I love the references Tolkien put in the Lord of the Rings.
As a friend put it in parody review:
SAM: Let’s throw some faggots on the fire! PIPPIN: Won’t that word totally scare the crap out of people who momentarily forgot that it used to have another meaning? SAM: Surely! PIPPIN: THEN MAKE SURE TO USE IT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.
I'm not sure what MSNBC is except the biggest, most well known left-wing troll on planet Earth
Ehhhh, I don't know about that. No one watches MSNBC. I'd give that award to Huffington Post, maybe? Village Voice? The left-wing stuff seems far more spread out and less centralized.
But Fox's numbers are only impressive when compared against other cable news channels, which most people don't care about. Hell, more people probably see Fox clips on the Daily Show than on Fox.
The things that separates Cold Fjord from those people is that he only shows up in NSA related threads on Slashdot and he is so obvious that the only way he isn't a shill for NSA would be if he is a shill for some other nation that is trying really hard to make the US government look bad.
I'd think a real NSA operative wouldn't act so... well, in a way that would make us suspect he's an NSA operative.
Isn't Feinstein the #1 Senator against the right to own firearms?
So? James Brady WAS a Republican and favored strict gun control. Perhaps you've heard of the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act"?
Republicans are more than just about gun control. She has also been very business friendly. Her family has multiple business interests in the City and County of San Francisco. Very little happens there without her say-so, lest it affect her family's business interests. She's also pro-death penalty. She was also very gung-ho about NSA surveillance of American citizens until she realized that the NSA was also spying on Congress.
I think many of these things are very pro-Democratic Party. Specifically the rich who are also Democrats (somewhat perjoritively referred to as "limousine liberals"). Having business interests, especially your own, pro-death penalty, NSA surveillance, all establishment Democratic (though not leftist, or at least, not far-leftist) interests.
look -- another post full of the economic-policy voodoo "logic" that suggests we can prosper better as a nation by isolating ourselves from trade, contrary not only to theory but to every single example in recorded history
Few countries have ever prospered by restricting "trade," but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about immigration to displace US workers, and I can't think of a country that doesn't have some measures to limit that.
As long as we have millions more people in the US who consume computer-powered services than earn their living producing them, the population as a whole will prosper better by having those services done at a lower cost
Great theory! Unfortunately the reality we've seen is that jobs are lost for domestic workers, and then not replaced by other jobs. I would say this is a version of the trickle-down theory, because all it does is drive wages down, increasing corporate profits at the expense of workers. We're still waiting for the great wave of prosperity that this practice is supposed to bring.
Hopefully he'll become an example that deters others
The only way to deter his kind would be if you could prove he was denied entrance to paradise. And if you could do that, well... Well, the Tsarnaevs of the world would be just the very beginning.:D
Most trials are biased against the defendant because most defendants that go to trial are, in fact, guilty. Most police and prosecutors do try to catch the actual perpetrators of crimes-- and don't typically proceed to trial unless the evidence supports at least a reasonable chance of getting a guilty verdict.
Tell that to the guy who just got released from death row 10 YEARS after the evidence came forth that he was innocent.
Hey, it ain't perfect. There's a lot that needs fixing, a lot of room for improvement. Your example of a wrongfully-convicted death row inmate does not invalidate the GP's assertion that MOST people convicted actually committed the crime they were being tried for.
My comment was about how little the defense team did to try and get him off
There was no chance, and trying to do so would probably have gotten pushback from the court. Judges can tell when you're intentionally wasting their time, and they usually don't like it.
He was seen on camera with the backpack. He freely admitted (before the police ever caught him) to doing it. It was absolutely obvious. The defense could try for one thing, and one thing only: keep them out of the electric chair. If the defense chose the "Oh, he didn't do it" argument, then they would lose. Worse yet, they wouldn't have the chance of making the "he was a kid manipulated into doing it by his older brother" argument to try to avoid the death penalty.
You can't do both, the latter undercuts the former.
