The memo is there for everyone to read. It is only 4 pages. Wikileaks can say whatever it wishes and by the way so can you or whatever commentator. The memo is there to read, uncensored I would think.
It is not merely the fact that some crazy person joins some vile organisation, it is more important in regards to the implications. It mentions cases where clearly one sidedness is shown. Why was that person not allowed to testify in a democratic court? Why must the US not be subjected to the same requirement it demands of other democratic countries in regards to extradition. It is not for lack of reason that the case of the Hacker in the UK keeps making front page news.
The leak I believe is a service to humanity. It is a shining light to reason amongst the dark pits of greed.
"Why do we need to box them into little boxes, so that they conveniently fit into our tiny little realities?"
Simple, because one has a penis and the other a vagina. If you are going to downvote at this point, refrain. It is simply an example to suggest that women and men are fundamentally different. One provides one part of the equation, the other provides the other part of the equation. That does not mean that either is superior, but it does mean that in any household, unless the household is sufficiently rich, one will have to look after the children, while the other provides the resources for the former to do so. It is called distribution of labour.
Women have those sort of qualities which lead them to be more suited to nurture children. Men do not. Is that cultural, I doubt it. You find it in most animal species too.
Perhaps, women see the grass to be greener on the other side, rather than to consider their grass as very green and pleasant. They get to go shopping with men's money, they get to spend all their day sitting on their ass, they get to have friends to chat with about pleasant things, they get to have all they want.
If they want to trouble their brains, then it is simply not true that society has prohibited them from doing so. In any time and nation there have been women who have engaged in all sorts of intellectual endeavours. However, as much un PC as this may be and controversial, the best of women are simply not better than the best of men. Thus, excepting personal liberty of choice, focusing instead on the grander picture of division of labour, based on matters of fact only, society would do better if women did what they are best at, that is nurture their children, except for many women who are better than their husband to use their brains to gain resources so that it justifies for the husband to perform the function of nurturing the children, and men do their best which is to provide the resources for their wives to nurture their children.
What is the alternative? That men look after the children?
I suppose google would induce costs seeing as calling phones from skype is not free. Thus, I doubt that it is a gesture of well why not. Rather, the attraction of lots of data possibly. Just imagine how much more targeted advertising would become if they can analyse actual conversations. And also new users to gmail. Millions use Skype. That means, millions do not see the google adverts when using skype.
When you learn how to ride a bicycle, it is really hard. You fall, the entire thing seems almost impossible, it requires a lot of concentration and perhaps even leads to frustration. Once you learn how to ride the bicycle however, you sort of work on automatism.
If you have a routine in the morning, you do not need to stop and think what you are going to do. You get up, have a shower, brush your teeth, you know what you are going to do with your day, so you can keep the focus and attention for other new things which inevitably occur within the structure.
For example, reading hacker news is a distinctive activity, and it is the same activity any time you do it, but what you read is often new things.
I doubt I have explained myself well, but basically people get used to things because that is the most efficient way of operating. Learning how to write for example is a very hard thing, once you do learn however, it happens almost automatically. So too with such complex things as you mentioned. Finding a job is relatively hard, once you find the job however and settle in, you operate more efficiently.
I have been thinking very hard about how this can be broken. It happens all the time, we change habits all the time. As to why some are easy to break and some others are not I am not sure. I think there is this ingredient which I call conviction. It is not knowing that something is bad, nor understanding or realising, but an absolute conviction, that is absolute certainty that something is bad and damaging to yourself which seems to make breaking certain habits easier, even very easy to break.
When however you would like to do it, but know that it is bad, although you are absolutely certain that it is bad, it still is hard because although you might think you are absolutely certain, there is doubt, because you like doing the thing, and doubt makes breaking a habit very hard. In such instances, the only way I know to break the habit is by pure strength of will.
What I intended to say exactly is very simple. The post which I originally replied to states that the guy intends to basically copy journal articles behind pay walls and put them on some site where everyone can access them for free. I stated that such a thing would firstly be a breach of copyrights, secondly is unethical, thirdly there is no reason to do it and I tried to give my reasons which are summarised below.
