You're looking at this in terms of a narrow range of limited issues, namely sex in the bedroom, credit reporting and identity theft. There's more to it than that.
For instance, if you can't see why privacy applies to you then you can't be among those who have complex political viewpoints, engage in "alternative" political activities, or simply have beliefs or opinions which others might deem questionable and which could be used against you later, or even cause you harm.
Many people from a wide range of groups are used to being cautious and have some expectation of privacy when they meet, engage in certain activities, or simply discuss these things.
There cannot be true democracy without this expectation of privacy, since it leads to people not being able to have or hold beliefs or opinions contrary to the endorsed viewpoints of those in power. Liberty and privacy go hand in hand. If the market or government starts encroaching on it then privacy isn't dead, democracy and freedom is, and privacy is simply suppressed.
And by the way, if you close the curtains to prevent others from peeping, you do have some use for privacy after all.
Second I think I'm in the majority here, but who the fuck wants newsletters? I consider them to be spam just like the crap I'm not interested in.
First of all, the stakeholders in any organization WANT newsletters. If you had a financial or otherwise stake in some organization you'd want to see what they're up to. You wouldn't want to have to dig for the info either - newsletters deliver the information you want, optimized just for you, on a silver platter.
Secondly, most newsletters are opt-in or double opt-in only. That means people ask for them and go to the trouble of double opting for them. If there is a great abundance of newletters out there then by simple deduction it follows that a great number of people want newsletters.
Isn't it propaganda to frame Michael Moore's documentaries as mere propaganda, and isn't doing so also an attempt to dismiss the films as irrelevant? Especially in the absence of any counter-arguments or proper criticisms of the films? Ok, Moore is propaganda, yup, I believe you, well just because you said so... Way to counter propaganda with ideology.
A truly honest person would have to admit his films are not completely devoid of facts or statistics. And that sometimes the facts *are* one-sided, there isn't always balance in the world. And by the way, America isn't the perfect Disneyesque world, all rosy and wunnerful and perfect.
As for Lauren Turner, she's doing what sales and marketing types do, targeting her message by identifying with the fears and needs of her specific audience. She's trying to sell ads. Ads are only a small part of a proper PR campaign and I doubt Google is getting into the PR business.
The current Canadian government (Conservative) is well known for emulating the Bush administration in style and method and also wanting to pander to American interests merely because they are American interests, regardless of the merit or demerit of anything. The usual argument is that "the Americans are our largest trading partner, we must not anger them". I remember when this was cited, by conservative MP's during parliament, as the whole fucking reason Canadians should support the US invasion of Iraq, no more no less. This shows you just how moronic these people are, that they would follow Americans into hell just because of some perceived friendly alliance or loyalty that is not reciprocal.
I'm sure the same thing is going on here. Canuckistan became more like Bush Amerika the day the Conservatives won the election.
I would have thought that ALL network traffic in and out of the White House would be recorded, not just logged but every packet kept. At the very least they need to do this for security or forensic purposes, they need to find moles, snitches, spies, hackers, whatever, and they can't do this without monitoring and recording everything.
Don't tell me this bunch of morons has managed to subvert these measures by simply using external email.
And don't tell me whoever is responsible for security didn't know this was going on. If they didn't then the US has got some serious problems.
It *is* interesting to note, however, this FLAW in White House security. Who'd have thought they could just use outside email. Way to broadcast a nice attack vector.
As if it isn't bad enough that a certain country's soldiers are now known for cowardice, stupidity, indiscriminate killing, massive collateral damage, friendly fire against coalition partners, poor planning, retarded intelligence, fighting the wrong guy, fighting wars that cannot be won, alienating the very people it is trying to "save", etc., now they soon they won't go anywhere without their teddy bears?
Also, does this thing will know when to take cover? If not then it might actually increase casualty rates.
I don't get it. This should be simple logic. Any country which can retool it's economy to be more environmentally friendly also necessarily retools its economy to be more efficient and less wasteful of resources.
Given that the US cannot stop the movement towards efficient resource utilization (environmentalism), why would the government willingly place itself in a position where in a few years other countries will have succeeded in retooling their economies to the point where it costs them less (overall) to produce something than it would in the US?
Look at it this way: You have two factories, one in Arkansas and one in Sweden, both creating the same product. To make one unit of that product the Arkansas factory uses 10 barrels of oil to the Swedish 5, 5 MW of power to the Swedish 2, etc. Granted, to achieve this efficiency the Swedish plant will have the extra cost of retooling, but so what - everyone should have nice shiny new equipment whenever possible, it's the cost of staying in business.
