I would. I would not ride in a car that would run over passengers in order to save me a concussion or something.
I'm not sure if I would rather be dead than a murderer, but people in cars are better protected.
Is there any evidence of twitter deleting accounts where a person politely argued for a well-researched reasonable point-of-view without inciting hatred, using swear words, or using facts that aren't based on anything?
If not, I would think that right-winged persons would be happy to have the nut jobs filtered out from their point of view. Sure the others might dominate in numbers, but it would also show that right wing are, on average, more reasonable than their unfiltered counterparts.
I'm seriously interested. Can someone point at examples?
To my knowledge the US is still a democracy at heart. If you don't like you leaders, select a different one. If you don't find qualified candidates, make yourself electable.
If you don't get elected or don't get a good leader, blame the people who elect.
You can talk about misleading information, propaganda or marketing strategies, but in the end it is the American people who chose. Don't blame your government, blame the people who choose it.
I though about this, and I feel this sets a bad precedent.
What is the difference between an upgrade from 7 to 10 and an upgrade from OSX10.10 to 10.11, or an upgrade from ubuntu. In all cases, it is supposedly better to do it in order to increase security, being supported etc.
If you take this one step further, Am I allowed to launch a action suit against ubuntu if one the security-updates in one of their linux-libraries cause my computer to crash? The move from windows 7 to windows 10 might contain more changes, but it is essentially the same.
You might say that windows 10 is a shitty upgrade or a shitty OS, but that's a reason to switch to another OS. Not to sue.
Usually that job is to _advise_, but not to _undermine_ his bosses. Advising is something you do internally, not publicly.
Look, I get he cares about this. But if his bosses tell him to make sure application or OS get installed, it's his job to make it so - and not to bitch about it in public. If he doesn't like his job, I'm sure there are plenty of other people who will do it without complaints.
His bosses are the tax-paying citizens of Munich. If he has the idea that the process by which the os was chosen is wrong, he almost has an obligation to express his opinion.
There are reasons why certain decision-making is private, but especially in a public organisation, there shouldn't be too many. I don't see why a decision on windows vs linux shouldn't be transparent for everyone.
Did you read all considerations on why they made this decision? Do you have an extended rebuttal on why this won't work?
Do you have the data on why they think diesel is worse for the environment than gasoline? Do you know why this is false? Do you know how they think they can do the transition from the current diesel trucks? Do you have reasons why you think this won't work?
Just saying that they're idiots only prove your unwillingness to investigate their proposal.
What's wrong about the fact:
If you have a gun and a toddler in your house, you are more likely to be shot by your toddler than to fire the gun in self defense.
Go on, prove it wrong. Tell me how it's not true. Yes, I know the non-fact based argument that most "self defense" uses are brandishing, not firing. But I've not found anyone that can find (objective, factual) fault in the fact presented.
What's wrong with this fact is that it implicitly assumes that you throw a dice to see whether you need to use the gun in self-defence and another dice to see whether you'll be shot by your toddler
This is untrue. The chance of using it or the chance of being shot by your toddler are dependent on the area you live in, the attractiveness of your house to burglars, the discipline you use in storing your weapons, the care you take in overseeing your daughter, etc. These are individual factors and while an average statistic is interesting, it won't say much about your personal situation. It might be that in your particular case, you're better of with a gun. Even only if it makes you sleep better.
BTW: I live in the Netherlands and hate guns, but I also don't think that flawed arguments against it will work.
Suppose you buy large amounts of bitcoins below market value from people who are anonymous. Suppose, you don't provide any service to those people except anonymity. At the same time you take a margin which is a lot higher than a regular bitcoin trader. You can then reasonably suspect that the bitcoins you received came from criminal activity. If you cannot provide a reasonable alternative explanation and the bitcoins can be proven to be from criminals, then an accusation of money laundering would be justified.
There are a lot of 'ifs' and extra assumptions in my previous paragraph and I don't know anything about the case or the Egyptian justice system. The dentist might still be complete innocent and victim of some grand conspiracy.
However, I agree with the parent that if you cannot suspect from the facts in the article why this man was arrested, you're either a liar or not qualified to write this kind of articles.
You cannot cut off Russia, China, Indonesia etc, because everyone would have to agree on that. It won't make sense if the USA does it while Germany doesn't. Criminals will just hire servers in Germany and continue.
