How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?
They dont have a close relationship with the NSA. You have apparently been reading headlines, and skipping the articles. Heres a hint: the NSA's own documents indicated that the spying was done without the knowledge of the companies (Yahoo, Google, etc); Google responded by encrypting their intra-datacenter comms before any of the other companies did so.
Because all other browsers are furiously trying to implement the exact same thing because its a zillion times better for stability. It does increase memory usage, but do keep in mind that a lot of the memory usage is due to the sheer complexity of pages today. If you compared memory usages for X tabs across browsers, I think youd find that they were roughly the same-- perhaps one would be higher or lower, but generally in the same ballpark.
The Safe Browsing API is an experimental API that enables applications to download an encrypted table for local, client-side lookups of URLs that you would like to check.... The Safe Browsing API v2 has the following advantages:
* Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients.
And of course, you can actually see said database tables under your profile as files beginning,.. "C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing*" And if you were truly paranoid and / or wanted to stop spreading FUD, you could wireshark your connections to confirm that they do not, in fact, send those URLs to google to block malware.
Id imagine they download the file into "C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing Download" like theyve done with the rest of their safe-browsing features for the last 5 years.
But hey-- why be informed when you can complain about issues that dont exist?
And if you want evil: the "block malware" is presumably done by sending the name/location of the file you want to download to a google server,
Thats not even a remotely safe assumption. For years now Chrome has created temporary files called "Safe Browsing Bloom" under the profile, which are presumably databases of malicious URLs. They could easily do something similar for malicious files. Either way, its something you can easily turn of with one click of a checkbox, and its something that all browsers do-- but apparently Google is the only one who gets flak for it. Nice.
where it can be preserved forever and delivered to the government on request.... nice.
I get that some people dont like Google's core business (info gathering / advertising), but this is about the stupidest reason to be anti-google ever. They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers They are the ONLY ones who arent ambiguous about their own privacy policy (Im looking at you, Bing) And unlike almost any of the other major tech companies out there, they very frequently go to bat for user privacy and rights-- for example, refusing to provide US authorities user information without court-orders or warrants, providing info through the EFF's chilling effects pages on takedowns, and fighting lawsuits to indemnify users against patent trolls.
If this isnt "biting the hand that feeds you", I dont know what is. Have fun with Bing, just hope you arent a dissident in some authoritarian country.
CFLs need to be recycled to make any sort of sense. Im currently looking into recycling a bunch of electronics (old computers and whatnot), and its really kind of a pain-- I sort of doubt most people will go through the hassle each time a CFL dies.
Of course, you could just bin them, and ignore all of the mercury inside of them....
Theres also the whole "theoretically lasts 10 years, but tend to die randomly after a week" thing. Ive heard it said that its just the "cheap" ones, Ive had it happen to me through Costco-bought ones (and costco doesnt tend to be bottom of the barrel). Whatever the reason, im not alone, and in practical terms that affects how much sense these make.
Just bought a LED bulb for $10, heres to hoping im not being suckered again; THAT is technology that Im wholeheartedly hoping matures. In the meantime, you cant pretend there arent reasons people arent upset with CFLs and happy with incandescent bulbs; all the politics and environementalism in the world does you no good when your $4 bulb dies in 4 days.
Generally an autoupdate notifier isnt sending information, its receiving it. The updater already knows what version you are on, and the remote server has no need to know.
Stand your ground has only been an issue in the media. It has not been an important factor in any recent case as far as the law was concerned. Im pretty sure stand your ground has also not resulted in anyone going to prison.
If your argument against personal freedoms boils down to "bad people will misuse those freedoms", then we might as well get rid of the entire bill of rights (except perhaps the third, 9th, and tenth amendments). All of those protections "help" bad people to some degree, so we should just abolish them.
It seems certain that no matter what examples are given, it could be shown that the ways atheists commit their various atrocities arent QUITE the same as the ways religious groups have done so in the past, but at the end of the day Im not quite certain what thats supposed to prove.
Is the claim that religion somehow makes you worse than being an atheist? Because again-- one would have to explain away Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc etc etc.
Didnt some famous dude murder several million people for their religion about 70 years ago? Doesnt one of the biggest countries in the world right now specifically persecute religious people (requiring an oath of atheism to even be permitted into the state party)?
But pinning anti-religion actions on all of atheism is no different than pinning the acts of Islam on all of theism. You don't see many atheists blaming, say, Catholicism for the actions of the Taliban
As I recall, Dawkins in the very first page of God Delusion pins all of the worlds evils on "religion" at large. Im not seeing a terribly big difference between that and what you describe.
I think the "because" is the important word here. If youre saying you dont believe in God because you havent seen him, well, then I dont believe in Australia-- and my logic is just as good as yours.
