sticking my tongue in a light socket is good because...
The presentation concludes that the ministry’s course of action in obeying the orders may have some positive effects in the future: “Itʼs unlikely that Egyptʼs communications ministry will ever be asked to flip that switch again.”
The quotation is from the presentation, but "positive effects" comes from Wired. In the context of the presentation, the quote could be read as "they'll never make THAT mistake again". Honestly, I can't understand how anyone could consider it a "positive effect, unless a) they're so authoritarian that they think teaching the people not to speak out is worth crippling the economy, or b) they're so stupid that they think doing something stupid and getting burned is a smart way to avoid doing that stupid thing in the future. (And considering that Homeland Security wrote the presentation, both are possible.)
In our world there are people who still do things the old-fashioned way, either because they're too poor to invest in dishwashers and milking machines, or because they're rich enough to spend their spare time learning how to knap obsidian and navigate with cordierite pebbles. That leaves three paths to extinction, that I can think of, but I can't think of any examples.
1) A technology was never really any good, we just thought it was, and now we know better. Quack medical remedies and ritualistic magic? I can't think of any that don't still exist (I've seen advertisements for therapeutic magnetic bracelets in contemporary and Victorian newspapers). Maybe Fermat's proof of his Last Theorem.
2) The use for a certain tool no longer exists. Mammoth spears? Dodo clubs? Smallpox vaccine? Well, scratch that last one. And I thought about things associated with animal sacrifice and the slave trade, but that just made me feel depressed.
3) As Chuck D. Money (was your grandfather a Count?) illustrates, a technology can be lost. But that splits into a couple of sub-fields:
Something can be lost and then rediscovered. The secret of concrete was lost with Rome, and wasn't rediscovered for centuries. Egyptian hieroglyphs were a totally dead language (i.e. nobody in the world could read them) for, what, a thousand years before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone? It took us quite a while to figure out how the Easter Islanders moved those statues. Ötzi's straw-and-birch-bark shoes turned out to be amazingly good cold weather shoes. Then there's the Antikythera Mechanism, which we didn't even understand when we found it in 1900 because it was too advanced.
Something can be so lost that we don't know it ever existed. We don't know of examples of this one, by definition, but they may exist.
The narrow middle ground of things we're pretty sure existed, but we have no idea how they worked. Money cites the beautiful example of Greek Fire; I can't think of another. This field is narrow because modern science and engineering are so gosh-darned good at figuring out how to do things (once we know that those things are possible, that's the tricky part).
Now for a fun parlor game, see how a little accident of luck or history could nudge each example from one category to another.
Did anyone else notice that they don't actually say (though they do imply) that her name was taken off the watch list? The focus of the story was on his firing, not the restoration of her rights. It's as if this is tacitly considered a crime against the state ("you misused the power we entrusted you with!") rather than a crime against an individual ("you exiled me from my homeland!").
It also occurs to my nefarious brain that he might not have been caught if he'd had someone else put his wife's name on the list, perhaps with some trumped-up supporting reasons. Maybe the auditors should start looking for groups of people banishing each others' enemies...
It's easy to feel superior to the islanders, but I think they were being perfectly rational. They were trying their best to bring the airplanes, using everything they knew. If aliens came to earth, and we saw them opening up portals to other worlds by dancing around on stilts waving ostrich feathers and chunks of dry ice, by golly I'd try doing the same thing! And when it didn't work I'd conclude that I was missing something vital and I'd go watch the aliens some more.
That last part makes all the difference. An islander who just keeps up the ritual -- or stops thinking about airplanes -- is like a movie executive who dismisses "four-walling" as old news -- or stops thinking about Kevin Smith. It's mental laziness, hubris and dishonesty.
"Can we revisit this when one of these people they let loose sets off a bomb in a crowded tube station?"
Let's revisit it when one of the people they locked up for years at Guantanamo Bay turns out to be innocent, and the secret evidence against him laughably thin... oh, wait...