Also, as others have pointed out. Russia, China Indonesia are large economic powers on their own. Cutting them off will hurt millions of people.
Thirdly, it will only stop a part of the attacks. Friendly countries, including USA, also have criminals.
What you might probably want is some more restrictions on the anonymity off those who can connect to the internet. One serious issue is that an anonymous person can hire a server and claim to be, for instance, faceb00k.com. Both server and domain registration cannot be traced back to that person (if done well).
However, attacking this problem means putting restrictions on anonymous internet, which is a thing not well liked by some communities.
Do we have a clear example of someone who posted an perfect legal opinion and got into trouble with the government because of that. Snowden doesn't count. The issue with him is not his opinion but the leakage of confidential documents (whether you approve of his actions or not).
We don't have enough gainful employment for everyone.
Last time I checked there are serious problems in the care of the elder. We need to make a transition from fossile-fuel based economy to more sustainable forms of energy. There is a climate problem. There are all kind of problems with immigrants and crime, There is an ISIS threatening the western world. More environmental problems. Then, I'm not talking about humanity needing to get off earth and find our way in to space. Science is also a thing that needs more work.
What do you mean: 'We don't have enough employment for everyone?'
What might be missing is the discussion of warrantless surveillance. Surveillance on communication is probably needed to prove a crime or prevent an terrorist attack. Some very wise people saw the dangers of it as well and invited the idea that you need a warrant, an independent check by an independent authority, to prevent unnecessary intrusions on privacy or abuse of these privileges.
I see the need for surveillance, but not the need for 'warrantless'. In defense of the people who filled in the polls, what the questions were asked and did they make this distinction clear?
Internet freedom is indeed dissolving. If you use the internet, you're at an increasing risk to catch malware. If your computer is infected you don't have any freedom at all. You are at risk of losing your money on the bank. You're at risk of losing your valuable personal data or your identity being abused. In all cases you are bombarded with ant-virus advertisements which may of may not be fake. Your computer might also be used in all kinds of illegal activities designed to hurt others. Also, if you buy from legit-looking webshops, it turns out that your cash disappears and your goods are never delivered, even though you might intuitively think that it can be traced, because everything is 'digital'.
Unless you're a slashdot nerd, you don't have the knowledge to effectively defend against it.
I think the average person has much more to lose from these than from the NSA looking at his data-streams (not that I don't have problems with uncontrolled monitoring). If you feel concerned about eroding freedom on internet, you should at least address this issue as well. It also has as extra advantage that you take the wind out of the 'security by more control' arguments
It still has the problem that most people aren't knowledgable enough to make an educated vote.
Let's take an example: A law that raises tax on gasoline. It will make life more expensive for most car-driving people, make driving a car less attractive, and reduces economic growth. On the other side, it will provide the government with income that can be spend on needed projects or lowering taxes in other areas. It will also diminish air pollution and might even save our civilisations by reducing global warming.
I'm not claiming that any of the above consequences are true. But I am claiming that any of the above consequences might be true, and that I don't have the knowledge to make an well-informed guess about the implication of a gasoline tax raise. It is also true that the consequences will occur, regardless on whether I believe they do or not.
Given that, my best bet is to choose a representative who is capable of making these decisions and who shares my views on how a society should look like. After I have chosen him, I should be watching his behaviour and question him about the decisions he made.
A problem with many representative democracies nowadays seems to be that people don't feel that they can chose a such a representative. Whether that is caused by the politicians, the system, the press who is reporting about the politicians, or the voters themselves, is an interesting question.
You are aware of that most victims of ISIS are moslem? Even if we don't let the new immigrants in Europe, we still have the old ones, their children and grandchildren to deal with.
I'm actually quite impressed that you know every muslim. Really? By name?
So you don't want to let them enter Europe. So what's the alternative? Shoot them? Let them drown in the Mediterranean Sea? Let them starve and freeze to death? You can shout that most of them are young men. Still, there are a lot women, children and babies among them.
I'm not even claiming that we should allow them to enter Europe. I just take offence at the idea that a (or any) solution is 'simple'. The fact that so many people find the parent's post informative, saddens me.
What I really dislike about this comment is the complete generalisations it makes.
1. All democrats are opposite people. All of them? I suppose there are millions? There is no disagreement among them?
2. All stuff they do? The only thing they do is plotting against other people.
The arguments are easily to prove false. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is a womanizer, for instance.
