Slashdot Mirror

They did a segment on The Daily Show about that. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-15-2012/seaworld-of-pain

So, "Serious Organized Crime Agency?!" And I thought a government department named, "Home Land Security" sounded gay. Who thinks of these names? John Stewart?

Jon Stewart interviewee Jonathan Macey (professor at Yale) said most people should avoid private equity. Good private equity firms require huge investments - more than he can can bring to the table...

As an aside, Mr. Romney is a bad joke of a candidate - he basically represents everything that the occupiers are protesting.

What the U.S. needs is a candidate who people who work for a living can rally around, and that people who steal for a living will fear. Most people would agree that Steve Jobs worked very hard for his billions, and that there are groups on Wall Street who ought to be prosecuted.

I like certain aspects of Ron Paul's candidacy, but I wonder if he can get a message together that could break through Wall Street's blockade.

Fortunately for us there is another candidate who could black-swan the election.

there's also the romney tax option:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter

No PAC's associated with him? After all, they don't have to report their donations and can, themselves, donate directly to a candidate's campaign.

Here's Jon Stewart discussing Colbert's PAC, Americans For A Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.

More question mark abuse, I see. Mod submitter overrated. Or maybe Garrett got confused about what he was talking about.

There are three(!) totally seperate issues here, all being conflated as though they were the same thing:

1. How to build a "secure" system, where secure is defined in terms of preventing things from happen that the user doesn't want, and in this case we're concentrating on situations where the user isn't mysterious code with kernel mode.
2. How to conform to the UEFI secure boot spec, so that you can run whatever the hell you want on your UEFI computer.
3. Contractual obligations that Microsoft is imposing on manufacturers who want Microsoft logos on their products.

Many people are flaming Microsoft here. Fine. Fuck Microsoft. Now, that aside...

When Garrett starts saying things like "Signing the kernel isn't enough. Signed Linux kernels must refuse to load any unsigned kernel modules," he isn't talking about Microsoft or UEFI specs. He's talking about actual security -- how he thinks Linux ought to work, in order to protect users from running unknown kernel-mode code. He's not talking about Secure Boot (TM), he's talking about secure boot^H^H^H^H operation. Once your kernel has booted, UEFI specs are irrelevant, because you're not interacting with UEFI anymore and control of the machine is in the hands of the kernel, to protect or lose.

Once you've got your kernel signed and UEFI trusts the signer and it boots, you have solved the big UEFI interoperability problem that everyone is complaining about, and the kernel loading unsigned drivers doesn't change that a bit. At that point, you've got your machine working, and Linux is "secure boot compatible."

Refusing to load unsigned drivers is a way to take advantage of what UEFI secure boot ostensibly intends to offer users, as opposed to sacrificing the security which Secure Boot may offer by treating it merely as a compatibility obstacle.

BTW, I hope this whole signed kernel module issue makes people think back to Torvalds-vs-Tanenbaum. We all know who won, but are you still sure who was right?

""President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law." -ACLU's website

Jon Steward talks about how horrible this is. It didn't pass...at first." http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development"

http://slashdot.org/submission/1898482/infinite-us-citizen-detention--now-law

Unfortunately, it didn't get enough votes to make the front page. I wish more people were focused on freedom, as well as technology here, but more and more people are waking up quickly now. It's hard not to be aware of it, when our government throws something in our face almost every week.

I think its important to remember that there are 500-1000 congressmen and senators, while the US population is 307,006,550. The people really do have the power take control of their government-if they wake up.

The Lawrence Lessig interview on "The Daily Show" points to the heart of the current problem with all of our representatives in government. Until we fund our representatives differently they are going to beholden to special interests.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/extended-interviews/404264/playlist_tds_extended_lawrence_lessig/404242/

No one expects Government to support civil disobedience.

That's what I thought to, but it turns out there are a lot of people who do believe such a dumb thing.

What holds them together is a monumental sense of unfairness and inequity which runs counter to their belief in what America should be about.

Actually this is an excellent description of OWS, I wish I had said it. Of course they all have different ideas for "what America should be about," some think it should be about getting a raise since they worked so long, others think it should be about deposing Obama, or getting rid of their student loans.