Piracy is a colloquial term that is thrown about and as im not in a legal context I dont care terribly whether you term it infringement, theft, or piracy. Fact is that the vast majority of the content on demonoid was there without the approval of its rights holder.
I really dont have stomach for people who try to defend behavior thats about on the same level as shoplifting candy bars by saying "but no look Ubuntu is on demonoid too!"
Citizens are citizens and should all receive the same class of constitutional protections. Pretty sure thats what the fourteenth amendment is about, actually.
well, that there is even debate that the possible sentence is between _zero_ years and 1.5 lifetimes should be enough to tell that something is quite fucked up in the legal system.
Not at all.
You rob 800 convenience stores. Lets say the maximum sentence for one act of burglary is 2 years. Thats between 0 and 1600 years, right? Except it very rarely works that way, and while the prosecution / media may throw that number around to scare said burglar into bargaining, its not even remotely realistic.
I would recommend that folks who are neither lawyers nor acquainted with how sentencing works refrain from commenting on how sentencing works.
Should we apply the same rationale to other areas? Maybe health care?
We do, particularly in the battlefield. Its called triage. If one person is slowly bleeding out through lacerations, and another has cancer, 2 punctured lungs, and an aneurysm, theyre likely to try to save the guy with lacerations rather than wasting time on someone who is likely to die either way.
They can say lots of things, that doesnt make them remotely true.
Pretty sure thats why everyone has always said "get a lawyer before saying anything". 124 years sounds farfetched, regardless of what reporters / the prosecution were saying.
Slashdot Mirror
How about Google's close relationship with the NSA ?
They dont have a close relationship with the NSA. You have apparently been reading headlines, and skipping the articles. Heres a hint: the NSA's own documents indicated that the spying was done without the knowledge of the companies (Yahoo, Google, etc); Google responded by encrypting their intra-datacenter comms before any of the other companies did so.
Because all other browsers are furiously trying to implement the exact same thing because its a zillion times better for stability. It does increase memory usage, but do keep in mind that a lot of the memory usage is due to the sheer complexity of pages today. If you compared memory usages for X tabs across browsers, I think youd find that they were roughly the same-- perhaps one would be higher or lower, but generally in the same ballpark.
I just did some research; No, they do not submit it to Google. From their docs:
https://developers.google.com/safe-browsing/
The Safe Browsing API is an experimental API that enables applications to download an encrypted table for local, client-side lookups of URLs that you would like to check. ...
The Safe Browsing API v2 has the following advantages:
* Better privacy: API users exchange data with the server using hashed URLs so the server never knows the actual URLs queried by the clients.
And of course, you can actually see said database tables under your profile as files beginning,..
"C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing*"
And if you were truly paranoid and / or wanted to stop spreading FUD, you could wireshark your connections to confirm that they do not, in fact, send those URLs to google to block malware.
Id imagine they download the file into "C:\Users\[USER]\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Safe Browsing Download" like theyve done with the rest of their safe-browsing features for the last 5 years.
But hey-- why be informed when you can complain about issues that dont exist?
And if you want evil: the "block malware" is presumably done by sending the name/location of the file you want to download to a google server,
Thats not even a remotely safe assumption. For years now Chrome has created temporary files called "Safe Browsing Bloom" under the profile, which are presumably databases of malicious URLs. They could easily do something similar for malicious files. Either way, its something you can easily turn of with one click of a checkbox, and its something that all browsers do-- but apparently Google is the only one who gets flak for it. Nice.
where it can be preserved forever and delivered to the government on request.... nice.
I get that some people dont like Google's core business (info gathering / advertising), but this is about the stupidest reason to be anti-google ever.
They are the ONLY major search provider who fought against China's requests for data on dissident bloggers
They are the ONLY ones who arent ambiguous about their own privacy policy (Im looking at you, Bing)
And unlike almost any of the other major tech companies out there, they very frequently go to bat for user privacy and rights-- for example, refusing to provide US authorities user information without court-orders or warrants, providing info through the EFF's chilling effects pages on takedowns, and fighting lawsuits to indemnify users against patent trolls.
If this isnt "biting the hand that feeds you", I dont know what is. Have fun with Bing, just hope you arent a dissident in some authoritarian country.
CFLs need to be recycled to make any sort of sense. Im currently looking into recycling a bunch of electronics (old computers and whatnot), and its really kind of a pain-- I sort of doubt most people will go through the hassle each time a CFL dies.
Of course, you could just bin them, and ignore all of the mercury inside of them....
