Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Legitimate concerns (Score 1) 232

by JesseMcDonald (#47579429) Attached to: UK Government Report Recommends Ending Online Anonymity

So that mass panic in the theater would have happened anyway, without anyone shouting "fire"?

Perhaps not, but the supposed "crime" was falsely shouting "fire", and the panic would have happened even if there really was a fire. In any case, no one forced the other patrons to panic. If they did, it was entirely their own fault, and they—not whoever shouted "fire"—are wholly responsible for the consequences.

Looking at the events after they're happened, we can conclude that someone unnecessarily shouting "fire" in a crowded theater was a sufficient condition (thus, leading) to people getting hurt. Was it a necessary condition for people getting hurt that way? Common sense says it was.. also anyone who's looking someone to blame.

Wrong on both counts. It is neither a sufficient condition, since people could simply refrain from panicking despite the (maybe false) warning, nor a necessary one, as there could be a panic even if the warning was true, or for that matter without anyone shouting "fire" at all.

If you offer an incentive (survive a theatre fire / money) to someone for committing a crime (trampling someone to death / shooting someone), did you cause it, or was it all on the person who committed the act?

Obviously, the person who committed the act. Otherwise one would be forced into the absurd conclusion that property owners are at least partly responsible for the theft of their property, since simply by having it they give potential thieves an incentive to steal. The same could be said of many other crimes. Responsibility rests with the one whose choices led directly to the outcome. Merely offering an incentive does not make one responsible for the consequences of someone else's choice.

If you manipulate someone by giving them false information, that could be said to take away their ability to choose freely, making you responsible for the consequences when they make the right choice given the information you provided and harm results because it was false. However, that does not apply here, because trampling others in one's haste to escape is something one would be responsible for even if the fire were real; the harm was not due to the information being false.

Comment: Re:Fire(wall) and forget (Score 1) 338

You can't, from outside of a NAT'd host, easily identify any internal hosts and you certainly can't connect to arbitrary ports on them - that's technically impossible since 65536 isn't going to somehow become 2 or more times it's own number.

None of which will matter unless you have an unwanted local service listening on those ports. On the other hand, if there is a malicious service inside your network which wants to allow incoming connections, there are any number of ways to implement NAT traversal. It's even fairly common for common services to incorporate NAT traversal these days due to the prevalence of NAT and the ways it breaks network routing. If you want to reliably filter traffic—even incoming traffic—you need a proper firewall customized to your traffic requirements, NAT or no NAT.

Comment: Re:Limits of Measurement (Score 1) 135

The electrons are being run through the experiment one at a time, so they can't be interfering with each other. There is no "electron build up"; even if you tore the apparatus down and rebuilt it from scratch each time, guaranteeing that there was no leftover state from previous experiments, you'd still get the same results.

You only get one discrete "hit" per electron, but the location varies according to some statistical distribution—and that distribution, measured over a series of single-electron experiments, matches what one would expect for interfering wave patterns.

Comment: Re:USB Import (Score 1) 305

In fact anything digital is lossy because it has a finite (lossy) sampling rate.

Don't forget that analog is lossy too; there is no such thing as a signal with infinite bandwidth in the real world. Per the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem, a discrete (digital) signal with sampling rate f is equivalent to a continuous (analog) signal with bandwidth f/2. In other words, you're not losing anything by sampling a low-pass-filtered signal at 44.1 kHz unless you care about frequencies above 22 kHz. The range of human hearing is generally considered to max out at around 20 kHz; if you want to go higher, you'll probably need to invest in specialized amplifiers and speakers (not to mention a scope to detect the difference).

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 836

by JesseMcDonald (#47569701) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

You may not have used the word "absolute", but you did speak of "Palestinians in Gaza" as if they were a homogeneous group of Hamas supporters:

So it's a bit of a cop out to pretend that civilians in Gaza can't be blamed for Hamas - they can, they voted for them, and they supported the ousting of the far more moderate and reasonable Fatah, those who supported Fatah were killed or fled to the West Bank.

So Palestinians in Gaza share an awful lot of the blame for Hamas is actions - they actively create and support the environment in which Hamas can do what it keeps doing.

Comment: Re:Isn't this exempted? (Score 1) 305

(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system's method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System;

If I understand correctly, this is the "loophole" that MP3 player were able to take advantage of. Since they only receive and store audio data, and don't transmit it for storage anywhere else, they effectively implement a system which is strictly more limited than what the SCMS would permit: they can't make copies regardless of copyright or generation status. The same argument should apply to car entertainment systems, which only store and play back audio from CDs without providing any way to move the audio data off the device.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 836

by JesseMcDonald (#47558085) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

I wasn't trying to imply that the election was illegitimate; at least, no more so than any other plurality-based democratic election[1]. Possible duress aside, Hamas did end up with the most votes. I only meant that with less than half of the population actually voting in favor of Hamas, the majority are not to blame for putting Hamas in power. The unfair blame and possible duress issues were my only points, so we would appear to be in complete agreement.