Its a pretty diverse group and its trying to give everyone a voice. So it will probably take time to congeal; if they persist.

They won't, due to several problems described in the original They Tyranny of Structurelessness. Protests are fine for raising awareness, but that's it. Some relevant quotes: "The end of consciousness-raising leaves people with no place to go, and the lack of structure leaves them with no way of getting there." "Unstructured groups may be very effective in getting women to talk about their lives; they aren't very good for getting things done. It is when people get tired of 'just talking' and want to do something more that the groups flounder, unless they change the nature of their operation." We've seen this movie before, and it won't end differently. Jon Stewart documented some of the problems. If you are familiar with the Tyranny of Structurelessness, you will know it before you even watch the movie.

"the destruction of the federal government..." Ah, now your talkin like a radical left-wing anarchist; or a right-wing EmmaGoldman anarchist.

But it's right, isn't it? Of course not complete destruction, but Rick Perry has three government programs he wants to get rid of, Ron Paul has five, Tea Party is all about reducing the size of government. And really, everyone has a government program they want to get rid of or reduce, probably even you. It's a concrete goal that people can work towards.

The difference between the Tea Party and OWS, is that the Tea Party has found a way to push the levers of power (get their people elected into congress, or get opportunistic politicians without morals to do their bidding, like Michelle Bachman), and OWS is still sitting in the rain.

So, one domain points to a video that the candidate was in, an organization he worked for and media reports about him. The other points to accusations of the first lady (not even the candidate) having an extramarital affair and the candidate being a "homosexual coke fiend."

Do you perchance work for Fox News?

and stock enough food for the next 50 years.

Didn't you get the memo? Having more than 7 days worth of food is a sign you may be a terrorist!

The g-men will be descending upon you shortly.

There are common sense ways of changing incentives to address the deleterious effect of corporate wealth. Lawrence Lessig explains why transparency alone is insufficient, and talks about some real reforms that will actually change behavior:

1) Democracy Vouchers
2) Mandatory Anonymous Donations

These are examples of the basic reforms we need to restore decency to our democracy.

What is so bad about George Soros again? He has done more than any other single person to help topple caustic communist regimes in the 20th century.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-18-2010/george-soros-plans-to-overthrow-america This guy?

The paint would be easy here. I've seen this color matcher at Lowe's....

John Stewart of The Daily Show has now identified Lowe's as a supplier to terrorists.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-december-13-2011-lawrence-lessig

Sweden here. Yes I do. I do indeed! (Well ,actually they look better. Not that much like Skeletor.)

Fixed the link:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-22-2006/jones---bad-pit

Andrea and Donald Stierle are good friends of mine and they are very dedicated researchers. They were also feature on "The Daily Show with John Stewart" in June 2006 regarding the Berkeley Pit. For a good laugh, watch the Berkeley Pit segment: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-22-2006/jones---bad-pit

Jon Stewart covered this topic quite well the other day. So essentially we (US Treasury) loaned the banks money at 0.01% and then they loaned us (US Treasury) the money back at a higher rate. WTF?

Because we also focus on the tiny minority of idiots who believe in intelligent design bestowed from upon high by the Noodly Appendage.

Sorry ... I meant God and his intelligently designed banana.

But I may be mistaken in thinking, that we should laugh at, ridicule and point fingers at all religious nutjobs, and not just the ones of my own skin colour and my country's largest denomination.

I don't care about the colour of their skin OR their religious freedoms - they're idiots.

PS.
We also focused on Ted Stevens and his series of tubes and made fun of him for it. Should we instead have focused on the 534 other members of congress, who weren't this stupid? No - we shouldn't.

What's funny is that even people on the Right can't tell you why they hate Soros so much. The man is a self-made billionaire who grew up in Hungary during the time of Nazi Germany, and is one of the most successful capitalists in the world. He is largely credited with being crucial to the collapse of communism in Central and Eastern Europe, where he pumped millions of dollars into supporting pro-democratic programs and independent media. On top of that he is an incredible philanthropist contributing millions of dollars to organizations all over the world in support of spreading democracy, egalitarianism, and toppling oppressive regimes.