But they won't, until consumers choose a security-first mindset, which they won't.
but me avoiding IoT devices that I find useful over security issues is pretty pointless
Thanks for contributing to a less secure world! Yes, that's snarky, but the IoT so far has shown little upside in favor of creating yet more attack vectors. I like opening my fridge knowing that there's NO possibility that some worm found it's way in and raised the temperature, and now the food is spoiled. I don't need an internet-connected coffee pot, or oven, or any of things. Better yet, my regular devices don't slowly use energy all the time -- we should be looking for ways to reduce energy, not create more standby power draws so that advertisers can find out more about our personal lives.
Point taken, but there's no Barack Obama waiting in the wings. He burst onto the scene with the very well regarded keynote in 2004, and I haven't seen any Democratic candidate create that sort of a splash. Maybe Elizabeth Warren, but she's formally declined to run.
Look who has declared so far for the Democratic Party: Jeff Boss (conspiracy theorist), Vermin Supreme (performance artist), and Robby Wells (former football coach). Wow.
I think Biden has little chance. Bernie Sanders, maybe. Jim Webb, perhaps.
Ted Cruz? He's a male Palin. Lindsey Graham? I'd be surprised if he ran, but that might shake things up in an interesting way. Rand Paul? Too extreme; I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to follow a devotee of Ayn Rand. Chris Christie? Maybe. Not exactly a uniter, is he? Donald Trump? Great great fodder for late-night comedians, a joke all around. Rick Perry? I kindof like the guy, but he had his chance in 2012 and blew it in the debates. Then again, Nixon had his chance and blew it against Kennedy, so maybe there could be life here yet. Scott Walker? He plays well in ultra-conservative states because he busts unions. No appeal outside of that. What a mistake the Republican Party would make to nominate that guy. Carly Fiorina? Completely failed as a CEO, couldn't get elected as a senator in her home state. A presidential campaign would be a real hail mary. I don't see the upside here. Marco Rubio? Maaaaaybe. Mike Pence? Not after the month he's had. Rick Santorum? Never in a million years.
There -are- a number of folks that few people have heard of before, it remains to be seen if any of them get any traction.
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
But you have to grant a monopoly in some way, you can't have ISP A, B, C, and D all tearing up the roads to lay lines, or each ISP stringing their own lines along the shared poles. In some locations the ISP has to run lines underneath private property. Local governments don't allow that for sewer mains and power lines for good reason, the same reasoning applied with TV and phone cables. The only problem is that the service providers get full control over the last mile, allowing them to completely shut out competition. The last mile should be a utility, and ISPs should be competing on equal footing to let the consumer decide.
People want Net Neutrality because ISPs can get away with extortion because they control the lines. Take local infrastructure control away from them.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (or duopolies)
Net neutrality is the small band-aid on top of the open sore that is the regional monopoly. I see no need to breaking up any monopoly/duopoly company, but I think a true solution is eliminating barriers to competition. Back in the good-old-days of dialup, you might have had the choice of half a dozen to a dozen ISPs, all able to service your various Internet access needs.
The "pipe" should be treated like a local utility, with whatever ISP you want, be it AT&T or Verizon or Sonic or Ma's Fish, Chips, and Internet being granted equal access to the lines as an ISP. ISPs should never have been granted line-laying rights.
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing [politico.com] with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
The President's goes golfing more often with John Boehner. Does that make them buddy-buddy and Obama will do whatever Boehner says? For a President, golf is just another meeting, but at least making the perfect putt lets him tune out what the other guy is saying from time to time.
Yeah, keep the government's hands off my private contract with a hitman. I want to buy his services, he wants to sell me his services. The government shouldn't get involved!/'casm
Are you seriously unable to see any difference between anarchy and libertarianism?
Honestly, the "Internet Association" is a frickin' industry group.
So whatever the hell they're saying is good is what their members have said is good.
Let's not for a moment think this is anything except what it is... an organization which is a mouth piece for the corporations which pay for its existence.
