Let me introduce you to Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley elementary school teacher who is on video inciting violence at protests. She is heavily involved in an organization called "By Any Means Necessary," which advocates that "fascism" must not be allowed to take root in Berkeley and that, well, it is what it says it is -- fascism is to be fought by any means necessary. Amusingly, she is a teacher at Martin Luther King Jr Middle School, named after a role model for non-violent protest, yet she feels it is totally justified in physically assaulting white nationalists while screaming "get the fuck off our streets." After the Milo riots in Berkeley where she did the same thing, she grabbed more of the spotlight. While most of the Black Block is camera shy and hide their identities as much as possible, Felarca was brazen enough to go onto Sean Hannity's program where she said it was totally fine to block, with any means necessary, the free speech rights of people she called "fascists, homophobes, and racists," with herself, of course, being the arbiter of who is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
If you don't believe in totally open borders and total amnesty for illegal immigrants, you're a racist. If you are not in favor of affirmative action, you're a racist.
I feel like Ajit is totally out of touch with how broadband works in reality. Most market areas have little to no competition at all, and broadband providers get monopoly or duopoly power in their regions. How is this somehow a competitive market?
Is he being disingenuous enough to call satellite links broadband? Or cell phone plans, are those somehow "broadband" that covers a household now?
With the WWII generation dead, people have forgotten how evil the Nazis really were.
Nazi leadership were dispicable, but it's really only movies that have taught us that Nazis were, to a man, inhumanly evil. It's fun having a cardboard villain, but hardly enlightening as to what people were like.
Heck, 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union, we have a new generation of people who think that socialism is all hunky dory
Why, it's almost as if with the passage of time we can look at things objectively rather than fall for the hysteria and propaganda of the day!
And yet MLB.tv won't let me stream my local team unless I subscribe to the cable channel which carries them.
This sort of thing is usually not up to them. They are required to require a cable subscription because that agreement was the only way to get onto the cable networks in the first place.
It's also why, say, HBO for many years did not have a streaming offering that wasn't also tied to a cable subscription. Fuck the cable companies, their strongarm contract negotiations can screw you over even if you're not their customers.
No you won't, you irresponsible twat. You'll bitch and moan and demand they be arrested and try to sue. If you were someone who took action, your little fucking shits wouldn't be running around to the point where someone decided they needed to be punted away.
I wish that were true, but I've seen personally a number of parents who don't seem to care about what their kids are doing and are fine with letting them run around and annoy people as but if you object, hoooooooly shit, they will do anything to protect their precious spoiled babies!
"part of journalism is, in fact, writing down what the subject tells you"
But just one part, otherwise you're a stenographer.
Perhaps, but I think there's a difference between regular "tell what someone said" journalism and investigative, fact-checking journalism.
The collapse of the newspaper industry has almost eliminated the latter, news departments have very little investigative capabilities, and they're owned by entities that are not interested in that type of journalism anymore.
If the professor is relying on comments on Social Media, then he is being mislead. Twitter has close to half a million fake accounts [bbc.com]
Well, part of the professor's point is that we're getting the same story from multiple "sources" and thus it seems more plausible, when those sources are more likely fake accounts that are pulling from the same initial fake-news source. That is, it's easier to dismiss the one crazy person, but maybe a little harder when it seems like a ton of "people" (not actually people) are 'reporting' what the crazy-sound person said.
"That's the ehart of conservatism in America - a government without the power to fuck you."
Care to explain the browser history vote yesterday then?
The browser history vote was an explicit rejection that the government should be able to set rules about how ISPs operate. It was a removal of power from government hands.
I'd imagine with information like that we could successfully alienate every constituent group
It won't alienate me. I couldn't care less what my congressperson Googles. I also don't care what TV shows he watches, how many interns he screws, which email server he uses, or how many pussies he grabs. Here is a complete, exhaustive list of the things I DO care about:
1. His voting record
Congresspeople, especially socially conservative ones, have gotten a LOT of mileage over crowing about how pure and morally upstanding they are, and how much better they are as God-fearing people. The Congressman who passes anti-gay legislation and then views gay porn sites between bouts of self-loathing. The Congressman who detests birth control but loves his bareback videos. They get a lot from private life secrecy.
just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.
Just because their ISPs can sell their information doesn't mean they will.
Oh you sweet summer child.
I think his point was that they will absolutely sell YOUR private information. But their own Congressman's? A little less likely. It's easier to pass regulations if you get "special treatment."
Further, even if Putin himself leaked Hillary's emails, so fucking what? Notice how they never disputed the veracity of any of it
Both sides have dirty secrets. If you leak only one side's secrets, then you are giving the other side an unfair advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's true, that's the beauty of it, you've already created an imbalance.
Russians infiltrating the White House is pretty darn serious.