Hell, US companies would move their entire production facilities to places like Sweden. And no, we're not talking about Swedish meatballs.
I guess if they did it would more or less solve the greenhouse gas problem...
Oh how I wish I had this technology when I was a kid!
I've had a teacher who kicked me across a room in grade 5 and still teaches to this day, I've had several very cruel teachers who liked to target and mock individual students who didn't deserve it, I've one who threw things at us, or threw chairs and briefcases across the room in angry screaming fits, another who threw my personal property in the garbage just because it wasn't a book and pencil, I've had teachers who were just miserable assholes in general and you had to wonder why the hell they were teaching.
In general they got away with it because their classroom is their private fiefdom and administrators turned a blind eye to their behaviour. Every one of these f*ckers deserved exposure, teachers have been getting away with this for too long so I totally applaud this behaviour - the kids should have been rewarded.
Rather, the issue here is that too many teachers and principals are little tinpot dictators who view their schools as their fiefdom and students as little serfs answerable to them. It's part of why they become teachers and principals in the first place, a great chunk of them HATE kids but see it as a way to get a piece of their own little world, isolated from the adult world and with a more vulnerable, ignorant populace more fearsome of authority and thus more easily controlled. Oh, plus the summer off.
If there wasn't a way to force respect based on authoritarianism they wouldn't be interested, they're sado-masochists in disguise, mix them in with children and that makes them predators
Year after year there's always something or other frivolous thing they're trying to control. This year, in my neighbourhood, it was them trying to ban Axe body deodorant. I remember when I was a kid they tried to ban Doc Martens. Somewhere in between it was friggin' multi-colored shoe laces. Now it's MySpace. It never ends.
And to that I'll add this example to my growing list...
I don't believe this is true of Canada, that taking photos of ANY place and trafficking them, to whoever, could amount to treason. I've never heard or read of such a thing.
It's Canada, for crying out loud, it's not like we're developing 5241324 different secret ways to kill, spy on, dissapear and torture people. We don't have a Los Alamos , Area 51, Gauntanamo or Cheyenne Mountain. The nearest thing I can think of is the various NORAD radar installations and there are plenty of photos of those floating around. Hint: They're really cute.
Come to think of it, I rather like that we don't have a lot of dirty secrets.
Can you imagine the precedent this would set if some judge finds him guilty? I think the discussion here should be focused on whether or not these charges have a chance of sticking. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone presenting the legal possibilities.
Disturbing the peace?! WTF.
There should be some law against retarded police officers throwing trumped up bullshit charges at innocent people.
The issue isn't that students in general need to learn respect, or libel, or slander, or even free speech.
Rather, the issue here is that too many teachers and principals are little tinpot dictators who view their schools as their fiefdom and students as little serfs answerable to them. It's part of why they become teachers and principals in the first place, a great chunk of them HATE kids but see it as a way to get a piece of their own little world, isolated from the adult world and with a more vulnerable, ignorant populace more fearsome of authority and thus more easily controlled. Oh, plus the summer off.
If there wasn't a way to force respect based on authoritarianism they wouldn't be interested, they're sado-masochists in disguise, mix them in with children and that makes them predators
Year after year there's always something or other frivolous thing they're trying to control. This year, in my neighbourhood, it was them trying to ban Axe body deodorant. I remember when I was a kid they tried to ban Doc Martens. Somewhere in between it was friggin' multi-colored shoe laces. Now it's MySpace. It never ends.
There's always that one teacher or principal who has petty tantrums and throws things around, forcing everyone else to either follow suit or take a stand on an issue when they would rather not. These become role models for the kids and we wind up with assholes like Bush growing up and doing the same thing to whole countries.
What the threat is with information chips implanted in the brain? What does this have to do with flashmobs? Right now flashmobs are possible with cell phones, pagers, etc.
If information chips are a threat because they permit people to organize quickly, presumably using communication, and cell phones and pagers make this possible too, also through communication, then any means of communication would be seen as a threat to security?
What's so special about information chips in the brain?
It's like something is missing here...the author might have skipped something.
They didn't just attend open meetings. They took down information, names, places, times, what was said, political viewpoints, etc. They then entered this information in a database somewhere, which they shared with other law enforcement agencies. That information in turn gets percolated to other government agencies like the FBI, CIA, DIA, etc.
So, for participating in a lawful activity your name is now in reports you'll never see, in a file with your name on it, nor will you know how they've categorized or portrayed you, nor is there any way to challenge the information or its correctness, or have the records removed. And this information will be used against you when it is advantageous to do so.
