There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.
Thank you for supporting my statement. As I said
the average GOP voter values privacy when the issue is privacy relating to the government, and not at all when the issue is large corporations taking private information and doing with it as they please
Your statement shows exactly that: republicans are concerned about their privacy when it comes to the government. When they don't give a shit about their privacy is when their private information can make someone money.
Foot, meet mouth.
Indeed, if you somehow wrote that post in the belief that you were somehow refuting my statement, you did a very effective job of shoving your foot into your mouth.
Good one, there. Or did you mean, the average GOP voter values privacy when the issue is privacy relating to the government, and not at all when the issue is large corporations taking private information and doing with it as they please? If "You average GOP voter" actually valued privacy, then every facebook profile would be of a liberal.
1) You're full of crap, because BOTH parties don't like anyone who isn't a lobbyist or fundraising donor.
Considering how many opinion surveys come out with large number of responses from people who self-identify under a variety of tents, I would say you are the one full of crap, here.
That said, we can find easily that each party has groups they don't like to respond to. Republicans are trained from an early age in this country to distrust scientists, just as Democrats in this country are often inclined to close the door on people who are deeply religious.
Everyone knows republicans don't like science or scientists. I hope the data scientists are calling themselves something else to encourage the republicans to actually talk with them.
The surprising bit here is that it is on a smaller scale than some we have seen before. Remember the 2000 election? Look at the states where Nader had more votes than Bush's margin of victory. Now look at the political advertising in that state, particularly the ads for Nader. Most likely you will find those ads were paid for by the GOP, aiming to draw democratic voters away from Gore.
Based on the summary it appears that the solution to humanities PhDs not finding work is to graduate more people with humanities PhD degrees. Law schools around the country have been trying that approach and it doesn't seem to be working out very well. Considering the lawyers have government buildings full of lawyer advocates (such buildings are often called "congress"), which the humanities decidedly do not, it is hard to see how the humanities could possibly bode better from this approach.
I was going to write a message with a similar complaint. The "Surprisingly number of" is not even the only terrible grammatical failure in the summary. Being as Tesla is an American car, and the link goes to an American website, you can't play the "British grammar" card on this one either (though arguably that isn't proper English grammar anywhere).
It's too bad slashdot doesn't have actual editors, who actually read the front page text. Some people claim they used to have some here, though I'm not sure if that was true either.
I'm not sure this will really meet the ambitions of the previous series. If we want to get all kids to read more, we really need the medium that reaches the most children. The web is great and all, but public television is available to far more people for far less money. Kids that are in the most critical target audience for this likely won't have their own devices to watch this online and will have to convince their parents to let them watch it instead of letting Daddy continue with his half-life 7 marathon or mommy with her endless facebook chatter.
If I knew that specific neighborhoods were mostly populated with people who were unvaccinated, I could avoid going there. They could still have their privacy and I could have my health. While they may feel that they are better off facing the diseases that they refuse vaccination against, some of us have more to lose by contracting some of those illnesses.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
All of which you agreed to when choosing to use Facebook. Believe it or not, you don't have to use it.
And believe it or not, I have intentionally chosen not to use it. I have never had an account there. Yet, they likely have quite a bit of personal information about me based on all of my friends and relatives who do use it regularly.
My point more so, however, is that they make money by selling personal information. Now, if people are willing to give up their personal information to a for-profit in exchange for crappy free games and making it easy to find out which of their friends most recently crapped in which coffee shop restroom, then so be it. However when they are not clear about how much information they give to who - and at what cost - then they do deserve to be examined a little closer.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.
I haven't held a PS3 in some time or a PS4 ever, but being as >>>99% of all consumer goods sold in the US are made in China, it would seem reasonable to bet on these to be Chinese made as well. In which case, would they be able to sell them straight off the assembly line, or would they have to export / re-import them to sell?
That weed is at least as far west as the central plains states, and it is spreading quickly. Unless we can train some indigenous critters to start eating it our forests are in danger from what it does to the soil. Even though it is rather tasty we can't possibly eradicate it ourselves just by pulling and/or eating it.