I am not even american, and I don't claim to have a serious informed opinion about democrats and republicans. I am however, pretty sure, that you can make informed arguments for or against healthcare, or tax cheats or whatever. The fact that these arguments aren't made, while the post is still rated insightful, saddens me.
Just skimmed the article. Summary: Max Max might be woman-friendly. Even if you were remotely interested in this thing, it still is unproven click-bait.. Let's keep the amount of comments as little as possible and save it for 'news that matters' (even for non-nerds).
Try running it on a 400 MHz Mac sometime. It's not sparse at all..... in fact it's slow as heck (you can actually see OS X draw the window). WinXP's desktop runs better at 400 MHz than OS X's desktop.
I run osx unto 10.3 on a clamshell 366 Mhz ibook (with, from memory, 320 Mb ram). It ran good enough for me to use it. Even programmed a little java with Xcode on it. WinXp would probably have run faster though. It had less fluff than OSX.
There's a significant difference between supporting a system that involves paying for services you profit by (i.e., protection of private property by local police forces) and paying for services by which you do not profit (i.e., for education for other people's children when you are, yourself, without children).
Well, you do profit from a schooled work force, even if you don't have children yourself. Also, some people don't have property worth stealing, and still have to pay for a police, which in their eyes, even make their lives miserable enforcing certain laws to which they don't agree to.
A more general argument is that at least for me, it is important to live in a society where every citizen has an equal chances to succeed and I can blame someone who doesn't. If good schools only exist for the rich and poor people cannot get a good education, I can hardly blame them for not failing in life and become a criminal.
Of course, improving organization always helps, but that's obvious.
If a woman wears short skirts because she likes feeling sexy, then she wants to get hit on.
She may wants to get hit on, but does she want to get hit on by you? I'm not saying you shouldn't try a conversation, but this assumption is too broad (and may make you creepy if you really follow through)
So if I'm reading the Satanic Bible in a library and a Christian fundie walks past and flips their shit, am I being disruptive?
If you're doing it in such a way that blasphemous pictures can be seen everyone and you don't take any measures to prevent the fundie's distress although it would be easy to do, I think you're being disruptive in a public library. If the fundie want to check your book before you start reading, I think the fundie should be removed.
It's not a matter of having an absolute right to do something. It's more a compromise between your right to live your life and his. People, including extremists, should think more about their duty to allow other people to live instead of their right to a certain 'something'.
They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
That's too strong. It is a matter of conditional probability.
Probability(terrorist | using privacy tools) = ????, big enough too warrant suspicion.
I don't know the probabilities, so I can't comment on them, but I feel sad for the Probability(not terrorist| using privacy tools) options.
Slashdot Mirror
I would. I would not ride in a car that would run over passengers in order to save me a concussion or something. I'm not sure if I would rather be dead than a murderer, but people in cars are better protected.
If not, I would think that right-winged persons would be happy to have the nut jobs filtered out from their point of view. Sure the others might dominate in numbers, but it would also show that right wing are, on average, more reasonable than their unfiltered counterparts.
I'm seriously interested. Can someone point at examples?
If you don't get elected or don't get a good leader, blame the people who elect.
You can talk about misleading information, propaganda or marketing strategies, but in the end it is the American people who chose. Don't blame your government, blame the people who choose it.
What is the difference between an upgrade from 7 to 10 and an upgrade from OSX10.10 to 10.11, or an upgrade from ubuntu. In all cases, it is supposedly better to do it in order to increase security, being supported etc.
If you take this one step further, Am I allowed to launch a action suit against ubuntu if one the security-updates in one of their linux-libraries cause my computer to crash? The move from windows 7 to windows 10 might contain more changes, but it is essentially the same.
You might say that windows 10 is a shitty upgrade or a shitty OS, but that's a reason to switch to another OS. Not to sue.
Usually that job is to _advise_, but not to _undermine_ his bosses. Advising is something you do internally, not publicly.
Look, I get he cares about this. But if his bosses tell him to make sure application or OS get installed, it's his job to make it so - and not to bitch about it in public. If he doesn't like his job, I'm sure there are plenty of other people who will do it without complaints.
His bosses are the tax-paying citizens of Munich. If he has the idea that the process by which the os was chosen is wrong, he almost has an obligation to express his opinion.
There are reasons why certain decision-making is private, but especially in a public organisation, there shouldn't be too many. I don't see why a decision on windows vs linux shouldn't be transparent for everyone.