Plus, the whole law enforcement system is set up to track information about *criminal* activities. If information is now being collected about non-criminal activities, where does it go? Into the same databases? Where does it appear? Who sees it? Who has access to it? Who has worked out the protocols and what guidelines are they using for sharing the information? Isn't there a legal requirement to inform the subjects?
Your reports may not provide enough data for your managers to cross-reference and verify. Or they do and the data isn't consistent.
If the former then the solution to this problem of annoying doublechecks is right before your very eyes. You either need more reports or you've got a bug to solve.
Don't like it? You can stick to the current version, or freely download other versions, or pay those who make the software for support contracts that make those guarantees, or pay a third party to make those guarantees, or hire people in-house to modify the code to suit your needs, or contract a third party to make those code changes, or port your data to a different software product.
Or simply post a bug report, or correspond with the programmers to resolve the problem. This is definitely not something you can do with Microsoft.
With OSS you at least know who helped build the product. You have names, contact info, ways to communicate with the movers and shakers. With closed source you usually never get anywhere near a programmer.
I must be missing something, but where is the advertising that YouTube supposedly displays alongside copyrighted content? I was just looking at YouTube, I didn't see any ads anywhere.
Can someone point out a YouTube clip that is both copyrighted and has advertising?
Otherwise, if not, and if Viacom is saying that YouTube has profited from the display of advertisements next to copyrighted content, then they're going to have a hard time making that case in court.
Also, it seems to me YouTube only provides a means to display movies, and ordinary users provide the movies. To my mind the closest analogy (here we go) would be my sticking a DVD in my DVD player and inviting all my friends to watch the movie. The maker of the DVD player can hardly be said to be responsible for my using it illegally.
This reminds me of the time some asshole op banned me and my bot on efnet because I let friends and acquantances use it to speak to our channel anonymously.
First of all, the op in question was paranoid that one particular banned person might be doing the speaking, when in fact said person was not. Secondly, what prompted the ban was someone making a snide criticism of the op.
Then an argument erupted over whether speaking anonymously through bots was a "subversion" of the IRC protocol. And there was a great confusion because, well, the "founders" hadn't really coded "anonymous speaking behind bots" into ircd, and you had the camp which believed this meant anonymous speaking was "wrong" and the camp which disagreed.
Extending this to real life, the St. Augustine Record is like an asshole op, paranoid and intolerant of criticism, who believes anonymity is subversion of...something.
Or, given how many Chinese there are in the world right now, everywhere, they could just as easily launch said attacks while physically sitting somewhere within the USA.
Slashdot Mirror
You're looking at this in terms of a narrow range of limited issues, namely sex in the bedroom, credit reporting and identity theft. There's more to it than that.
For instance, if you can't see why privacy applies to you then you can't be among those who have complex political viewpoints, engage in "alternative" political activities, or simply have beliefs or opinions which others might deem questionable and which could be used against you later, or even cause you harm.
Many people from a wide range of groups are used to being cautious and have some expectation of privacy when they meet, engage in certain activities, or simply discuss these things.
There cannot be true democracy without this expectation of privacy, since it leads to people not being able to have or hold beliefs or opinions contrary to the endorsed viewpoints of those in power. Liberty and privacy go hand in hand. If the market or government starts encroaching on it then privacy isn't dead, democracy and freedom is, and privacy is simply suppressed.
And by the way, if you close the curtains to prevent others from peeping, you do have some use for privacy after all.
Hey dumbass, by saying the hardest part was installing Windows he's saying it wasn't hard at all.
First of all, the stakeholders in any organization WANT newsletters. If you had a financial or otherwise stake in some organization you'd want to see what they're up to. You wouldn't want to have to dig for the info either - newsletters deliver the information you want, optimized just for you, on a silver platter.
Secondly, most newsletters are opt-in or double opt-in only. That means people ask for them and go to the trouble of double opting for them. If there is a great abundance of newletters out there then by simple deduction it follows that a great number of people want newsletters.
Isn't it propaganda to frame Michael Moore's documentaries as mere propaganda, and isn't doing so also an attempt to dismiss the films as irrelevant? Especially in the absence of any counter-arguments or proper criticisms of the films? Ok, Moore is propaganda, yup, I believe you, well just because you said so... Way to counter propaganda with ideology.
A truly honest person would have to admit his films are not completely devoid of facts or statistics. And that sometimes the facts *are* one-sided, there isn't always balance in the world. And by the way, America isn't the perfect Disneyesque world, all rosy and wunnerful and perfect.