As far as I can tell, the reason they hate him is because he made getting George Bush out of office his top priority in 2003, arguing that America, as leader of the world, was taking the world off course with the War on Terror. He also supports death with dignity through assisted suicide and drug policy reform. The man is obviously a monster.

Jon Stewart also had a fantastic takedown of right-wing conspiracy theories about Soros.

Al Gore is a lawyer and a former politician, that is bad enough. His work on climate change is legit and he is not profiteering; that is just smear tactics -- partially because of his history in politics (religious nature of today's dysfunctional politics) and because he became the figurehead of the global warming issue (which is just the nature of any career politician) the industry will attack any representative.... We have industry backed global conspiracy theories against all climate scientists worldwide! See one of their bought off orgs: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

Gore was not chicken little, he always was on the most positive side and almost always minimized things - I was following the issue before his slideshows; he was quite conservative on many points... sure, he does talk about long term projections which sound extreme but those always do in that they are taken out for X years until the extreme case occurs (so its not extreme, maybe the tactic of logical progression could be considered as extreme.) Gore puts the years for those end results further out than most climate scientists I followed. This was just modern political marketing at work; people wouldn't pay attention unless it impacted them and something extreme was the result down the road. It sounds totally different to claim weather will get worse in your life time than to say sea level rise will flood the coasts of your grandchildren. Both can be totally proven but which one do you think will motivate the public? The "alarmist" types who are like "Dr. Doom" have been saying all the same horrible things (plus more) but with a much shorter timelines and that we will be locked in unable to fix it really soon, likely before enough political will exists to counter the corporate dominance. The social pressure is great on these people, like Dr. Doom on the economic collapse-- they belittled him with that name they gave him and his peers did it as well-- and who was spot on in the end? He was. Yet the ones who were totally wrong still get on TV as experts and he's not lost the nickname.

Yup... but in the end, it's the result of not holding elected representatives to their campaign promises. All the people running for election are morally and ethically interchangeable, so you don't have the option of voting for someone who will behave differently.

Obviously, if nobody ever has to deliver, they can promise anything - closing gitmo, prosecution of telcos, repeal of the PATRIOT act, reducing taxes and spending, you name it. We're selecting for liars.

But equally obviously, if lying politicians were reliably sentenced to either prison time or reduced to never working again for more than minimum wage we'd have no such problems.

As long as people continue to vote based on team logos (Obama wants to take mah guns because he's a DEMOCRAT!) instead of on individual character, we all continue to lose.

You are damn right. What are these particulates? Who invented them? My opinion is Scientists : what are they up to? .

That's why a lot of flash is streamed these days, so you don't have a flv that you can just grab out of your Temp folder. If you know a way to easily and quickly download content directly from say http://www.thedailyshow.com/ , let me know, last time I looked, there wasn't any working one on Linux.

It's a bit more convoluted than it used to be, but most sites still use /tmp on the GNU/Linux client, they just erase the file just after it's creation, so, you have to get it from /proc. http://n00bsys0p.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/how-to-download-flash-10-2-video-streams-in-linux/ explains how to do this, along with other sites.

Flash wasn't the first, ActiveX and Quicktime where much earlier. Flash won because it was the best and could do things that no other thing could do at the time.

No, Flash won because sites kept telling people to download this plugin or that plugin (quicktime, realplayer, some other random proprietary solution), and that got annoying since half of the time it was malware. People already had Flash because of Newgrounds and some other game sites, so sites that had flash video were less annoying in that regard.

So long as you can get the absolute reference to the .flv you can download it,

That's why a lot of flash is streamed these days, so you don't have a flv that you can just grab out of your Temp folder. If you know a way to easily and quickly download content directly from say http://www.thedailyshow.com/, let me know, last time I looked, there wasn't any working one on Linux.

Add on to that the fact you can use FRAPS or most other Screen Recorders to capture the video should the stream be encrypted and it doesn't matter either way.