Do you have the data on why they think diesel is worse for the environment than gasoline? Do you know why this is false? Do you know how they think they can do the transition from the current diesel trucks? Do you have reasons why you think this won't work?
Just saying that they're idiots only prove your unwillingness to investigate their proposal.
What's wrong about the fact: If you have a gun and a toddler in your house, you are more likely to be shot by your toddler than to fire the gun in self defense. Go on, prove it wrong. Tell me how it's not true. Yes, I know the non-fact based argument that most "self defense" uses are brandishing, not firing. But I've not found anyone that can find (objective, factual) fault in the fact presented.
What's wrong with this fact is that it implicitly assumes that you throw a dice to see whether you need to use the gun in self-defence and another dice to see whether you'll be shot by your toddler
This is untrue. The chance of using it or the chance of being shot by your toddler are dependent on the area you live in, the attractiveness of your house to burglars, the discipline you use in storing your weapons, the care you take in overseeing your daughter, etc. These are individual factors and while an average statistic is interesting, it won't say much about your personal situation. It might be that in your particular case, you're better of with a gun. Even only if it makes you sleep better.
BTW: I live in the Netherlands and hate guns, but I also don't think that flawed arguments against it will work.
There are a lot of 'ifs' and extra assumptions in my previous paragraph and I don't know anything about the case or the Egyptian justice system. The dentist might still be complete innocent and victim of some grand conspiracy.
However, I agree with the parent that if you cannot suspect from the facts in the article why this man was arrested, you're either a liar or not qualified to write this kind of articles.
You cannot cut off Russia, China, Indonesia etc, because everyone would have to agree on that. It won't make sense if the USA does it while Germany doesn't. Criminals will just hire servers in Germany and continue.
Also, as others have pointed out. Russia, China Indonesia are large economic powers on their own. Cutting them off will hurt millions of people.
Thirdly, it will only stop a part of the attacks. Friendly countries, including USA, also have criminals.
What you might probably want is some more restrictions on the anonymity off those who can connect to the internet. One serious issue is that an anonymous person can hire a server and claim to be, for instance, faceb00k.com. Both server and domain registration cannot be traced back to that person (if done well).
However, attacking this problem means putting restrictions on anonymous internet, which is a thing not well liked by some communities.
Do we have a clear example of someone who posted an perfect legal opinion and got into trouble with the government because of that. Snowden doesn't count. The issue with him is not his opinion but the leakage of confidential documents (whether you approve of his actions or not).
We don't have enough gainful employment for everyone.
Last time I checked there are serious problems in the care of the elder. We need to make a transition from fossile-fuel based economy to more sustainable forms of energy. There is a climate problem. There are all kind of problems with immigrants and crime, There is an ISIS threatening the western world. More environmental problems. Then, I'm not talking about humanity needing to get off earth and find our way in to space. Science is also a thing that needs more work.
What do you mean: 'We don't have enough employment for everyone?'
What might be missing is the discussion of warrantless surveillance. Surveillance on communication is probably needed to prove a crime or prevent an terrorist attack. Some very wise people saw the dangers of it as well and invited the idea that you need a warrant, an independent check by an independent authority, to prevent unnecessary intrusions on privacy or abuse of these privileges.
I see the need for surveillance, but not the need for 'warrantless'. In defense of the people who filled in the polls, what the questions were asked and did they make this distinction clear?
Just curious, do you have any reference where the government used these powers to quite dissent?
Internet freedom is indeed dissolving. If you use the internet, you're at an increasing risk to catch malware. If your computer is infected you don't have any freedom at all. You are at risk of losing your money on the bank. You're at risk of losing your valuable personal data or your identity being abused. In all cases you are bombarded with ant-virus advertisements which may of may not be fake. Your computer might also be used in all kinds of illegal activities designed to hurt others. Also, if you buy from legit-looking webshops, it turns out that your cash disappears and your goods are never delivered, even though you might intuitively think that it can be traced, because everything is 'digital'.
Unless you're a slashdot nerd, you don't have the knowledge to effectively defend against it.
I think the average person has much more to lose from these than from the NSA looking at his data-streams (not that I don't have problems with uncontrolled monitoring). If you feel concerned about eroding freedom on internet, you should at least address this issue as well. It also has as extra advantage that you take the wind out of the 'security by more control' arguments
Let's take an example: A law that raises tax on gasoline. It will make life more expensive for most car-driving people, make driving a car less attractive, and reduces economic growth. On the other side, it will provide the government with income that can be spend on needed projects or lowering taxes in other areas. It will also diminish air pollution and might even save our civilisations by reducing global warming.