That's exaggeration, great exaggeration, and that's not what the charges are. The charges are that Russians have undue -influence-, a far cry from infiltration. For instance, Russians hacking email systems to release damaging secrets on Democrats is undue influence. Putin wanting a friendlier voice in the White House and benefiting that candidate is undue influence, but it didn't need (and would have been really stupid to try) collusion with Trump and his team.
Not if the VPN service's subscribers don't know the VPN service is selling their data.
The problem is that if you sell customer A's data to X, Y, and Z and others who want it, it's hard to keep that bottled up so that the information never gets back to customer A. The more people who know about a secret, the harder that secret is to keep. Sure, it can happen, but it's difficult.
For all their empty talk of "freedom", the Republican party sure seems to love authoritarian rule.
Randians (especially) and Libertarians have this fantasy of a free market, that an enlightened populace will choose the best value. This doesn't happen in practice, but it's why they detest a government telling them how to sell and how to do things, but they're totally fine with "huge conglomerate X" dictating terms that the little guy can't fight against. For them, if you're doing business with "huge conglomerate X," it's because you like them and you want to. They believe that absolute government hands-off means that the companies will reflect the actual will of the people because otherwise people would take their business elsewhere.
A few months ago when the executive branch was held by the Democratic Party. This article is about the legislative branch undoing those executive actions.
This was a regulation pushed by an unelected bureaucrat,
He reports to the President. Unelected bureaucrat means nothing, he was appointed by the President and reported directly to President Obama. One of the big criticisms of Tom Wheeler that people against Net Neutrality said ofhim was that under presidential pressure, he changed his stance on net neutrality from somewhat anti-net-neutral (or neutral-agnostic) to pro-net-neutrality after Obama publicly called for ISPs to be classified as common carriers.
Right, and ISPs and municipalities get away with it because they know that no one in their right mind is going to sell their house and move because their ISP monopoly sucks.
But you can use Google anonymously. You can go to google.com, block any cookies and scripts, don't have any google signon, and you can still use their search just fine.
There is no more competition, companies are merging like mad, and when a giant multinational corporation or bank fails the government bails them out with taxpayer's money.
I partially blame "retirement plans" for this. We all have our retirement plans diversified over the economy, and when if an enormous corporation sinks, we all take a big hit. They have to bail out giant companies because the fallout from that economic crater would impact people who can't afford it. At least it's better than the pension system, where if a company went belly up all its former workers would lose all their retirement.
Hmm, no, what we tell you is that https does not do nearly as much to protect your privacy as you might expect. Traffic analysis on the metadata alone is enough to even isolate which objects you are receiving/sending depending on exactly what site you are connecting to, and likewise may leak what site you are connecting to.
Also, the ISP can actively MITM *every* connection, allowing for automated, orchestrated attacks against any PKI we might attempt to deploy to work around the fact that it is trivial to bypass the https CA system against joe-random user (by simply replacing x509 certificates in-transit). DNSSEC (NSEC3) might help, but it is not nearly widespread enough to. And now, it is even more unlikely that it will ever be.
Also, so many websites fuck up their own certificates and web servers so often that it's far, far more likely that when you see your web browser screaming at you that something is wrong with the certs that you'll just ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I disagree, it does not make any sense.
Let me introduce you to Yvette Felarca, a Berkeley elementary school teacher who is on video inciting violence at protests. She is heavily involved in an organization called "By Any Means Necessary," which advocates that "fascism" must not be allowed to take root in Berkeley and that, well, it is what it says it is -- fascism is to be fought by any means necessary. Amusingly, she is a teacher at Martin Luther King Jr Middle School, named after a role model for non-violent protest, yet she feels it is totally justified in physically assaulting white nationalists while screaming "get the fuck off our streets." After the Milo riots in Berkeley where she did the same thing, she grabbed more of the spotlight. While most of the Black Block is camera shy and hide their identities as much as possible, Felarca was brazen enough to go onto Sean Hannity's program where she said it was totally fine to block, with any means necessary, the free speech rights of people she called "fascists, homophobes, and racists," with herself, of course, being the arbiter of who is racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
If you don't believe in totally open borders and total amnesty for illegal immigrants, you're a racist.
If you are not in favor of affirmative action, you're a racist.
I feel like Ajit is totally out of touch with how broadband works in reality. Most market areas have little to no competition at all, and broadband providers get monopoly or duopoly power in their regions. How is this somehow a competitive market?
Is he being disingenuous enough to call satellite links broadband? Or cell phone plans, are those somehow "broadband" that covers a household now?
I would much prefer the latter, thank you, but leave my uncle out of this.
With the WWII generation dead, people have forgotten how evil the Nazis really were.
Nazi leadership were dispicable, but it's really only movies that have taught us that Nazis were, to a man, inhumanly evil. It's fun having a cardboard villain, but hardly enlightening as to what people were like.
Heck, 25 years after the end of the Soviet Union, we have a new generation of people who think that socialism is all hunky dory
Why, it's almost as if with the passage of time we can look at things objectively rather than fall for the hysteria and propaganda of the day!
