The concept of 2D is usable in more than just a mathematical context. In other situations it just means "planar".
The reek you're experiencing is a matter of your own perception rather than something objective. If you over-apply your areas of knowledge, you're being a nerd. A thing is "wrong" if it doesn't conform to the systems you know? You're probably just ignorant of other systems.
the problem is the general populace doesn't give a shit
This is a fundamental problem with democracies. They don't work well if the electorate is ignorant. Analogously, this is what's wrong with capitalism. Ignorant consumers.
Not every nation's voting population tends towards myopic decadence, though. I'm guessing it's a precarious equilibrium, having a democracy of smart voters. I'm not sure if the United States had it previously and it's just gotten worse, or if we never had it. The government certainly seems to have gotten gradually worse (regardless of whichever party's been in power).
Keep it in mind, folks: How well your life goes depends on the competence of everyone around you. We're in this together. The mindset of "it's fine if most everyone else is stupid, it's great even — that just means I can get much more in fleecing people" is actually self-defeatingly shortsighted.
There are even far more important applications for the global economy. It may finally be possible to make Helium balloons that don't leak the tiny molecules so quickly.
I enjoyed reading that as if the world's economy were based on birthday balloon bouquets.
But wouldn't we suffer an economic collapse if everyone reused balloons from prior years?!
Hm... When hydrogens separate from oxygens, do they always take their original electron back? Or are we getting a random one out of the, say, two valence electrons the molecule was using previously? If we're possibly getting a different electron, isn't there a constant swap going on in the universe, for perhaps all covalent molecular configuration changes?
That is, atoms reform constantly?
So, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water could themselves be relatively fresh.
Water intoxication can happen with either tap water or ultrapure water.
If you add hydration you need to add electrolytes or your system goes out of balance. Your body can handle only so much imbalance. As it goes too far out of whack, that's effectively water intoxication.
Drinking a glass of ultrapure probably won't hurt you, nor a glass of tap. But have a bunch of either in a short period and you will have a problem. Read the Wikipedia water intoxication article's "notable cases" section to get an idea of how much humans can handle.
This is the real problem, that Facebook is a useful social tool that works so well it's hard to give up.
I don't expect arguments will make it clear to users it's really in their best interests to use lower quality tools or to go without certain features in leaving Facebook. The real way to get the masses to change their behavior is to provide them with an alternative.
Actually, his point stands, and it may be obtuse not to see it. The point is that the privacy concerns here are hard for most folks to understand.
While I understand the value of privacy and the severity of oversharing with entities like Facebook, the upshot to leaving Facebook needs to be made dramatically and plainly clear to the average person. Just because you and I get it doesn't mean that others get it. That's the classic autie nerd lack of perspective into other minds: "It's obvious! Why don't they do the right thing!" Quite likely you and I are exceptional abstract thinkers who can get this sort of thing, compared with most folks.
I think this interview actually does a pretty good job of starting to make the matter clearer for non-abstract thinkers.
Some clear though abstract description:
And all of that data is being collected and sold by people whose goal it is to make a profit selling the ability to control human beings by knowing more about themselves than they know.
More concrete:
you are more heavily surveilled than the KGB or Stasi or Securitate or any other secret police ever surveilled anybody
More clarity on mechanism, but not ultimate problem:
So you're using them and every time you tag anything or respond to anything or link to anything, you're informing on your friends.
Sad and sincere cry for help to understand from Jeffries:
Me: I think the problem is, people have trouble understanding why, like what the real dangers are—
Moglen fails to grasp that she really doesn't understand, probably because the matter appears plain as day to himself:
Mr. Moglen: But that's not the problem! You know what the problem is.
Finally some concreteness:
Dr. Moglen: Well you called me, you know what the problem is. People lost their homes. People lose their money. People lose their freedom. (??? -ed.)
But you'll have to draw the path from the action to the consequence as well. So show both the concrete problem and make plain the mechanisms by which folks' actions result in the problem:
every single photograph uploaded to Facebook is put through facial recognition software they call PhotoDNA which is used to find people for whom any law enforcement agency in the world is looking
Still, folks (who are not on wanted lists) will have a hard time understanding why that's generally important, why it should matter to them.