It is nice for sure to get stuff for free, but I suggested that someone would have to pay for it. If it would not be the current institutions and professionals which pay for it, then the money would either come from the research funding, or professor's pay, or higher university fees for students as professionals who work in that field need not buy such articles, but to publish such articles requires money which universities would need to find from somewhere.
I do not know if an editor is paid for editing, or a peer reviewer for reviewing, but many of these journals are printed. You can find most of them online but even there there is much overhead, such as customer support, people to add the articles online, format them and all the rest.
Currently, professionals pay for this infrastructure. If you are a lawyer for example, you would probably need access to these journals as the law changes all the time. So too if you are a doctor I would think, or a psychologist, or historian...
Universities pay for it too, but students do not directly.
You can argue that they charge too much, you can argue that the system needs to be reformed, but I was trying to argue that the journals do not need to be free. That is so because any given journal interests a very small number of people and the general public would not understand them or have any interest in them. If one is doing computer science, ok they might be interested to read one article or two in the field of medicine which might be of a general interest, such as the article in point, but generally, they wouldn't be interested to read articles from a field in which they do not operate.
Therefore, to conclude, as the public would not really have any benefit from having all the journals for free, I would rather the professionals who have an interest in the journals provide the funding to support them.
I would not for example see how my comment would be any different from any other article which you can not simply post in your blog as it is copyrightable. I do not either see for example how it would be different from say mentioning a great idea I told a friend I was going to implement yet goes on to implement it himself.
The boundaries are yet to be defined for certain, but I do not see how one can reason that others should be freely able to record my speech in a permanent form without making me know so.
If Hacker News in their terms and conditions stated that they owned all that I contributed and made this blatantly obvious, then fine, but otherwise, all that I have stated is mine, and within my authority alone.
Not that I care at all of any of it. I simply want my account to be deleted because I am tired of this place.
So too I would perhaps also like this website to not contain my thoughts.If it takes a man to go through each of them, then fine. If it takes me going through each of them and deleting them then fine.
Not that I would, but it is in a way a matter of principle. I own all these comments. I should have the right to decide as to which site or which person can view them or otherwise. Not some complete stranger.
Desirable and necessary resources are different. The entirety of the night in regards to hacker news however has been quite revealing.
This place is no less a waste of time than telly. Your insistence simply proves so. Anyone who has been in a university just knows that they had access to the journals they needed, but perhaps not some they might have wanted to.
Yet regardless, neither helps us in our endeavour. Whether the person publishes all the journal articles, I care little. This is no longer a community. No longer are etiquettes and the culture of the site enforced, it is a play ground instead where populism wins.
That is fine, that is how things have been working. You go there first and leave when so it becomes. Yet I thought naively perhaps that this time it would be different.
It is not. Only in the physical world is it different, only in the physical world do we have the freedom, for in that sphere, nature has had the advantage of many years.
Not even the best and brightest can come even close to it. Though maybe I am just naive to suggest that PG is either of those in regards to the internet. He is of a different generation, of a different age too, in his 40s or 50s, chasing money or whatever he chases.
This is our net to make. Ours to learn the mistakes and implement their solutions.
Might perhaps be that this is the very first time that someone publicly asks to get deleted and no one knows what to do about it, hence deleting the thread t is an easy option.
Perhaps I do not quite so much care about the actual content, but that the content is likely to be permanent does quite change my opinion of social media and their kins such as this website.
I simply would not want to comment on a site like this if indeed all that I have commented has no way of being eradicated. For me on a personal level I suppose that is fine since my Id is fairly anonymous, but others would simply treat such platforms as businesses and that is, well would be, a sorry state of affairs.
I can not believe however that the brightest minds can not deal with this, yet can deal with utterly complex mathematical formulae and even P does or does not equal NP!
Why would the question need context? It is not asking of a specific instance, as in, was it reasonable that such a thing happened at such a time, but generally.
That is, do you think that reason reigns supreme from your practical experience of life.