The group is made up, among others, of Facebook, Amazon, Good, eBay, etc. They've lobbied in the past for stronger net neutrality rules -- they're the corporate group with the most to gain from Net Neutrality, as opposed to the other corporate group with the most to lose, like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. They are alarmed, as frankly everyone in favor of Internet freedom should be, at the prospect of the FCC deciding it has regulatory authority over how content on the Internet is delivered. Enforcing net neutrality is fine, but give the FCC an in, and they'll decide they have the authority to regulate other practices on the Internet. They might claim not to be interested in that, but we've seen over and over again that the best way to ensure things like that don't happen is not to give them that power in the first place.
You don't have to fire a shot to be "guns blazing".
Yeah, but I'm not sure what the hostage takers would think if the SWAT arrived, just for them to throw all their guns into a large bonfire in front of the library.
Refusing to do work with Saudi Arabia now would accomplish nothing.
It would be harder for Saudi Arabia to acquire computers, or at least the computers they want. And it would be much easier for people in this country to boycott the few computer makers who do business with Saudi Arabia. But if everyone just says "oh well, it's not my problem, it takes the power out of consumers hands, because there are no alternatives."
We were able to do this in the 1980s with South African apartheid. Boycotted companies doing direct business with South Africa. It become enough that much of the international community was able to impose sanctions, and apartheid crumbled. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia is a backwards country filled with "true believers," so I doubt international pressure would have that much effect.
Wall Street refers to the US financial system in general. Silicon Valley has never been a metonym for the whole computer industry, not even the computer industry of California.
Slashdot Mirror
Sheesh give me a chance here, it was a shitpost as stated. They get full time pay, it's rather discouraging!
Do you get paid in shit then? Sounds like a shit job.
I love the references Tolkien put in the Lord of the Rings.
As a friend put it in parody review:
SAM: Let’s throw some faggots on the fire!
PIPPIN: Won’t that word totally scare the crap out of people who momentarily forgot that it used to have another meaning?
SAM: Surely!
PIPPIN: THEN MAKE SURE TO USE IT IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.
I'm not sure what MSNBC is except the biggest, most well known left-wing troll on planet Earth
Ehhhh, I don't know about that. No one watches MSNBC. I'd give that award to Huffington Post, maybe? Village Voice? The left-wing stuff seems far more spread out and less centralized.
But Fox's numbers are only impressive when compared against other cable news channels, which most people don't care about. Hell, more people probably see Fox clips on the Daily Show than on Fox.
The things that separates Cold Fjord from those people is that he only shows up in NSA related threads on Slashdot and he is so obvious that the only way he isn't a shill for NSA would be if he is a shill for some other nation that is trying really hard to make the US government look bad.
I'd think a real NSA operative wouldn't act so... well, in a way that would make us suspect he's an NSA operative.
Isn't Feinstein the #1 Senator against the right to own firearms?
So? James Brady WAS a Republican and favored strict gun control. Perhaps you've heard of the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act"?
Republicans are more than just about gun control. She has also been very business friendly. Her family has multiple business interests in the City and County of San Francisco. Very little happens there without her say-so, lest it affect her family's business interests. She's also pro-death penalty. She was also very gung-ho about NSA surveillance of American citizens until she realized that the NSA was also spying on Congress.
I think many of these things are very pro-Democratic Party. Specifically the rich who are also Democrats (somewhat perjoritively referred to as "limousine liberals"). Having business interests, especially your own, pro-death penalty, NSA surveillance, all establishment Democratic (though not leftist, or at least, not far-leftist) interests.
look -- another post full of the economic-policy voodoo "logic" that suggests we can prosper better as a nation by isolating ourselves from trade, contrary not only to theory but to every single example in recorded history
Few countries have ever prospered by restricting "trade," but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about immigration to displace US workers, and I can't think of a country that doesn't have some measures to limit that.
As long as we have millions more people in the US who consume computer-powered services than earn their living producing them, the population as a whole will prosper better by having those services done at a lower cost
Great theory! Unfortunately the reality we've seen is that jobs are lost for domestic workers, and then not replaced by other jobs. I would say this is a version of the trickle-down theory, because all it does is drive wages down, increasing corporate profits at the expense of workers. We're still waiting for the great wave of prosperity that this practice is supposed to bring.