Theres also the whole "theoretically lasts 10 years, but tend to die randomly after a week" thing. Ive heard it said that its just the "cheap" ones, Ive had it happen to me through Costco-bought ones (and costco doesnt tend to be bottom of the barrel). Whatever the reason, im not alone, and in practical terms that affects how much sense these make.
Just bought a LED bulb for $10, heres to hoping im not being suckered again; THAT is technology that Im wholeheartedly hoping matures. In the meantime, you cant pretend there arent reasons people arent upset with CFLs and happy with incandescent bulbs; all the politics and environementalism in the world does you no good when your $4 bulb dies in 4 days.
Except now all you have is a ratio of two masses, rather than an absolute quantity. What exactly would you balance the kilogram reference against?
Generally an autoupdate notifier isnt sending information, its receiving it. The updater already knows what version you are on, and the remote server has no need to know.
Stand your ground has only been an issue in the media. It has not been an important factor in any recent case as far as the law was concerned. Im pretty sure stand your ground has also not resulted in anyone going to prison.
Dont let that stop your irrelevant rant though.
If we didnt have the 4th amendment, Im sure there are a lot of acquitted-on-a-technicality criminals who wouldnt have escaped justice.
If your argument against personal freedoms boils down to "bad people will misuse those freedoms", then we might as well get rid of the entire bill of rights (except perhaps the third, 9th, and tenth amendments). All of those protections "help" bad people to some degree, so we should just abolish them.
It seems certain that no matter what examples are given, it could be shown that the ways atheists commit their various atrocities arent QUITE the same as the ways religious groups have done so in the past, but at the end of the day Im not quite certain what thats supposed to prove.
Is the claim that religion somehow makes you worse than being an atheist? Because again-- one would have to explain away Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc etc etc.
Didnt some famous dude murder several million people for their religion about 70 years ago? Doesnt one of the biggest countries in the world right now specifically persecute religious people (requiring an oath of atheism to even be permitted into the state party)?
But pinning anti-religion actions on all of atheism is no different than pinning the acts of Islam on all of theism. You don't see many atheists blaming, say, Catholicism for the actions of the Taliban
As I recall, Dawkins in the very first page of God Delusion pins all of the worlds evils on "religion" at large. Im not seeing a terribly big difference between that and what you describe.
Luckily most societies including our own recognize a difference between "kill", "put to death", and "murder".
Im fairly certain most dictionaries make that distinction as well.
I sense strawmen on the horizon. Brace yourselves, people.
I think the "because" is the important word here. If youre saying you dont believe in God because you havent seen him, well, then I dont believe in Australia-- and my logic is just as good as yours.
Piracy is a colloquial term that is thrown about and as im not in a legal context I dont care terribly whether you term it infringement, theft, or piracy. Fact is that the vast majority of the content on demonoid was there without the approval of its rights holder.
I really dont have stomach for people who try to defend behavior thats about on the same level as shoplifting candy bars by saying "but no look Ubuntu is on demonoid too!"
Not sure if you're serious.
Citizens are citizens and should all receive the same class of constitutional protections. Pretty sure thats what the fourteenth amendment is about, actually.
Is it OK to object to the discussion because of the way 90% of people discuss it?
I dont think you know what a totalitarian state is. Id recommend you break out a dictionary.
For admitting having committed a crime when he did something that he and many didn't consider being a crime,
The state does consider it a crime, and as theyre the ones who make that call...
And while three months in jail isn't too bad, the consequences for your life when you come out are quite devastating.
This is going to be super unpopular, but he probably shouldnt have broken the law then.
well, that there is even debate that the possible sentence is between _zero_ years and 1.5 lifetimes should be enough to tell that something is quite fucked up in the legal system.
Not at all.
You rob 800 convenience stores. Lets say the maximum sentence for one act of burglary is 2 years. Thats between 0 and 1600 years, right? Except it very rarely works that way, and while the prosecution / media may throw that number around to scare said burglar into bargaining, its not even remotely realistic.
I would recommend that folks who are neither lawyers nor acquainted with how sentencing works refrain from commenting on how sentencing works.
The point is people who have a stake in the public school system are motivated to maintain a quality public school system.
The idea that there arent self-interested parties on the "public school" side of the debate is laughable.
Have you never heard of unions?
Should we apply the same rationale to other areas? Maybe health care?
We do, particularly in the battlefield. Its called triage. If one person is slowly bleeding out through lacerations, and another has cancer, 2 punctured lungs, and an aneurysm, theyre likely to try to save the guy with lacerations rather than wasting time on someone who is likely to die either way.
They can say lots of things, that doesnt make them remotely true.
Pretty sure thats why everyone has always said "get a lawyer before saying anything". 124 years sounds farfetched, regardless of what reporters / the prosecution were saying.