Number one for me is the insurance industry. Health insurance, especially; although auto and life insurance aren't much better. They are all giant legalized Ponzi schemes, IMHO. In 2010 the health insurance industry demonstrated how much power they have over the federal government when they managed to make us all obligate customers as an alleged mechanism of "reform". I could go on about how an insurance company that I had about a decade ago tried to drive me bankrupt with practices that are far beyond immoral.
Number two for me (literally and figuratively) are private impound lots. There are some cities (I happen to work in one) where auto theft is essentially legal if you happen to be a private impound lot. The amount of power those animals have over regular people is disgusting, they basically have an unlimited income stream that they can open and close at will.
I don't care for my cable company, but I love them in comparison to either of those.
Really, the stakes are too high. Too many people have memories of IV, V, and VI that are too fond. Even if we had a young George Lucas directing it we would still likely deem it a failure after the first 10 minutes. If you try to make it feel like the original trilogy people will discard it as "uninspired" or "derivative". If you try to make it groundbreaking people will say you "tried too hard". And obviously he can't reboot it like he did with the new Star Trek movies for much the same reasons.
I actually feel bad for JJ Abrams, as he will be the scapegoat in the end regardless of how good - or bad - the screenplay is.
Crippling a budget can also mean that costs go up. It would have been better stated that driverless cars result in less revenue for law enforcement. The car isn't doing anything that makes law enforcement more expensive.
The summary goes so far as to tell us that it is Engineering employees who cannot use those words in specific types of communications. People outside that division can use those words, and people inside that division can use them in communications that are outside that list.
GM has enough problems on its own without people distorting their message to make them sound worse than they are.
The YouTube page for the video has an automated transcript-maker, but it's pretty janky.
To the best of my understanding, the only way to use the youtube transcript tool is to actually watch the video and read the transcript as it goes along. Useful if you want to watch the video without listening (or if for any reason you cannot listen to it) but not useful if you want to spare yourself the time of sitting through its duration.
If there is a way to get youtube to spit out a transcript of the video to text, without having to sit through it, please let me know.
This headline sounded at first like it was describing some sort of publicity stunt where the machines themselves were going to be locked up as prisoners for the crimes they have committed against innocent people. I think something like
Controversial TSA X-Ray Machines To Be Used In Prisons
There's a link to expand a transcript right below the video. Is that not rendering for you?
The transcript that I can expand below the video is not the transcript of the "Linux Sucks" video, it is a transcript of an interview that he gave after giving that speech. I'm trying to find a transcript of the video of his presentation, and as best I - and others - can tell, no such transcript exists. If he doesn't want to share his slide that is his own business (although I think he would make a stronger case if he did), but for him to go running around claiming to have such a brilliant argument and not be willing to share it with us in a way that does not insult our intelligence is just ridiculous.
It seems that the philosophy of "video >>>>> text" is particularly popular with politicians. I figured they liked it because they tend to get a little more control of the propagation of the medium (as slightly fewer people know how to rip videos from youtube than know how to use copy and paste) and because they can use it to ensure that the people the message is being delivered to are a fully captive audience.
Why exactly this guy feels that he has something to gain by posting his monologue as a video instead of as text - especially when he is clearly giving a canned presentation that was made in some sort of powerpoint-type program - is unclear at the very least.
Any halfwit can post their monologue to youtube. Spare me the lecture, and save me some time - post a damned transcript. If you are too cool to post your actual slides, just post the transcript of what you said.
Slashdot Mirror
There are significant partisan differences in views of the government's program to obtain call logs and Internet communication. Democrats are more likely to approve, by 49% to 40%. Independents (34% vs. 56%) and Republicans (32% to 63%) are much more likely to disapprove than approve.
Thank you for supporting my statement. As I said
the average GOP voter values privacy when the issue is privacy relating to the government, and not at all when the issue is large corporations taking private information and doing with it as they please
Your statement shows exactly that: republicans are concerned about their privacy when it comes to the government. When they don't give a shit about their privacy is when their private information can make someone money.