As for Lauren Turner, she's doing what sales and marketing types do, targeting her message by identifying with the fears and needs of her specific audience. She's trying to sell ads. Ads are only a small part of a proper PR campaign and I doubt Google is getting into the PR business.
The current Canadian government (Conservative) is well known for emulating the Bush administration in style and method and also wanting to pander to American interests merely because they are American interests, regardless of the merit or demerit of anything. The usual argument is that "the Americans are our largest trading partner, we must not anger them". I remember when this was cited, by conservative MP's during parliament, as the whole fucking reason Canadians should support the US invasion of Iraq, no more no less. This shows you just how moronic these people are, that they would follow Americans into hell just because of some perceived friendly alliance or loyalty that is not reciprocal.
I'm sure the same thing is going on here. Canuckistan became more like Bush Amerika the day the Conservatives won the election.
I would have thought that ALL network traffic in and out of the White House would be recorded, not just logged but every packet kept. At the very least they need to do this for security or forensic purposes, they need to find moles, snitches, spies, hackers, whatever, and they can't do this without monitoring and recording everything.
Don't tell me this bunch of morons has managed to subvert these measures by simply using external email.
And don't tell me whoever is responsible for security didn't know this was going on. If they didn't then the US has got some serious problems.
It *is* interesting to note, however, this FLAW in White House security. Who'd have thought they could just use outside email. Way to broadcast a nice attack vector.
Do yaris or scions have the same protective cage?
As if it isn't bad enough that a certain country's soldiers are now known for cowardice, stupidity, indiscriminate killing, massive collateral damage, friendly fire against coalition partners, poor planning, retarded intelligence, fighting the wrong guy, fighting wars that cannot be won, alienating the very people it is trying to "save", etc., now they soon they won't go anywhere without their teddy bears?
Also, does this thing will know when to take cover? If not then it might actually increase casualty rates.
I don't get it. This should be simple logic. Any country which can retool it's economy to be more environmentally friendly also necessarily retools its economy to be more efficient and less wasteful of resources.
Given that the US cannot stop the movement towards efficient resource utilization (environmentalism), why would the government willingly place itself in a position where in a few years other countries will have succeeded in retooling their economies to the point where it costs them less (overall) to produce something than it would in the US?
Look at it this way: You have two factories, one in Arkansas and one in Sweden, both creating the same product. To make one unit of that product the Arkansas factory uses 10 barrels of oil to the Swedish 5, 5 MW of power to the Swedish 2, etc. Granted, to achieve this efficiency the Swedish plant will have the extra cost of retooling, but so what - everyone should have nice shiny new equipment whenever possible, it's the cost of staying in business.
Hell, US companies would move their entire production facilities to places like Sweden. And no, we're not talking about Swedish meatballs.
I guess if they did it would more or less solve the greenhouse gas problem...
Oh how I wish I had this technology when I was a kid!
I've had a teacher who kicked me across a room in grade 5 and still teaches to this day, I've had several very cruel teachers who liked to target and mock individual students who didn't deserve it, I've one who threw things at us, or threw chairs and briefcases across the room in angry screaming fits, another who threw my personal property in the garbage just because it wasn't a book and pencil, I've had teachers who were just miserable assholes in general and you had to wonder why the hell they were teaching.
In general they got away with it because their classroom is their private fiefdom and administrators turned a blind eye to their behaviour. Every one of these f*ckers deserved exposure, teachers have been getting away with this for too long so I totally applaud this behaviour - the kids should have been rewarded.
I'm going to quote myself from another article...
And to that I'll add this example to my growing list...
I don't believe this is true of Canada, that taking photos of ANY place and trafficking them, to whoever, could amount to treason. I've never heard or read of such a thing.
It's Canada, for crying out loud, it's not like we're developing 5241324 different secret ways to kill, spy on, dissapear and torture people. We don't have a Los Alamos , Area 51, Gauntanamo or Cheyenne Mountain. The nearest thing I can think of is the various NORAD radar installations and there are plenty of photos of those floating around. Hint: They're really cute.
Come to think of it, I rather like that we don't have a lot of dirty secrets.
Can you imagine the precedent this would set if some judge finds him guilty? I think the discussion here should be focused on whether or not these charges have a chance of sticking. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen anyone presenting the legal possibilities.
Disturbing the peace?! WTF.
There should be some law against retarded police officers throwing trumped up bullshit charges at innocent people.
When the terrorists said "Death to America!"
The issue isn't that students in general need to learn respect, or libel, or slander, or even free speech.