Let's revisit it after you (and other upstanding citizens) prove that you won't set off a bomb in a crowded... half a tick...
Let's first wait for an example of what happens to a society that abandons due process for the sake of security and... hold on...
Let's wait until we see a formerly great Western nation that used to call itself "the home of the brave" turned into a gaggle of trembling poltroons that fly into an unreasoning panic at the suggestion that someone might set off a bomb somewhere someday. There we are!
Look at Wikipedia, StackOverflow and... I can't think of a third. I would never have thought that such systems could work, it's easy to argue that they couldn't work, and yet they do-- and thousands of others didn't. The "sweet spot" is small, but it does exist and the right combination of technology, culture, crafty design and iterative refinement found it. So maybe crowdsourced creativity is possible, if you do it just right. I realize that this is almost non-disprovable, but it's an intriguing thought.
I think "lawsuit" implies a civil suit, while this verdict and sentence appear to be the result of a criminal trial. The lawsuit (Murphy suing Nicosia) comes next.
"Altering the outcome" makes very little sense, unless the rascal is equipped with a time machine. It looks like a legal term, not to be taken literally.
Counting cards is not cheating, it is simply shrewd play. The casinos would like to declare it cheating, but they really can't, so they engage in tactics like sneaking it into the middle of a list of actual cheating methods.
The casino has the right to refuse your patronage ("blackbaned"?). They can shut their doors to you forever if you cause a disturbance. Or commit a crime. Or win too much. Or maybe if they just don't like the color of your hat, I don't know. So being barred does not mean you've broken the law.
"...and you have to accept what happens you should you choose to... break those rules..." Yeah, it'd be a shame if you won too much and started having, I don't know, kneecap trouble. (One more reason I'll never bet a dime in a casino.)
"I'll be over here, with cash waiting in my hand for any business that the TV companies actually allow me to pay for the content I want..."
Isn't that cable? If you mean that it has to be online, digital, free of obnoxious DRM (pardon the tautology) then do you really mean you'd pay for material that's available free online (as it will be five minutes after it's broadcast from the primary)?
The whole idea of cable was that for a price it would provide television that was of higher quality and/or less cluttered with advertising, as an alternative to free broadcast TV. And it did a booming business. Therefore it was providing something that broadcast TV couldn't.
Broadcast TV migrating to the internet? Sure, I suppose (although the viewers' new abilities to expunge advertising will be a challenge to the old model). But cable? With the quality that cable viewers have come to expect? That basically can't happen unless the producers can find new business models that are as rich as the old ones-- read that again before you rush to rebut; there are new business models, sure, and there will be edgy and innovative internet TV, but that alone doesn't mean it'll be as good as what came before.
I'm all for innovation, and you may turn out to be right, and I hope so, but your argument doesn't seem strong. Yes, if HBO dies then its audience will go elsewhere, that's sort of an ecological/evolutionary argument. But evolution tends toward survival, not sophistication; HBO's successor will be better suited to make a profit (or at least stay afloat) in the new ecology, but that doesn't mean that what it produces will be better art.
It takes a kind of courage to admit that one's own job is meaningless; it's much easier and more comfortable to rationalize. Likewise many passengers employ a little of the old cognitive dissonance to convince themselves that genital inspection keeps them safe. And any TSA worker who did accept the truth could probably be fired for saying it out loud.
How about an airline with no security checks, and they charge whatever they can (just like ordinary airlines). People might be willing to pay more to avoid these indignities.
Re: All we need, is a bunch of upset pilots, with X-Ray induced cancer... !! Feel safe ?
"I dont see any reason why there should not be a 'Trusted fly list' just as there is a 'no fly list'."
There should not be a "no fly" list. If you think it does any good then you don't understand security, and if you think it does no harm then civil rights are not important to you.
"When I got my security clearance, they checked my [everything]. But once you have that trust, you have it, and unless you abuse it you keep it."
Judging by your reference to the "no fly" list, I'm guessing you're American. In the United States, security clearances expire after a certain number of years (depending on level), whether you've kept your nose clean or not.