A use it or lose it clause should be added to copyright law.
But then Disney couldn't remove movies from circulation to put into their Vault for limited-time re-releases later.
Conspiracy Theory idiots will make conspiracy theories about anything.
Why don't you make conspiracy theories about the school system that fucked up your science education so badly?
There are a lot of idiots on the Internet who repeat Chomsky quotes without thinking them through, but I'll admit this one is pretty good.
That's what happens when a good amount of one burning building collapses on top of another. WTC7? That's your smoking gun?
Hopefully he'll become an example that deters others
The only way to deter his kind would be if you could prove he was denied entrance to paradise. And if you could do that, well... Well, the Tsarnaevs of the world would be just the very beginning. :D
Most trials are biased against the defendant because most defendants that go to trial are, in fact, guilty. Most police and prosecutors do try to catch the actual perpetrators of crimes-- and don't typically proceed to trial unless the evidence supports at least a reasonable chance of getting a guilty verdict.
Tell that to the guy who just got released from death row 10 YEARS after the evidence came forth that he was innocent.
Hey, it ain't perfect. There's a lot that needs fixing, a lot of room for improvement.
Your example of a wrongfully-convicted death row inmate does not invalidate the GP's assertion that MOST people convicted actually committed the crime they were being tried for.
My comment was about how little the defense team did to try and get him off
There was no chance, and trying to do so would probably have gotten pushback from the court. Judges can tell when you're intentionally wasting their time, and they usually don't like it.
He was seen on camera with the backpack. He freely admitted (before the police ever caught him) to doing it.
It was absolutely obvious. The defense could try for one thing, and one thing only: keep them out of the electric chair. If the defense chose the "Oh, he didn't do it" argument, then they would lose. Worse yet, they wouldn't have the chance of making the "he was a kid manipulated into doing it by his older brother" argument to try to avoid the death penalty.
You can't do both, the latter undercuts the former.
Manufacturers should be investing in security
But they won't, until consumers choose a security-first mindset, which they won't.
but me avoiding IoT devices that I find useful over security issues is pretty pointless
Thanks for contributing to a less secure world! Yes, that's snarky, but the IoT so far has shown little upside in favor of creating yet more attack vectors. I like opening my fridge knowing that there's NO possibility that some worm found it's way in and raised the temperature, and now the food is spoiled. I don't need an internet-connected coffee pot, or oven, or any of things. Better yet, my regular devices don't slowly use energy all the time -- we should be looking for ways to reduce energy, not create more standby power draws so that advertisers can find out more about our personal lives.
Like they coronated her in 2008?
Point taken, but there's no Barack Obama waiting in the wings. He burst onto the scene with the very well regarded keynote in 2004, and I haven't seen any Democratic candidate create that sort of a splash. Maybe Elizabeth Warren, but she's formally declined to run.
Look who has declared so far for the Democratic Party: Jeff Boss (conspiracy theorist), Vermin Supreme (performance artist), and Robby Wells (former football coach). Wow.
I think Biden has little chance. Bernie Sanders, maybe. Jim Webb, perhaps.
Jeb is a long way from being nominated.
Well, who do they have so far?
Ted Cruz? He's a male Palin.
Lindsey Graham? I'd be surprised if he ran, but that might shake things up in an interesting way.
Rand Paul? Too extreme; I'm pretty sure I'd never be able to follow a devotee of Ayn Rand.
Chris Christie? Maybe. Not exactly a uniter, is he?
Donald Trump? Great great fodder for late-night comedians, a joke all around.
Rick Perry? I kindof like the guy, but he had his chance in 2012 and blew it in the debates. Then again, Nixon had his chance and blew it against Kennedy, so maybe there could be life here yet.
Scott Walker? He plays well in ultra-conservative states because he busts unions. No appeal outside of that. What a mistake the Republican Party would make to nominate that guy.
Carly Fiorina? Completely failed as a CEO, couldn't get elected as a senator in her home state. A presidential campaign would be a real hail mary. I don't see the upside here.
Marco Rubio? Maaaaaybe.