That's complicated and cumbersome, as it it forces you to not use your computer in the mean time or it will run the video. It also forces you to download in real-time, which is the very thing you normally would want to avoid with a download.

Flash is dominant in the video space because it got there first.

Flash wasn't the first, ActiveX and Quicktime where much earlier. Flash won because it was the best and could do things that no other thing could do at the time. Even today HTML5 is still far away from being a fully working Flash replacement. Remember, Flash isn't just video, it's also a pretty damn good game development platform and animation toolkit.

I fear that the only thing that will change with Flash gone is that webpages will switch to ever more obscure Javascript hacks to protect their content from manipulation. A Flash object can easily and comfortably be blocked with Flashbock, some Javascript hackery is far harder to handle.

Maple syrup? Eww! With bacon?? *gag*
Why not just wrap it around a stick, put it in Baconnaise Lite (2:07), and call it a day? :P
Cause we can do anything!

Well, I guess this proves there's no such thing as global warming. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

Oops, forgot to log in, I posted this anonymously by accident earlier. The episode of The Daily show where this was covered is truly awesome. This news is covered and then there is an epic segment on "Science" where a Republican strategist is interviewed. Starts at about 6:00 in. It's frightening. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-26-2011-lisa-randall

The episode of The Daily show where this was covered is truly awesome. This news is covered and then there is an epic segment on "Science" where a Republican strategist is interviewed. Starts at about 6:00 in. It's frightening.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-october-26-2011-lisa-randall

Grand scales are broad and generalized - we can't accurately predict the weather because that is really complex and extremely chaotic. We predict winter and summer despite our inability to predict the weather-- how is that possible??!

Over the long term with a broader stroke you can see emerging patterns; see the forest instead of just the trees.

Individuals can't accurately predict how many marbles are in the jar. The more people you average into the prediction the more it approximates the actual number of marbles in the jar. You may have heard "wisdom of the masses" well, this actually quantified it a long time ago. (I leave it to you to wonder why I mentioned this.)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-26-2011/weathering-fights---science---what-s-it-up-to-

Is Slashdot just trying to generate ad impressions at the cost of misinforming people?

. Do you really believe executives at Columbia and 20th Century-Fox are being caught "flat-footed" by Lolcats, 40 minute reviews of Star Wars movies and time-lapse photography of flowers blooming on Vimeo?

No, they were caught "flat-footed" by a distribution medium which has obsoleted the television medium. The only thing that nowadays TV still has that the internet doesn't is the industrialized content, but with the advent of sites such as http://www.southparkstudios.com/, http://www.thedailyshow.com/ and http://www.colbertnation.com/, not to mention the unauthorized distribution of tv series, it's quite obvious that TV is destined to go the way of the dodo.

Obama HATES the Second Amendment and will commit any crime to violate your rights. Over 201 murders can be directly attributed to Obama's administration.

But you can't be bothered to list them, or provide evidence, of course. Here, watch this, it's funny.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-29-2011/wayne-s-world

All you really need to do is point people to here.

If you took every single asset (Not their yearly income, but every single thing they own.) of the bottom 50% in this country, you'd end up with 2.5% of all assets, aka, 1.4 trillion dollars.

And Jon Stewart doesn't point this out, but the US budget deficit this year? 1.4 trillion dollars.

If we took every single dime owned by the bottom 50% in this country, their house, their car, their food, everything, and sold it and put the money towards the budget, we'd balance the budget for one year.

One. Year.

After that, well, it's not like we could take all their stuff twice, so I don't know what to do. And at the end of that we've got 150 million angry rioters on the streets, so I suspect government costs would go up pretty dramatically.

Admittedly, this is a slump. That 1.4 trillion could have been spread out and balanced the budget from 2003-2007. Assuming that the poor didn't start rioting in 2003 because you stole a fourth of their stuff.

The poor do not have the money to pay for this government. Period.

How much would we have to take from the top to cover $1.4 trillion?

Well, millionaires have $45.9 trillion in wealth. If we took 3% of all assets, we'd cover it. For one year, but obviously you can repeatedly take 3% for quite some time.

