect to change your mind, not even remotely. I'd not even hope to. At best, I can share my opinion.
First, let me tell you that I'm a pirating fool. I'll pirate more than I'll ever consume. I have more movies downloaded than I'll ever watch and seldom delete them. I usually pay for software, however. I have more music than I'll ever need - though, honestly, I also own a lot of CDs.
Anyhow, you're always free to remember and to tell someone about a movie you watched. What you don't have is an inalienable right to take someone else's work and give it to another. I'd say that you have a right to share a copy, of a physical medium, so long as that copy was rightfully paid for. You don't have a right to make multiple, unpaid, copies and distribute those.
There is harm to a business. It's something called 'potential.' Even if I was never going to buy the movie, if you rip and it give it to me, there's less potential for me to buy my own copy in the future. In fact, I dare say it is so unlikely that I'll risk calling it impossible in my particular case. When you've done that, when you've shared a copy, you've deprived another from the potential to make that sale. What that value is, for what it is worth, is immaterial - it may be an almost trivial amount but it is deprivation nonetheless.
When we say we've not stolen anything, we have. We've stolen the potential sale when we share it, enable sharing, or make a copy without paying it. The potential has been reduced.
Now, certainly, we've every right (inalienable even) to share our experiences - we can recount the movie verbatim and even draw really nice pictures and make a flip-book if we want. What we don't have, however, is an inalienable right to make copies of the works and to deprive them or their potential. Even if you way you'd never buy it anyhow, the potential is reduced simply by your act of making a copy. This is deprivation of an intangible asset. Businesses often work with intangible assets - we call them intellectual property at times. Sometimes they are sales projections.
I could go on, I could describe how investors are real people (snickers) and that they may have real financial losses incurred due to piracy. The gist is, basically, that there is deprivation and there is no inalienable right to the actual content. Just because you have the freedom does not mean you have the right. You're a pirate and depriving a business, and real people, of their assets every single time you engage in piracy.
Now, we can go off and come up with all sorts of justifications to make us feel better about piracy if we want. Hell, I pirate stuff all the time and I can easily afford to buy them. My personal issues are simplicity, control, invasive behaviors, and a desire to actively harm those who'd harm others. I deprive them of their intangible properties because I don't like them, I'm an asshole, and because I will do what I can to be a thorn in their side. I have, right this minute, about 20 GB of television shows that I'm seeding at the request of someone on Kick Ass Torrents. I'm not even going to EVER watch those shows.
However, I don't have a right to do so. Nor do I have a right to consume those shows. I certainly have no inalienable or legal rights to those. I sure as shit don't have a right to be seeding them. You don't have an inalienable right to it because we, as a society, have determined that such doesn't exist. You WISH there were such rights (and I tend to agree though I'd worry about the quality and availability but that's too much to type about today and this is already long enough). Just because you're physically able to do something doesn't mean you're entitled to do so. We can go back to the freedom to kill and the right to do so for an extreme example.
Again, I can only share my opinion and I have no desire to change your views. A conversation needn't be about making arguments that are intended to change another's views. It needn't be some sort of fight to see who has some sort of superiority. I