I understand finely why your criticism might be a valid point, however, when all comments take the same shade that your criticism does, we start looking for the trees and miss the forest.
If you can build something for $100, yet the same thing they used costed $250,000 to build, ok let us even say for good measure it costed $25,000 and the rest was inflated, compared to $100 it must be a well awesome product, way superior than what you could build, ten times, 25 times, and if we are to trust the actual figure, 250 times better than what you could built.
The point of the article is most probably that it is the latest technology anyway. I mean, it is fine to look out for these flaws, but something much grater happened there, they actually discovered something. If all we get from comments is flaws flaws and the opposite down voted, then this community simply is not working.
So it is not a good idea to put an affiliate banner on a normal page, hence perhaps why I have not gotten a single sale. Affiliates just require a different strategy?
Ok, this is a reply to mquander on this thread http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1628106 (unfortunately I do not know how to link directly to the post and the reason why I am not replyin there is because I can not.
I would not like to see this community as a place where I can validate or discredit the thoughts I already hold. I am only 22 and wish much to grow. In those areas where I might not provisionally want to grow, I write a diary, it is a fine way to speculate about the knowledge one has in his own space.
Perhaps this is desire speaking more than reason, but in this place more than other I have found people who are of my intellectual level, who are inquisitive, naturally curious to learn about such matters, such as to use the easy example, what matter is made of.
So when I suggested, what is wrong with people who engage in orgy sex being protected from HIV, I was not making a point of the kind which seems that people might make, that is of the intention to suggest that it is fine to have orgy sex. I am not fine neither however with orphan kids in Africa being held somehow as angels for whom we must all fight, and ignore the reality which lurks in our street. Sex should be free for all. I do not see how that can possibly be a frowned upon proposition. I do not see why we should be free to put on a hierarchical scale the position that children would occupy with that of sex orgies. I do not see either on a purely theoretical, philosophical, rational or logical manner why such children should attract our sympathy more than the 18 year old naive girl or boy who simply made a mistake. Are we all the sudden putting life on a hierarchical scale?
But of course with all the mighty brains that might lurk these pages, such matters deserve no consideration. Down voting is much easier, than inquiring, counter arguing, suggesting alternative views. It is simply easier to censor dissenting views which one hardly understands than put one self in that child like curious position of wishing to learn such as asking well why must it not be like this, well why do you think so.
I personally know my opinions, I know my thoughts, I know my reasoning and perception. That is not why I frequent these pages. I come here to learn of other's rational reasoning, to learn of the way others rationally perceive things, to be in that cutting edge, where reason and logic reigns supreme, where emotions is not taken in consideration, where one discusses rather than asserts their authority, where the community discusses in the free spirit of reason.
We have a great thing here. It currently is outside of the mainstream eyes, yet influences the "opinion makers" for the opinion makers are people of our intelligence. Yet, this is becoming a community of assertions, a community where are found those fallacies men of intelligence know to guard, such as marketers cheating the system, in uniform, each of them starting their title with Why is this so, not quite asking, instead, following it with their opinions, opinions which I have to guard against calling them bluff due to their physical presence in the community. Their vocal and crowd reputation might be free to set the agenda and culture, and challenge us to keep it so free, keep it so unguarded, argue against any cultural impositions.
I have used this net thing since Google was born. There is often birth and death. PG foresaw this day, and this day is here. A great shame and loss for in these pages the mighty and brilliant are contained. yet the might of PG could not withstand the fortunes of nature, or maybe, just maybe, PG made grave mistakes, for man is chaotic, and if man wishes reason, man devises a system, a system which is utterly lacking in these pages, where irrationality most certainly must rain supreme, unless rational men act to tame it.
It is not merely the fact that some crazy person joins some vile organisation, it is more important in regards to the implications. It mentions cases where clearly one sidedness is shown. Why was that person not allowed to testify in a democratic court? Why must the US not be subjected to the same requirement it demands of other democratic countries in regards to extradition. It is not for lack of reason that the case of the Hacker in the UK keeps making front page news.
The leak I believe is a service to humanity. It is a shining light to reason amongst the dark pits of greed.