[1] I'd personally prefer a system where the winner was the least objectionable candidate, which favors centrist positions with broad support, rather than a mere plurality out of voters' first picks, which favors the extremes.

Comment: Re:Radicalization (Score 3, Insightful) 836

by JesseMcDonald (#47557591) Attached to: Gaza's Only Power Plant Knocked Offline

So it's a bit of a cop out to pretend that civilians in Gaza can't be blamed for Hamas - they can, they voted for them, and they supported the ousting of the far more moderate and reasonable Fatah, those who supported Fatah were killed or fled to the West Bank.

Hamas won the election with only 44.45% of the popular vote, with about 25% of the eligible population abstaining (Palestinian legislative election, 2006). You're blaming all Palestinians for a choice made by less than half of the voters, which is hardly fair. Those who voted against Hamas aren't to blame for the actions of Hamas just because they were unfortunate enough to be on the losing side of the election. On top of that, the way Hamas has dealt with Fatah supporters means that even some of the 44.45% who voted for Hamas could reasonably be considered to be under duress.

Comment: Re:Why do you want pieces of plastic (Score 0) 353

Ahh so there are no scarce resources that go into digital creations ? Nobody puts time, money, consumable resources to make entertainment ?

I didn't say that at all, and you know it. It's the "digital creations" themselves which are not scarce. Producing new ones requires labor and other scarce resources. However, artificial copyright monopolies are hardly the only way to fund the production of new media. In the absence of copyright you still have options like patronage and crowd-funding, not to mention volunteer efforts (which already make up a significant fraction of copyrighted works).

Really, while I certainly think that the media companies have been shooting themselves in the foot with machineguns by not maximizing the digital presence of their works, .... But that's their right.

No, punishing those who distribute copies of digital media without their authorization isn't a right. It's just a privilege invented as part of a scheme to incentivize the creation of new works. And like any legal privilege, it can only exist by infringing on the natural rights of others. There are other, better options.

Comment: Re:Why do you want pieces of plastic (Score 0) 353

Seriously why don't you just try justifying why you limit access to your property or person for your own material interests.

That's easy. If someone else is using my property or person, I can't use it myself. Use of scare resources is inherently competitive and zero-sum. The same is not true for non-scarce resources like digital media.

Comment: Re:Why do you want pieces of plastic (Score 3, Insightful) 353

I also wouldn't use a service that does not provide a library at least on par with The Pirate Bay.

That's a pretty ridiculous bar to set.

I think it's a very reasonable bar to set. TPB proves that there is no technical reason why we can't provide everyone with near-instant, free access to basically every last bit of media on Earth. It's up to the pro-copyright faction to justify withholding that access to suit their own material interests.

Comment: Re:Crazy (Score 1) 778

That doesn't make any sense, businesses don't hire people on a whim, they hire people because they have roles that need doing, minimum wage doesn't change that.

Businesses hire people when they have a job that needs doing, provided that it's worth the cost. Not every potential job is worth its cost, and minimum wage artificially raises that cost, with the obvious result that some jobs simply go undone.

There is also the matter of competition which is not subject to the minimum wage—not just under-the-table employment and offshoring, but also automation. With the increased minimum wage, businesses may find that it's now cheaper to employ a machine, where before they would have given the job to a human. Or perhaps they simply increase their existing employees' workloads rather than hiring someone else to handle the "unskilled" jobs.

Even if every business did act like it was insensitive to wages, as you seem to think, that would just mean that the marginal ones are no longer profitable and thus go out of business, further reducing both the supply of goods and the demand for labor.

Comment: Re:Crazy (Score 1) 778

The worker is not consenting to work, he is figuratively forced at gunpoint.

Emphasis very much on the "figuratively"—and it's not the employer holding the gun. If the worker does not consent then he is merely left in his original state, and is no worse off than he would be in the absence of the employer. Regardless of any external pressures, whether from nature or the government or other sources, the employer-employee relationship itself is completely consensual. A free market is one where people's natural rights are respected, not one where everyone is guaranteed an equal bargaining position. The fact that the job means more to the worker than it does to the employer does not prevent this from being a free market.

CCI Power 6/40: one board, a megabyte of cache, and an attitude...

Working...