Mike Pence? Not after the month he's had.
Rick Santorum? Never in a million years.
There -are- a number of folks that few people have heard of before, it remains to be seen if any of them get any traction.
How is this a defence in any way? The granting of monopoly pushed us closer to Crony Capitalism, period. That government intervention was a mistake — are you trying to solve it with more government intervention?
But you have to grant a monopoly in some way, you can't have ISP A, B, C, and D all tearing up the roads to lay lines, or each ISP stringing their own lines along the shared poles. In some locations the ISP has to run lines underneath private property. Local governments don't allow that for sewer mains and power lines for good reason, the same reasoning applied with TV and phone cables. The only problem is that the service providers get full control over the last mile, allowing them to completely shut out competition. The last mile should be a utility, and ISPs should be competing on equal footing to let the consumer decide.
People want Net Neutrality because ISPs can get away with extortion because they control the lines. Take local infrastructure control away from them.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (or duopolies)
Net neutrality is the small band-aid on top of the open sore that is the regional monopoly. I see no need to breaking up any monopoly/duopoly company, but I think a true solution is eliminating barriers to competition. Back in the good-old-days of dialup, you might have had the choice of half a dozen to a dozen ISPs, all able to service your various Internet access needs.
The "pipe" should be treated like a local utility, with whatever ISP you want, be it AT&T or Verizon or Sonic or Ma's Fish, Chips, and Internet being granted equal access to the lines as an ISP. ISPs should never have been granted line-laying rights.
Will this damage, the loss of an important liberty, help the individual subscribers'? Are you really arguing, corporation, whose CEO is golfing [politico.com] with the President will be seriously inconvenienced by the President-controlled Federal commission? Crony capitalism much?
The President's goes golfing more often with John Boehner. Does that make them buddy-buddy and Obama will do whatever Boehner says?
For a President, golf is just another meeting, but at least making the perfect putt lets him tune out what the other guy is saying from time to time.
Yeah, keep the government's hands off my private contract with a hitman. I want to buy his services, he wants to sell me his services. The government shouldn't get involved! /'casm
Are you seriously unable to see any difference between anarchy and libertarianism?
Honestly, the "Internet Association" is a frickin' industry group.
So whatever the hell they're saying is good is what their members have said is good.
Let's not for a moment think this is anything except what it is ... an organization which is a mouth piece for the corporations which pay for its existence.
The group is made up, among others, of Facebook, Amazon, Good, eBay, etc. They've lobbied in the past for stronger net neutrality rules -- they're the corporate group with the most to gain from Net Neutrality, as opposed to the other corporate group with the most to lose, like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T. They are alarmed, as frankly everyone in favor of Internet freedom should be, at the prospect of the FCC deciding it has regulatory authority over how content on the Internet is delivered. Enforcing net neutrality is fine, but give the FCC an in, and they'll decide they have the authority to regulate other practices on the Internet. They might claim not to be interested in that, but we've seen over and over again that the best way to ensure things like that don't happen is not to give them that power in the first place.
You don't have to fire a shot to be "guns blazing".
Yeah, but I'm not sure what the hostage takers would think if the SWAT arrived, just for them to throw all their guns into a large bonfire in front of the library.
It has for those of us that don't live there and don't see the difference between one bit of California and another.
I'm not sure, I think the folks from east Texas might be offended at a comparison to California. :-)
Refusing to do work with Saudi Arabia now would accomplish nothing.
It would be harder for Saudi Arabia to acquire computers, or at least the computers they want. And it would be much easier for people in this country to boycott the few computer makers who do business with Saudi Arabia. But if everyone just says "oh well, it's not my problem, it takes the power out of consumers hands, because there are no alternatives."
We were able to do this in the 1980s with South African apartheid. Boycotted companies doing direct business with South Africa. It become enough that much of the international community was able to impose sanctions, and apartheid crumbled. Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia is a backwards country filled with "true believers," so I doubt international pressure would have that much effect.
Wall Street refers to the US financial system in general. Silicon Valley has never been a metonym for the whole computer industry, not even the computer industry of California.