Foot, meet mouth.
Indeed, if you somehow wrote that post in the belief that you were somehow refuting my statement, you did a very effective job of shoving your foot into your mouth.
You average GOP voter strongly values privacy
Good one, there. Or did you mean, the average GOP voter values privacy when the issue is privacy relating to the government, and not at all when the issue is large corporations taking private information and doing with it as they please? If "You average GOP voter" actually valued privacy, then every facebook profile would be of a liberal.
1) You're full of crap, because BOTH parties don't like anyone who isn't a lobbyist or fundraising donor.
Considering how many opinion surveys come out with large number of responses from people who self-identify under a variety of tents, I would say you are the one full of crap, here.
That said, we can find easily that each party has groups they don't like to respond to. Republicans are trained from an early age in this country to distrust scientists, just as Democrats in this country are often inclined to close the door on people who are deeply religious.
Everyone knows republicans don't like science or scientists. I hope the data scientists are calling themselves something else to encourage the republicans to actually talk with them.
The surprising bit here is that it is on a smaller scale than some we have seen before. Remember the 2000 election? Look at the states where Nader had more votes than Bush's margin of victory. Now look at the political advertising in that state, particularly the ads for Nader. Most likely you will find those ads were paid for by the GOP, aiming to draw democratic voters away from Gore.
Ahh, how we miss those simple times...
This shocking defeat is likely to upset the political balance of power in the United States for years to come
The Wii U is a year older and targets a different audience.
Based on the summary it appears that the solution to humanities PhDs not finding work is to graduate more people with humanities PhD degrees. Law schools around the country have been trying that approach and it doesn't seem to be working out very well. Considering the lawyers have government buildings full of lawyer advocates (such buildings are often called "congress"), which the humanities decidedly do not, it is hard to see how the humanities could possibly bode better from this approach.
I was going to write a message with a similar complaint. The "Surprisingly number of" is not even the only terrible grammatical failure in the summary. Being as Tesla is an American car, and the link goes to an American website, you can't play the "British grammar" card on this one either (though arguably that isn't proper English grammar anywhere).
It's too bad slashdot doesn't have actual editors, who actually read the front page text. Some people claim they used to have some here, though I'm not sure if that was true either.
I'm not sure this will really meet the ambitions of the previous series. If we want to get all kids to read more, we really need the medium that reaches the most children. The web is great and all, but public television is available to far more people for far less money. Kids that are in the most critical target audience for this likely won't have their own devices to watch this online and will have to convince their parents to let them watch it instead of letting Daddy continue with his half-life 7 marathon or mommy with her endless facebook chatter.
If I knew that specific neighborhoods were mostly populated with people who were unvaccinated, I could avoid going there. They could still have their privacy and I could have my health. While they may feel that they are better off facing the diseases that they refuse vaccination against, some of us have more to lose by contracting some of those illnesses.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
All of which you agreed to when choosing to use Facebook. Believe it or not, you don't have to use it.
And believe it or not, I have intentionally chosen not to use it. I have never had an account there. Yet, they likely have quite a bit of personal information about me based on all of my friends and relatives who do use it regularly.
My point more so, however, is that they make money by selling personal information. Now, if people are willing to give up their personal information to a for-profit in exchange for crappy free games and making it easy to find out which of their friends most recently crapped in which coffee shop restroom, then so be it. However when they are not clear about how much information they give to who - and at what cost - then they do deserve to be examined a little closer.
or convincing you to willingly give up private information
You seem unaware that if you volunteer your private information to the interwebs, it becomes public.
I am well aware of that. However a large number of facebook users apparently are not.
IOW, if you don't like Facebook, don't use it.
And I don't use it.
Interesting that none of the comments so far talk about the blatant privacy violations that facebook commits on a regular basis. Even more so, nobody talks about the fact that violating your privacy - or convincing you to willingly give up private information - is the very business model of facebook.