Alternately, the top 1% hold about $17 trillion. If we take 8% from them each year, we'd cover it, although obviously that would run out faster.

Of course, all this is silly. We do not fund the government by seizing assets, we fund it by taxing income. But, clearly, if the poor cannot fund something with all the money they own, they certainly can't fund it with their yearly income.

If the rich wish to continue to have a government (As opposed to the poor getting so fed up that they just decide to kill them and steal all their shit.), then the rich need to fucking pay for the government.

Your right its totally unfair.

Present, but unnoticed? Oh... my... god...

Soulskill and jfruhlinger learn from the best.

Indeed. Furthermore, check out Jon Stewart's take on it. Over the top as always, but still helps put things in perspective. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

Well, how the hell else are they doing to solve the budget problem? By returning the tax levels on millionaires and billionaires to 1990s levels? Heck, no. It would be a drop in the bucket -- only $700 billion over 10 years. If anything they need to increase taxes on the poor. The argument is well laid out in this program.

The (extended) interview with the Jordanian UN Ambassador, Prince Zeid Ra'ad was also quite good (and hilarious):
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-1-2011/exclusive---zeid-ra-ad-extended-interview-pt--1

Or if you're Canadian, like me:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/exclusive-interviews/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---prince-zeid-raad-extended-interview/#clip426425

Abdullah was supposed to show up again to promote his book, but given the situation in the Middle East, he sent the Ambassador instead. Interestingly enough, he's a Pretender to the Throne of Iraq--if they ever brought back the monarchy, I think they could do quite a bit worse than him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Zeid_bin_Ra'ad

Let me preface what I'm about to say by saying that from everything I've read and seen, and with the comparative openness of Jordan and Jordanian society, I think King Abdullah (and King Hussein before him) is a good man and leader, and in no way compares to some of the people that follow. I think many foreign dignitaries come off quite well on the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (like Pakistani ex-president Pervez Musharraf, and former Egyptian first lady Suzanne Mubarak)--it's their opportunity to present themselves to a good portion of the American public (and given the international distribution, probably a not-insignificant amount of viewers throughout the western world). I have a feeling that were Asma (Emma) and/or Bashar al-Assad ever to go on, they'd probably be similarly charming and well-spoken. During World War II, Joseph Stalin cultivated the image of Uncle Joe in Allied countries.

All that said, Jordan hasn't launched invasions of its neighbours, there don't seem to be mass-graves or concentration camps in Jordan, there haven't been brutal and bloody crackdowns (as in Libya or Syria), and Jordan is open enough to the rest of the world that we'd probably be able to tell.

I'd suggest you watch this interview with King Abdullah. While it may be a monarchy, this is a Monarch I can honestly say impressed me. He's well educated, well spoken, and very aware of his own situation. I have no doubt that Jordan is likely to be one of the better middle-eastern states to live in under his leadership.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-23-2010/king-abdullah-ii-of-jordan

I'd like to see more out of Europe, but some nations are actually doing this. China's first space station was just shipped to the launch site, for example, and the Daily Show has an excellent take on India's aspirations. There's something to be said for a space presence as a status symbol (which is why Iran likes to fire off SCUDs and call them indigenous), and I think once the economic torch is passed from them their successors will go to space as well. It even makes for some strange partners, e.g. Ukraine and Brazil.

You forgot the even more obligatory Daily Show clip: Deep Space Naan. ;)

Are you referring to the Paul Revere incident? Because if you are, you are seriously delusional if you think "What have you seen today? And what are you going to take from your visit?" are trivia question or gotcha questions. That's what the reporter asked her.

She was on the daily show last week; she seemed pretty sane, even if her story doesn't... Judge for yourself.

Many authors are completely sane - including the ones who write fiction.

She was on the daily show last week; she seemed pretty sane, even if her story doesn't... Judge for yourself.

She was on the daily show last week; she seemed pretty sane, even if her story doesn't... Judge for yourself.

Of course they fit, they have legs which lets them move through the tubes very quickly.

Or the humble question mark.

Colbert - It's French, Bitch.
(Also, by video.)