> predator drones paid for by your money, assembled and directed by Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe
Don't give up because your left arm can't wrestle down your right arm; rather try to stop hitting yourself with your right arm and the issue becomes moot.
Yeah yeah, fantasizing about the motivations of the precious few who do give a fuck because you're too weak to; that's such a new concept, and not unintentionally ironic at all.
Don't mention it:) I'm happy when I can stick them somewhere and they get read. You can find more here, but I got a bit lazy with tagging them, so it's currently a bit of a mess.
Well, fuck that guy, and all the other hypocrites parroting similar views. Either mankind is doomed, or those bootlickers will be identified and despised as such - funny how they never get over that, huh? As in, fuck you, you chose your bed, now sleep in it. Forever.
Somebody is saying this is inevitable - and whenever you hear somebody saying that, it's very likely to be a set of businesses campaigning to make it true.
--Richard Stallman
I've heard quite a lot of people that talk about post-privacy, and they talk about it in terms of feeling like, you know, it's too late, we're done for, there's just no possibility for privacy left anymore and we just have to get used to it. And this is a pretty fascinating thing, because it seems to me that you never hear a feminist say that we're post-consent because there is rape. And why is that? The reason is that it's bullshit.
We can't have a post-privacy world until we're post-privilege. So when we cave in our autonomy, then we can sort of say, "well, okay, we don't need privacy anymore, in fact we don't have privacy anymore, and I'm okay with that." Realistically though people are not comfortable with that. Because, if you only look at it from a position of privilege, like, say, white man on a stage, then yeah, maybe post-privacy works out okay for those people. But if you have ever not been, or if you are currently not, a white man with a passport from one of the five good nations in the world, it might not really work out well for you, and in fact it might be designed specifically such that it will continue to not work out well for you, because the structures themselves produce these inequalities.
So when you hear someone talk about post-privacy, I think it's really important to engage them about their own privilege in the system and what it is they are actually arguing for.
There is no reason to accept the doctrines crafted to sustain power and privilege, or to believe that we are constrained by mysterious and unknown social laws. These are simply decisions made within institutions that are subject to human will and that must face the test of legitimacy. And if they do not meet the test, they can be replaced by other institutions that are more free and more just, as has happened often in the past.
It's not our fault that just about anything coming from that general direction makes everybody else seem like a super intelligent saint. Your jealousy is duly noted.
Would you call that deep experience in securing systems, or rather deep experience in not securing them, even actively making them weaker, and not talking about that fact? It's like saying a butcher has deep experience about what animals need to be alive; technically true, but that doesn't make a butcher a great veterinarian.
We have deep experience in protecting our national infrastructure
I beg your pardon? This coming from the fuckwits who insist on just about everything having unfixed holes and/or backdoors? Unless by "deep experience" they are referring to having their heads up their asses, I call BS.
What do you think would increase security more, in the long run - firewalls by the NSA, or firing squads for the NSA? Sad thing is, what starts out as a polemic rhetorical question is actually not that easy to answer, now is it.
There is no left and right in this - there are just two large groups of people misled by sometimes opposing "values". In all aspects that matter, they are exactly the same.
Why is this at +5, and the post you replied to at 0? It should be the reverse. There is the difference between "killing some" and "killing all", which in this case is the difference between a good point and a strawman.
I doubt what happened at Kent State even put a dent in the protests, maybe even the opposite.
If everybody protests, who is going to do the killing? You're aware the leaders of the world are depending on a lot of misled people working for them, right? Chauffeurs, pilots, cops, soldiers, doctors, nurses... the list is very long, and the so called elite are basically sitting ducks once the lies wear off.
It's also a huge red flag considering you're only supposed to store hashes of some variety, never the password itself. If how long the password is doesn't affect the length of what you store in the database at all, what is the point of limiting it, right?
"Meanwhile, in the course of this "Terrorist Generation" campaign, for Obama to claim, "you know, I'm really worried about terrorists, so I have to to read -- well, they claim they don't read it -- I have to get information about your email, where you are, who you're talking to, what you have on Facebook; I've gotta put that on my big database"... actually, we're moving into a world which was described, pretty accurately I think, by one of the founders of Google... I don't know if you followed the stories about Google Glass? Well, Google has some new, ridiculous thing, they're marketing glasses which have a small computer on them. So you can be on the internet 24 hours a day, just what you want. It's a way of destroying people, but quite apart from that, this little device has a camera, and presumably, if it doesn't already it will soon have a recorder, which means that everything that's going on around you, goes up on the internet. Some reporter asked Erich Schmidt, didn't he think this was an invasion of privacy, and his answer was exactly right, comes right out of the Obama administration, he said: "If you're doing anything that you don't want to be on the internet, you shouldn't be doing it." This is a dream that Orwell couldn't have concocted. We're moving into it, and it's not the only case. if you read the technical journals, there's more stuff coming along. So, for example, right now there are corporations that are concerned about using computers with components made in China, because it's technically possible to build into the hardware devices which will record what the computer is doing and send it to those bad guys. well, the articles don't point out that if the Chinese can do it, we can do it better, and probably are, so it may end up in Obama's database the next time you hit the computer."
... and they're running away from that. They're really not afraid of X or Y, but rather of having to look at themselves, and prefer their little pretend fears to that. The more power you have, the more this applies to you. People in power simply passing on some of the fear that rules their lives.
