Re: Re: Not just FIXED but absolutely essential: Do You Really Want Corporations Deciding Search Results? Solely? Without any regulation?
Actually he had a good point - then he spoiled it by trying to claim some kind of relationship between Techdirt and Google.
Actually there is a problem with corporations determining search results when they reach the size of Google/Microsoft. At that point they start to use monopolist tactice to maintain their status. Before Google there was a reasonable market in search. Then Google arrived and took over (by doing a better job). AltaVista, Yahoo etc were more or less wiped out. Subsequent competition has come from Microsoft - who have spoiled their case by trying to leverage their own monopoly in other areas- and from other smaller players who so far have failed to make a real impression.
The truth is that free market competition works well when there are a number of relatively equal competitors but fails when one gets big enough to use its size as a weapon. In reality most companies spend a lot of effort trying to become what they often profess to hate - a monopolist.
So let's prioritize. 580,000 Americans die of cancer, let's fix that. Huge reearch money already going into that so it's already covered as far as humanly possible.
30,000 Americans die from automotive accidents, let's fix that.
Banning automobiles would destroy the US economy - and probably increase the cancer deaths. Short of that - measures are already in place to try and reduce road deaths.
Then we can worry about the 8000 gun related deaths
Stupid fallacy. The gun deaths can be fixed relatively easily - as places that don't have massive gun ownership (most of the rest of the "first" world) have amply demonstrated. The existence of other problems is no reason not to fix the one in front of you - or were you just being sarcastic?
ALSO, my earlier post about Locating hackers.. HOW??
hey didn't locate him as a result of his hacking activities. He had been quite open about joining ISIS and they located him (along with other senior ISIS people) by old fashioned intelligence gathering.
Well - drones are a newer technology - which is why techdirt is interested.
However it seems that this was neither - it was a regular bombing attack from a manned a/c.
I thought there was a restriction on cruise missiles going over countries..without declaring war..
ISIS has declared war on the US.
Otherwise it seems that these attacks have the tacit approval of the Syrian government - which is also bombing ISIS. The US is desperate not to be seen to be helping Assad but Assad is quite happy for the US to help him.
It establishes an interesting precedent -- the US leadership believes that hacking is either an act of war that justifies a military strike, or that a drone strike is not an act of war at all.
A wonderful point - apart from two things.
1) Hussain wasn't attacked for hacking - he was attacked because he was part of a self declared state that has declared war on the US. If you were a radio operator on the Bismarck you weren't targeted for being a radio operator - you were targeted for being on the Bismarck.
the special forces guys I've known ... If they go into a building and determine its filled with nuns and orphans, they can make an intelligent decision and, for example, not execute the orphans
Ah - so US special forces are the Pirates of Penzance!
Frederic Well, then, it is my duty, as a pirate, to tell you that you are too tender-hearted. For instance, you make a point of never attacking a weaker party than yourselves, and when you attack a stronger party you invariably get thrashed. Pirate King There is some truth in that. Frederic Then, again, you make a point of never molesting an orphan! Samuel Of course: we are orphans ourselves, and know what it is. Frederic Yes, but it has got about, and what is the consequence? Every one we capture says he's an orphan. The last three ships we took proved to be manned entirely by orphans, and so we had to let them go. One would think that Great Britain's mercantile navy was recruited solely from her orphan asylums — which we know is not the case.
Right now the US pretends we have the moral high ground and then shits everywhere. We should either abide by morality, or get rid of the pretense and get busy.
There is always a moral problem in dealing with an immoral enemy. In WW2 the allies did some terrible things, Hamburg, Dresden and the atomic bombs to mention just a few.
However there are some rights and wrongs here that are clear.
1. It is wrong to invent a spurious classification of "enemy combatants" and then deny them the benefits of either the Geneva Convention or Civilian Justice.
2. The article here is wrong to conflate this guy with Edward Snowden. This guy is living in a pseudo state that has de-facto declared war on the US (and in fact on most of the rest of the world). The US is already bombing that territory with conventional aircraft. ISIS is so bad that some of the captured Yazidi women have called out "if you know where we are please bomb us!". It is that bad. If you believe in war at all then this guy (as part of the command structure of that pseudo state) is as legitimate a target as Goering was in WW2. Snowden is completely different. His motivations were to improve the US government - not to replace it with a caliphate. Also he is in a country that has a stable, legitimate government and a US embassy.
This particular problem already exists in the peer review process. If you publish a paper, you had better be following in the dogma associated with your field, because if you don't you will get crucified.
Actually that is not the problem that most researchers face. The biggest issue is not about what is true - but rather about what is interesting!
Researchers tend to form cliques that self validate the importance of what they are doing. Anyone starting a new field of enquiry will have difficulty unless they are already an established "star name".
Far more papers are rejected because the reviewer doesn't think the ideas in the paper are significant than because the reviewer thinks that they are wrong.