The women were not anonymous. They appeared in public and did what the videos show them doing...
A false dichotomy. From my reading of the article it looks as if they did not identify themselves at the time, but acquaintances later recognized them in the video and "outed" them at school. Decades ago a girl could flash a crowd at spring break (or whatever) and be reasonably confident that no one would ever know who she was, or at least that it wouldn't become common knowledge (or common viewing!) in her home town. Now she must be more circumspect, which is everyone's loss.
I have mixed feelings about whether people should be allowed to bring suit anonymously, but the very fact that it is possible in this case means that we have not entirely lost the anonymity we used to take for granted.
On the post: Turns Out Egypt Did Have An Internet Kill Switch
sticking my tongue in a light socket is good because...
The quotation is from the presentation, but "positive effects" comes from Wired. In the context of the presentation, the quote could be read as "they'll never make THAT mistake again". Honestly, I can't understand how anyone could consider it a "positive effect, unless a) they're so authoritarian that they think teaching the people not to speak out is worth crippling the economy, or b) they're so stupid that they think doing something stupid and getting burned is a smart way to avoid doing that stupid thing in the future. (And considering that Homeland Security wrote the presentation, both are possible.)
On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?
Re: Proof
On the post: Do Tools Ever Die Off?
selection effect
1) A technology was never really any good, we just thought it was, and now we know better. Quack medical remedies and ritualistic magic? I can't think of any that don't still exist (I've seen advertisements for therapeutic magnetic bracelets in contemporary and Victorian newspapers). Maybe Fermat's proof of his Last Theorem.
2) The use for a certain tool no longer exists. Mammoth spears? Dodo clubs? Smallpox vaccine? Well, scratch that last one. And I thought about things associated with animal sacrifice and the slave trade, but that just made me feel depressed.
3) As Chuck D. Money (was your grandfather a Count?) illustrates, a technology can be lost. But that splits into a couple of sub-fields:
Now for a fun parlor game, see how a little accident of luck or history could nudge each example from one category to another.
On the post: If You Don't Offer Legit Versions, Is It That Big A Surprise That People Want Unauthorized Copies?
One word: eBay
On the post: Falsely Putting Your Wife On The Terrorist Watch List May Hinder Your Chances For Promotion
priorities
It also occurs to my nefarious brain that he might not have been caught if he'd had someone else put his wife's name on the list, perhaps with some trumped-up supporting reasons. Maybe the auditors should start looking for groups of people banishing each others' enemies...
On the post: Swedish ISP Will Automatically Encrypt All Traffic To Protect Privacy Under New Data Retention Laws
buttons
On the post: Cargo Cults, Kevin Smith And The Difference Between Connecting And Going Through The Motions
in defense of cargo cults
That last part makes all the difference. An islander who just keeps up the ritual -- or stops thinking about airplanes -- is like a movie executive who dismisses "four-walling" as old news -- or stops thinking about Kevin Smith. It's mental laziness, hubris and dishonesty.
On the post: UK Intelligence Agencies Ask Court To Say They're Immune From Having To Provide Evidence
Re: Re: The Answer Is Simple...
Let's revisit it when one of the people they locked up for years at Guantanamo Bay turns out to be innocent, and the secret evidence against him laughably thin... oh, wait...
Let's revisit it after you (and other upstanding citizens) prove that you won't set off a bomb in a crowded... half a tick...
Let's first wait for an example of what happens to a society that abandons due process for the sake of security and... hold on...
Let's wait until we see a formerly great Western nation that used to call itself "the home of the brave" turned into a gaggle of trembling poltroons that fly into an unreasoning panic at the suggestion that someone might set off a bomb somewhere someday. There we are!
On the post: Crowdfunding Makes Sense... But Does Crowd Creative Decision Making?
"I hate it when they start to interfere..."