More clarity on mechanism:
So every time you upload a photograph to Facebook or put one on Twitter for that matter you are now ratting out anybody in that frame to any police agency in the world that's looking for them.
But, again, why should that matter to "me"?
Some police agencies in the world are evil.
Well, that's an answer. And concrete. And it's true. And it's part of the more abstract network of why informing is a bad idea. But is that going to make sense to your average person?
Me: That wasn't a totally serious answer.
The point of privacy rights is not that you don't know why you need them until it's too late. You have to have reasons to do the things you do. Protecting privacy is only done when you understand why it should be done, if only abstractly. PCM2 is right to ask for concrete examples — that's the only way you'll get the masses to help in the effort.
There are two perspectives on this matter that get conflated as they often do in similar situations. One is personal responsibility, the other is expectation of how people will behave. We often, upon concluding that it's unrealistic most folks will act rightly, instantly absolve ourselves of the same responsibility. In other words, because we don't expect others to do the right thing, we believe it's okay if we don't. Interestingly, this tendency to follow suit in misbehavior is one of the forces that we're factoring in when we conclude how people will act and how realistic right behavior is.
On the lighter side, it's the same old criticism from your parents about being a sheep along with your friends, as in "Would you jump off a cliff if all your friends did?" On the darker side, it enables things like The Holocaust.
It isn't black and white, granted. Game theory and philosophy of ethics barge in when we start talking about individual right action in the face of mass misbehavior. I've made my decision, though, to do right regardless of what's popular.
I'd hoped against probability the reporter was playing the foil in a masterful ploy to make painfully obvious to a wider audience how social media is the "ecological disaster" it is via the exchange with Mr. Moglen. (Moglen's kind of a bad-ass, isn't he?)
Couldn't square that fantasy with reality, sadly. I'm sure Ms. Jeffries is a nice person regardless.
Whether intentional, she played the part and we got a pretty awesome vignette to help us understand the situation.
every time you tag anything or respond to anything or link to anything, you're informing on your friends.
Yes, do let us keep in our minds the lessons from both his life and death as we toast him in a way that's appropriate, both symbolically with the kind of drink and ultimately with a moderation — we infrequently toast so — that signifies our valuing of self-care (which might have kept him with us longer).
Slashdot Mirror
But "first-applied-first-hired" would obviously result in total failure? Hiring acumen is rewarded.
That's hot.
That's always a fun idea to mull over.
The concept of 2D is usable in more than just a mathematical context. In other situations it just means "planar".
The reek you're experiencing is a matter of your own perception rather than something objective. If you over-apply your areas of knowledge, you're being a nerd. A thing is "wrong" if it doesn't conform to the systems you know? You're probably just ignorant of other systems.
This is a fundamental problem with democracies. They don't work well if the electorate is ignorant. Analogously, this is what's wrong with capitalism. Ignorant consumers.
Not every nation's voting population tends towards myopic decadence, though. I'm guessing it's a precarious equilibrium, having a democracy of smart voters. I'm not sure if the United States had it previously and it's just gotten worse, or if we never had it. The government certainly seems to have gotten gradually worse (regardless of whichever party's been in power).
Keep it in mind, folks: How well your life goes depends on the competence of everyone around you. We're in this together. The mindset of "it's fine if most everyone else is stupid, it's great even — that just means I can get much more in fleecing people" is actually self-defeatingly shortsighted.
I've got $5 for whoever makes Rockbox for the Zen happen.
FBI's Soliciation For Web Scraping Software Fools Public Into Thinking They Don't Have Such A Thing Already
Or maybe they don't, and they're tired of the CIA not sharing.
Haven't we all watched the video that shows the links between Facebook and the CIA?
Depends on how you define "terrorist". Since lots of agencies are quick to try to label you as one...
Maybe they just had a drier environment outside the test jar. Does that count as a pressure difference?
I enjoyed reading that as if the world's economy were based on birthday balloon bouquets.
But wouldn't we suffer an economic collapse if everyone reused balloons from prior years?!
Hm... When hydrogens separate from oxygens, do they always take their original electron back? Or are we getting a random one out of the, say, two valence electrons the molecule was using previously? If we're possibly getting a different electron, isn't there a constant swap going on in the universe, for perhaps all covalent molecular configuration changes?
That is, atoms reform constantly?
So, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make up water could themselves be relatively fresh.