Say what you want about Iran, but they do have a point here. Will anyone listen to them? Probably not.
I haven't held a PS3 in some time or a PS4 ever, but being as >>>99% of all consumer goods sold in the US are made in China, it would seem reasonable to bet on these to be Chinese made as well. In which case, would they be able to sell them straight off the assembly line, or would they have to export / re-import them to sell?
That weed is at least as far west as the central plains states, and it is spreading quickly. Unless we can train some indigenous critters to start eating it our forests are in danger from what it does to the soil. Even though it is rather tasty we can't possibly eradicate it ourselves just by pulling and/or eating it.
Number one for me is the insurance industry. Health insurance, especially; although auto and life insurance aren't much better. They are all giant legalized Ponzi schemes, IMHO. In 2010 the health insurance industry demonstrated how much power they have over the federal government when they managed to make us all obligate customers as an alleged mechanism of "reform". I could go on about how an insurance company that I had about a decade ago tried to drive me bankrupt with practices that are far beyond immoral.
Number two for me (literally and figuratively) are private impound lots. There are some cities (I happen to work in one) where auto theft is essentially legal if you happen to be a private impound lot. The amount of power those animals have over regular people is disgusting, they basically have an unlimited income stream that they can open and close at will.
I don't care for my cable company, but I love them in comparison to either of those.
Really, the stakes are too high. Too many people have memories of IV, V, and VI that are too fond. Even if we had a young George Lucas directing it we would still likely deem it a failure after the first 10 minutes. If you try to make it feel like the original trilogy people will discard it as "uninspired" or "derivative". If you try to make it groundbreaking people will say you "tried too hard". And obviously he can't reboot it like he did with the new Star Trek movies for much the same reasons.
I actually feel bad for JJ Abrams, as he will be the scapegoat in the end regardless of how good - or bad - the screenplay is.
Crippling a budget can also mean that costs go up. It would have been better stated that driverless cars result in less revenue for law enforcement. The car isn't doing anything that makes law enforcement more expensive.
The summary goes so far as to tell us that it is Engineering employees who cannot use those words in specific types of communications. People outside that division can use those words, and people inside that division can use them in communications that are outside that list.
GM has enough problems on its own without people distorting their message to make them sound worse than they are.
The YouTube page for the video has an automated transcript-maker, but it's pretty janky.
To the best of my understanding, the only way to use the youtube transcript tool is to actually watch the video and read the transcript as it goes along. Useful if you want to watch the video without listening (or if for any reason you cannot listen to it) but not useful if you want to spare yourself the time of sitting through its duration.
If there is a way to get youtube to spit out a transcript of the video to text, without having to sit through it, please let me know.
Controversial TSA X-Ray Machines To Be Used In Prisons
Would have been much more informative.
There's a link to expand a transcript right below the video. Is that not rendering for you?
The transcript that I can expand below the video is not the transcript of the "Linux Sucks" video, it is a transcript of an interview that he gave after giving that speech. I'm trying to find a transcript of the video of his presentation, and as best I - and others - can tell, no such transcript exists. If he doesn't want to share his slide that is his own business (although I think he would make a stronger case if he did), but for him to go running around claiming to have such a brilliant argument and not be willing to share it with us in a way that does not insult our intelligence is just ridiculous.
It seems that the philosophy of "video >>>>> text" is particularly popular with politicians. I figured they liked it because they tend to get a little more control of the propagation of the medium (as slightly fewer people know how to rip videos from youtube than know how to use copy and paste) and because they can use it to ensure that the people the message is being delivered to are a fully captive audience.
Why exactly this guy feels that he has something to gain by posting his monologue as a video instead of as text - especially when he is clearly giving a canned presentation that was made in some sort of powerpoint-type program - is unclear at the very least.
Any halfwit can post their monologue to youtube. Spare me the lecture, and save me some time - post a damned transcript. If you are too cool to post your actual slides, just post the transcript of what you said.