Look at Wikipedia, StackOverflow and... I can't think of a third. I would never have thought that such systems could work, it's easy to argue that they couldn't work, and yet they do-- and thousands of others didn't. The "sweet spot" is small, but it does exist and the right combination of technology, culture, crafty design and iterative refinement found it. So maybe crowdsourced creativity is possible, if you do it just right. I realize that this is almost non-disprovable, but it's an intriguing thought.
On the post: Doctor Sues Website For Defamation, After Being Convicted For Hitting Diver With His Boat
small correction
On the post: Is Figuring Out A Slot Machine Software Glitch & Making Money From It A Crime?
Re: Altering the outcome of the game.
On the post: Hulu Realizes That It Can't Go Public Because Its Business Plan Is Hindered
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I honestly don't know where you got that.
On the post: Hulu Realizes That It Can't Go Public Because Its Business Plan Is Hindered
Re: Re: the race is not always to the handsome
On the post: Hulu Realizes That It Can't Go Public Because Its Business Plan Is Hindered
Re: Re: Re:
Isn't that cable? If you mean that it has to be online, digital, free of obnoxious DRM (pardon the tautology) then do you really mean you'd pay for material that's available free online (as it will be five minutes after it's broadcast from the primary)?
The whole idea of cable was that for a price it would provide television that was of higher quality and/or less cluttered with advertising, as an alternative to free broadcast TV. And it did a booming business. Therefore it was providing something that broadcast TV couldn't.
Broadcast TV migrating to the internet? Sure, I suppose (although the viewers' new abilities to expunge advertising will be a challenge to the old model). But cable? With the quality that cable viewers have come to expect? That basically can't happen unless the producers can find new business models that are as rich as the old ones-- read that again before you rush to rebut; there are new business models, sure, and there will be edgy and innovative internet TV, but that alone doesn't mean it'll be as good as what came before.
On the post: Hulu Realizes That It Can't Go Public Because Its Business Plan Is Hindered
the race is not always to the handsome
I'm all for innovation, and you may turn out to be right, and I hope so, but your argument doesn't seem strong. Yes, if HBO dies then its audience will go elsewhere, that's sort of an ecological/evolutionary argument. But evolution tends toward survival, not sophistication; HBO's successor will be better suited to make a profit (or at least stay afloat) in the new ecology, but that doesn't mean that what it produces will be better art.
On the post: TSA Claims You Need To Be Naked Scanned Or Groped After A Flight?
Re: Not really news
On the post: While TSA Looks At You Naked, Child Finds Loaded Gun Magazine Left On Southwest Plane
Re: Missing the point?
On the post: Pilot Group Urges Pilots To Refuse Naked Backscatter Scans, And Avoid Groping Pat Downs
Re: All we need, is a bunch of upset pilots, with X-Ray induced cancer... !! Feel safe ?
There should not be a "no fly" list. If you think it does any good then you don't understand security, and if you think it does no harm then civil rights are not important to you.
"When I got my security clearance, they checked my [everything]. But once you have that trust, you have it, and unless you abuse it you keep it."
Judging by your reference to the "no fly" list, I'm guessing you're American. In the United States, security clearances expire after a certain number of years (depending on level), whether you've kept your nose clean or not.
On the post: Turns Out The Evil Halloween Candy Poisoners Was Just FUD That Got You To Buy Prepackaged Candy
I knew I'd use this some day.
On the post: Free Speech vs. Anonymity Gone Wild: Women Suing Joe Francis Fight To Remain Anonymous
Naked is the best disguise.
A false dichotomy. From my reading of the article it looks as if they did not identify themselves at the time, but acquaintances later recognized them in the video and "outed" them at school. Decades ago a girl could flash a crowd at spring break (or whatever) and be reasonably confident that no one would ever know who she was, or at least that it wouldn't become common knowledge (or common viewing!) in her home town. Now she must be more circumspect, which is everyone's loss.
I have mixed feelings about whether people should be allowed to bring suit anonymously, but the very fact that it is possible in this case means that we have not entirely lost the anonymity we used to take for granted.
Next >>