You're right, but details are needed.
Water intoxication can happen with either tap water or ultrapure water.
If you add hydration you need to add electrolytes or your system goes out of balance. Your body can handle only so much imbalance. As it goes too far out of whack, that's effectively water intoxication.
Drinking a glass of ultrapure probably won't hurt you, nor a glass of tap. But have a bunch of either in a short period and you will have a problem. Read the Wikipedia water intoxication article's "notable cases" section to get an idea of how much humans can handle.
http://www.cultofmac.com/63295/john-sculley-on-steve-jobs-the-full-interview-transcript/
Bronnie Ware on her experience in palliative care.
GP was not an actual advocate.
Some folks run multiple VMs on a single system. Reducing the load of the individual VMs increases the number of VMs they can run.
This is the real problem, that Facebook is a useful social tool that works so well it's hard to give up.
I don't expect arguments will make it clear to users it's really in their best interests to use lower quality tools or to go without certain features in leaving Facebook. The real way to get the masses to change their behavior is to provide them with an alternative.
Actually, his point stands, and it may be obtuse not to see it. The point is that the privacy concerns here are hard for most folks to understand.
While I understand the value of privacy and the severity of oversharing with entities like Facebook, the upshot to leaving Facebook needs to be made dramatically and plainly clear to the average person. Just because you and I get it doesn't mean that others get it. That's the classic autie nerd lack of perspective into other minds: "It's obvious! Why don't they do the right thing!" Quite likely you and I are exceptional abstract thinkers who can get this sort of thing, compared with most folks.
I think this interview actually does a pretty good job of starting to make the matter clearer for non-abstract thinkers.
Some clear though abstract description:
More concrete:
More clarity on mechanism, but not ultimate problem:
Sad and sincere cry for help to understand from Jeffries:
Moglen fails to grasp that she really doesn't understand, probably because the matter appears plain as day to himself:
Finally some concreteness:
But you'll have to draw the path from the action to the consequence as well. So show both the concrete problem and make plain the mechanisms by which folks' actions result in the problem:
Still, folks (who are not on wanted lists) will have a hard time understanding why that's generally important, why it should matter to them.
More clarity on mechanism:
But, again, why should that matter to "me"?
Well, that's an answer. And concrete. And it's true. And it's part of the more abstract network of why informing is a bad idea. But is that going to make sense to your average person?
The point of privacy rights is not that you don't know why you need them until it's too late. You have to have reasons to do the things you do. Protecting privacy is only done when you understand why it should be done, if only abstractly. PCM2 is right to ask for concrete examples — that's the only way you'll get the masses to help in the effort.
This self-incrimination posted via cleartext to the social site Slashdot has been noted and added to your file.
I just opted not to use Facebook.
There are two perspectives on this matter that get conflated as they often do in similar situations. One is personal responsibility, the other is expectation of how people will behave. We often, upon concluding that it's unrealistic most folks will act rightly, instantly absolve ourselves of the same responsibility. In other words, because we don't expect others to do the right thing, we believe it's okay if we don't. Interestingly, this tendency to follow suit in misbehavior is one of the forces that we're factoring in when we conclude how people will act and how realistic right behavior is.
On the lighter side, it's the same old criticism from your parents about being a sheep along with your friends, as in "Would you jump off a cliff if all your friends did?" On the darker side, it enables things like The Holocaust.
It isn't black and white, granted. Game theory and philosophy of ethics barge in when we start talking about individual right action in the face of mass misbehavior. I've made my decision, though, to do right regardless of what's popular.
I'd hoped against probability the reporter was playing the foil in a masterful ploy to make painfully obvious to a wider audience how social media is the "ecological disaster" it is via the exchange with Mr. Moglen. (Moglen's kind of a bad-ass, isn't he?)
Couldn't square that fantasy with reality, sadly. I'm sure Ms. Jeffries is a nice person regardless.
Whether intentional, she played the part and we got a pretty awesome vignette to help us understand the situation.
Kind of harsh on the guy, aren't you?
http://slashdot.org/tag/deduplication
Hopefully folks who know that data is plural also know that data is also a singular mass noun.
And, folks, make sure to do your part by learning about this asymmetry.
Here's one idea worth knowing about: sousveillance.
Or how about