Rather, the issue here is that too many teachers and principals are little tinpot dictators who view their schools as their fiefdom and students as little serfs answerable to them. It's part of why they become teachers and principals in the first place, a great chunk of them HATE kids but see it as a way to get a piece of their own little world, isolated from the adult world and with a more vulnerable, ignorant populace more fearsome of authority and thus more easily controlled. Oh, plus the summer off.
If there wasn't a way to force respect based on authoritarianism they wouldn't be interested, they're sado-masochists in disguise, mix them in with children and that makes them predators
Year after year there's always something or other frivolous thing they're trying to control. This year, in my neighbourhood, it was them trying to ban Axe body deodorant. I remember when I was a kid they tried to ban Doc Martens. Somewhere in between it was friggin' multi-colored shoe laces. Now it's MySpace. It never ends.
There's always that one teacher or principal who has petty tantrums and throws things around, forcing everyone else to either follow suit or take a stand on an issue when they would rather not. These become role models for the kids and we wind up with assholes like Bush growing up and doing the same thing to whole countries.
What the threat is with information chips implanted in the brain? What does this have to do with flashmobs? Right now flashmobs are possible with cell phones, pagers, etc.
If information chips are a threat because they permit people to organize quickly, presumably using communication, and cell phones and pagers make this possible too, also through communication, then any means of communication would be seen as a threat to security?
What's so special about information chips in the brain?
It's like something is missing here...the author might have skipped something.
They didn't just attend open meetings. They took down information, names, places, times, what was said, political viewpoints, etc. They then entered this information in a database somewhere, which they shared with other law enforcement agencies. That information in turn gets percolated to other government agencies like the FBI, CIA, DIA, etc.
So, for participating in a lawful activity your name is now in reports you'll never see, in a file with your name on it, nor will you know how they've categorized or portrayed you, nor is there any way to challenge the information or its correctness, or have the records removed. And this information will be used against you when it is advantageous to do so.
Plus, the whole law enforcement system is set up to track information about *criminal* activities. If information is now being collected about non-criminal activities, where does it go? Into the same databases? Where does it appear? Who sees it? Who has access to it? Who has worked out the protocols and what guidelines are they using for sharing the information? Isn't there a legal requirement to inform the subjects?
Your reports may not provide enough data for your managers to cross-reference and verify. Or they do and the data isn't consistent.
If the former then the solution to this problem of annoying doublechecks is right before your very eyes. You either need more reports or you've got a bug to solve.
Or simply post a bug report, or correspond with the programmers to resolve the problem. This is definitely not something you can do with Microsoft.
With OSS you at least know who helped build the product. You have names, contact info, ways to communicate with the movers and shakers. With closed source you usually never get anywhere near a programmer.
I must be missing something, but where is the advertising that YouTube supposedly displays alongside copyrighted content? I was just looking at YouTube, I didn't see any ads anywhere.
Can someone point out a YouTube clip that is both copyrighted and has advertising?
Otherwise, if not, and if Viacom is saying that YouTube has profited from the display of advertisements next to copyrighted content, then they're going to have a hard time making that case in court.
Also, it seems to me YouTube only provides a means to display movies, and ordinary users provide the movies. To my mind the closest analogy (here we go) would be my sticking a DVD in my DVD player and inviting all my friends to watch the movie. The maker of the DVD player can hardly be said to be responsible for my using it illegally.
This reminds me of the time some asshole op banned me and my bot on efnet because I let friends and acquantances use it to speak to our channel anonymously.
First of all, the op in question was paranoid that one particular banned person might be doing the speaking, when in fact said person was not. Secondly, what prompted the ban was someone making a snide criticism of the op.
Then an argument erupted over whether speaking anonymously through bots was a "subversion" of the IRC protocol. And there was a great confusion because, well, the "founders" hadn't really coded "anonymous speaking behind bots" into ircd, and you had the camp which believed this meant anonymous speaking was "wrong" and the camp which disagreed.
Extending this to real life, the St. Augustine Record is like an asshole op, paranoid and intolerant of criticism, who believes anonymity is subversion of...something.
OMG, someone please use this on automobiles. One of my pet peeves is the glare from all the shiny cars, glass and metal everywhere.
By the same token, who gives a shit what YOU think, and why are you whining and wasting my bandwidth?
I happen to like and admire Cerf and enjoyed the minor update. I appreciate the poster having posted it and think it qualifies as "geek" news.
Make that kakistocracy.
Or, given how many Chinese there are in the world right now, everywhere, they could just as easily launch said attacks while physically sitting somewhere within the USA.