I'm not claiming that any of the above consequences are true. But I am claiming that any of the above consequences might be true, and that I don't have the knowledge to make an well-informed guess about the implication of a gasoline tax raise. It is also true that the consequences will occur, regardless on whether I believe they do or not.
Given that, my best bet is to choose a representative who is capable of making these decisions and who shares my views on how a society should look like. After I have chosen him, I should be watching his behaviour and question him about the decisions he made.
A problem with many representative democracies nowadays seems to be that people don't feel that they can chose a such a representative. Whether that is caused by the politicians, the system, the press who is reporting about the politicians, or the voters themselves, is an interesting question.
I'm actually quite impressed that you know every muslim. Really? By name?
So you don't want to let them enter Europe. So what's the alternative? Shoot them? Let them drown in the Mediterranean Sea? Let them starve and freeze to death? You can shout that most of them are young men. Still, there are a lot women, children and babies among them.
I'm not even claiming that we should allow them to enter Europe. I just take offence at the idea that a (or any) solution is 'simple'. The fact that so many people find the parent's post informative, saddens me.
The arguments are easily to prove false. I don't believe that Hillary Clinton is a womanizer, for instance. I am not even american, and I don't claim to have a serious informed opinion about democrats and republicans. I am however, pretty sure, that you can make informed arguments for or against healthcare, or tax cheats or whatever. The fact that these arguments aren't made, while the post is still rated insightful, saddens me.
You mean like the difference between the 0 and the O or o? 1'm not sure 1 understand It.
Just skimmed the article. Summary: Max Max might be woman-friendly. Even if you were remotely interested in this thing, it still is unproven click-bait.. Let's keep the amount of comments as little as possible and save it for 'news that matters' (even for non-nerds).
Try running it on a 400 MHz Mac sometime. It's not sparse at all..... in fact it's slow as heck (you can actually see OS X draw the window). WinXP's desktop runs better at 400 MHz than OS X's desktop.
I run osx unto 10.3 on a clamshell 366 Mhz ibook (with, from memory, 320 Mb ram). It ran good enough for me to use it. Even programmed a little java with Xcode on it. WinXp would probably have run faster though. It had less fluff than OSX.
There's a significant difference between supporting a system that involves paying for services you profit by (i.e., protection of private property by local police forces) and paying for services by which you do not profit (i.e., for education for other people's children when you are, yourself, without children).
Well, you do profit from a schooled work force, even if you don't have children yourself. Also, some people don't have property worth stealing, and still have to pay for a police, which in their eyes, even make their lives miserable enforcing certain laws to which they don't agree to. A more general argument is that at least for me, it is important to live in a society where every citizen has an equal chances to succeed and I can blame someone who doesn't. If good schools only exist for the rich and poor people cannot get a good education, I can hardly blame them for not failing in life and become a criminal. Of course, improving organization always helps, but that's obvious.
If a woman wears short skirts because she likes feeling sexy, then she wants to get hit on.
She may wants to get hit on, but does she want to get hit on by you? I'm not saying you shouldn't try a conversation, but this assumption is too broad (and may make you creepy if you really follow through)
You get all the 1's - she gets all the 0's
That's not fair! She would get all the information on the new unformatted hard disk.
So if I'm reading the Satanic Bible in a library and a Christian fundie walks past and flips their shit, am I being disruptive?
If you're doing it in such a way that blasphemous pictures can be seen everyone and you don't take any measures to prevent the fundie's distress although it would be easy to do, I think you're being disruptive in a public library. If the fundie want to check your book before you start reading, I think the fundie should be removed.
It's not a matter of having an absolute right to do something. It's more a compromise between your right to live your life and his. People, including extremists, should think more about their duty to allow other people to live instead of their right to a certain 'something'.
They're not even signs of being a terrorist. To call them signs of being a terrorist is like saying breathing is a sign of being a terrorist, because terrorists breathe.
That's too strong. It is a matter of conditional probability.
Probability(terrorist | using privacy tools) = ????, big enough too warrant suspicion.
I don't know the probabilities, so I can't comment on them, but I feel sad for the Probability(not terrorist| using privacy tools) options.