What do you think makes people lust for power in the first place? Impotence, fear, inability to love -- from a distance those are one and the same thing, so calling it fear is "not wrong".
While speaking of hipocrisy, why do you hold different outrage for the abuse of non-US citizens versus US citizens?:P
Also, this stuff goes way beyond partisan politics, and has been going on for longer than even Bush. Don't waste time with petty finger-pointing. Yes, boo for falling for Obama. But also no points for being against Obama by default, just because you "are Republican" (this is all bullshit, you are the person your mother gave birth to, the rest are labels made by assholes to catch fools with, and don't you ever forget that).
.. that can only be solved politically. If you want peace of mind, prepare for decades of serious struggle, and learn to be okay with that.
If your ISP and the websites you use hand over everything, if things gets collected at packet level wholesale; what does it even matter what browser you use? It doesn't, not one bit.
Slashdot Mirror
Eich may or may not be a bigot, but you surely are one..
No matter how excited or stupid you may be, you're still just one person, so no.
Let me fix that real quick:
> predator drones paid for by your money, assembled and directed by Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe
Don't give up because your left arm can't wrestle down your right arm; rather try to stop hitting yourself with your right arm and the issue becomes moot.
Yeah yeah, fantasizing about the motivations of the precious few who do give a fuck because you're too weak to; that's such a new concept, and not unintentionally ironic at all.
Also:
http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/
Don't mention it :) I'm happy when I can stick them somewhere and they get read. You can find more here, but I got a bit lazy with tagging them, so it's currently a bit of a mess.
Privacy in itself is a right, so how does that work?
Well, fuck that guy, and all the other hypocrites parroting similar views. Either mankind is doomed, or those bootlickers will be identified and despised as such - funny how they never get over that, huh? As in, fuck you, you chose your bed, now sleep in it. Forever.
--Richard Stallman
-- Jacob Appelbaum ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3h46EbqhPo&t=7m46s )
-- Noam Chomsky
The author states "I have a full time job so you might want to know that twister is a hobby."
So WTF are you even on about.
It's not our fault that just about anything coming from that general direction makes everybody else seem like a super intelligent saint. Your jealousy is duly noted.
Would you call that deep experience in securing systems, or rather deep experience in not securing them, even actively making them weaker, and not talking about that fact? It's like saying a butcher has deep experience about what animals need to be alive; technically true, but that doesn't make a butcher a great veterinarian.
I beg your pardon? This coming from the fuckwits who insist on just about everything having unfixed holes and/or backdoors? Unless by "deep experience" they are referring to having their heads up their asses, I call BS.
What do you think would increase security more, in the long run - firewalls by the NSA, or firing squads for the NSA? Sad thing is, what starts out as a polemic rhetorical question is actually not that easy to answer, now is it.
There is no left and right in this - there are just two large groups of people misled by sometimes opposing "values". In all aspects that matter, they are exactly the same.
Put a pitchfork in them, they're clones :P
Now all we need is AI to play shovelware games for us.
It's right here. More energy in the system, more chaotic weather. It doesn't just mean it gets "warmer everywhere all the time".
Why is this at +5, and the post you replied to at 0? It should be the reverse. There is the difference between "killing some" and "killing all", which in this case is the difference between a good point and a strawman.
I find it shameful to use this incident to argue for defeatism and rolling over in advance, when the very people who faced it back then did NOT: http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/collections/exhibits/arch/1970/70Images/Kent2.gif
I doubt what happened at Kent State even put a dent in the protests, maybe even the opposite.
If everybody protests, who is going to do the killing? You're aware the leaders of the world are depending on a lot of misled people working for them, right? Chauffeurs, pilots, cops, soldiers, doctors, nurses... the list is very long, and the so called elite are basically sitting ducks once the lies wear off.
It's also a huge red flag considering you're only supposed to store hashes of some variety, never the password itself. If how long the password is doesn't affect the length of what you store in the database at all, what is the point of limiting it, right?
Idiosingularicracy will not take 500 years to arrive, that's for sure.
Maybe read on.
emphasis mine:
-- Noam Chomsky, source: http://grittv.org/?video=noam-chomsky-on-secret-trade-deals-killing-polio-workers-fighting-for-the-commons-in-turkey-the-heroism-of-bradley-manning
... and they're running away from that. They're really not afraid of X or Y, but rather of having to look at themselves, and prefer their little pretend fears to that. The more power you have, the more this applies to you. People in power simply passing on some of the fear that rules their lives.
What do you think makes people lust for power in the first place? Impotence, fear, inability to love -- from a distance those are one and the same thing, so calling it fear is "not wrong".
Ummm, yes. Removing a small amount is still removing.
While speaking of hipocrisy, why do you hold different outrage for the abuse of non-US citizens versus US citizens? :P
Also, this stuff goes way beyond partisan politics, and has been going on for longer than even Bush. Don't waste time with petty finger-pointing. Yes, boo for falling for Obama. But also no points for being against Obama by default, just because you "are Republican" (this is all bullshit, you are the person your mother gave birth to, the rest are labels made by assholes to catch fools with, and don't you ever forget that).
That said, while it's slightly off-topic, maybe this can be useful to some:
http://prism-break.org/
.. that can only be solved politically. If you want peace of mind, prepare for decades of serious struggle, and learn to be okay with that.
If your ISP and the websites you use hand over everything, if things gets collected at packet level wholesale; what does it even matter what browser you use? It doesn't, not one bit.