The second season also went completely off the rails with the mind reprogramming noise that can be broadcast over the radio or a phone line. They also glossed over the whole "Your body will have a police record thicker than the backup dancers in a rap video when we put your mind back in it, and also you will be wanted for treason." problem. Luckily they collapsed society before that problem came up.
Less Dollhouse and more Eternal Sunshine for a Spotless Mind (except making memories instead of removing them) .. makes me thinkg of the new Blade Runner a bit too
For me, the alarming fact is that this "privacywise" option was not the firs one chosen. Instead, they went with a "privacyunwise" option as a default, and only backed out because of user uproar. Bad Mozilla!
I strongly suggest you look at the actual discussion that happened [1].
One Mozilla employee, trying to solve a specific technical problem but not necessarily having thought through all the implications of the proposed solution, suggested the "privacyunwise" option on a public mailing list that Mozilla uses for discussing decisions like this. It's a public list because that's how Mozilla prefers to operate.
In the 24 hours that follow, there are 5 responses asking for a clearer description of the problem being solved and why this specific "unwise" option is considered the best solution. Three of those responses are from Mozilla employees. Following this, the author of the original proposal says that clearly more work is needed in terms of solving the particular problem they are facing.
A few days later, there were three more mails objecting to the proposal; two from employees, one from a non-employee.
A few days after that, the original proposal author came back with what you call the "privacywise" option.
So:
1) The "privacyunwise" option was not _chosen_. It was _proposed_, on a list specifically designed to evaluate the sanity of such proposals. This list happens to be public, which is why you know that the option was considered at all before being discarded as not compatible with Mozilla's principles.
2) The "uproar" was largely, but not entirely, by Mozilla staff.
The "Bad Mozilla" conclusion can only be based on a misunderstanding of what happened here...
Disclaimer: I work for Mozilla, I saw this thread; I did not reply to it because other people got there first and I would just be repeating what they said, but had they not replied I most certainly would have.
Sorry, not the case at all. If you start poking around on a server that the DoD forgets to lock down, you're going to jail. You're not authorized to use it just because you can access it.
Is that quote intentionally saying that you have contradicting premises, and by extension is the statement in that sentence that contradictions do not exist contradicted by the later part of the sentence, or is there something about the sentence that I'm not understanding?
It reads like that at first. What it's saying is for example:
Assume x is 5.
Assume function TimesFive multiplies things by 5.
When we do TimesFive(x) and my answer is 50 instead of the 25. I check the TimesFive function and it's just "print x*5". But how is that possible? 5x5 is 25!
The problem in this case is my assumption that x would be 5 was wrong.
I've had this issue before in my code (though not as trivial an example of course), but it's always a good reminder of something to check when troublshooting.