And yet MLB.tv won't let me stream my local team unless I subscribe to the cable channel which carries them.
This sort of thing is usually not up to them. They are required to require a cable subscription because that agreement was the only way to get onto the cable networks in the first place.
It's also why, say, HBO for many years did not have a streaming offering that wasn't also tied to a cable subscription. Fuck the cable companies, their strongarm contract negotiations can screw you over even if you're not their customers.
In my experience, that makes them noisier.
Then you do it again. Or take this approach: The Cure for ADHD
No you won't, you irresponsible twat. You'll bitch and moan and demand they be arrested and try to sue. If you were someone who took action, your little fucking shits wouldn't be running around to the point where someone decided they needed to be punted away.
I wish that were true, but I've seen personally a number of parents who don't seem to care about what their kids are doing and are fine with letting them run around and annoy people as but if you object, hoooooooly shit, they will do anything to protect their precious spoiled babies!
"part of journalism is, in fact, writing down what the subject tells you"
But just one part, otherwise you're a stenographer.
Perhaps, but I think there's a difference between regular "tell what someone said" journalism and investigative, fact-checking journalism.
The collapse of the newspaper industry has almost eliminated the latter, news departments have very little investigative capabilities, and they're owned by entities that are not interested in that type of journalism anymore.
If the professor is relying on comments on Social Media, then he is being mislead. Twitter has close to half a million fake accounts [bbc.com]
Well, part of the professor's point is that we're getting the same story from multiple "sources" and thus it seems more plausible, when those sources are more likely fake accounts that are pulling from the same initial fake-news source. That is, it's easier to dismiss the one crazy person, but maybe a little harder when it seems like a ton of "people" (not actually people) are 'reporting' what the crazy-sound person said.
No, Flash was a resource hog.
Computers getting faster just meant flash had more CPU cycles to suck up without doing work.
"That's the ehart of conservatism in America - a government without the power to fuck you."
Care to explain the browser history vote yesterday then?
The browser history vote was an explicit rejection that the government should be able to set rules about how ISPs operate. It was a removal of power from government hands.
MPAA: "You're an evil pirate. You'll be caught, fined and jailed. We have the finest government enforcement agents money can buy. Fuck you."
Man, even their haikus suck.
I'd imagine with information like that we could successfully alienate every constituent group
It won't alienate me. I couldn't care less what my congressperson Googles. I also don't care what TV shows he watches, how many interns he screws, which email server he uses, or how many pussies he grabs. Here is a complete, exhaustive list of the things I DO care about:
1. His voting record
Congresspeople, especially socially conservative ones, have gotten a LOT of mileage over crowing about how pure and morally upstanding they are, and how much better they are as God-fearing people. The Congressman who passes anti-gay legislation and then views gay porn sites between bouts of self-loathing. The Congressman who detests birth control but loves his bareback videos. They get a lot from private life secrecy.
just like every other law congress passes, it doesn't apply to them.
Just because their ISPs can sell their information doesn't mean they will.
Oh you sweet summer child.
I think his point was that they will absolutely sell YOUR private information. But their own Congressman's? A little less likely. It's easier to pass regulations if you get "special treatment."
So two options: strengthen the FTC's privacy regs, or gut the FCC's. Wouldn't the former be better than the latter?
Both. But if I had to choose, given the FCC's horrible history in the tech space, I'll definitely choose the latter.
Further, even if Putin himself leaked Hillary's emails, so fucking what? Notice how they never disputed the veracity of any of it
Both sides have dirty secrets. If you leak only one side's secrets, then you are giving the other side an unfair advantage. It doesn't matter whether it's true, that's the beauty of it, you've already created an imbalance.
Russians infiltrating the White House is pretty darn serious.
That's exaggeration, great exaggeration, and that's not what the charges are.
The charges are that Russians have undue -influence-, a far cry from infiltration.
For instance, Russians hacking email systems to release damaging secrets on Democrats is undue influence. Putin wanting a friendlier voice in the White House and benefiting that candidate is undue influence, but it didn't need (and would have been really stupid to try) collusion with Trump and his team.
Not if the VPN service's subscribers don't know the VPN service is selling their data.
The problem is that if you sell customer A's data to X, Y, and Z and others who want it, it's hard to keep that bottled up so that the information never gets back to customer A. The more people who know about a secret, the harder that secret is to keep. Sure, it can happen, but it's difficult.
For all their empty talk of "freedom", the Republican party sure seems to love authoritarian rule.
Randians (especially) and Libertarians have this fantasy of a free market, that an enlightened populace will choose the best value. This doesn't happen in practice, but it's why they detest a government telling them how to sell and how to do things, but they're totally fine with "huge conglomerate X" dictating terms that the little guy can't fight against. For them, if you're doing business with "huge conglomerate X," it's because you like them and you want to. They believe that absolute government hands-off means that the companies will reflect the actual will of the people because otherwise people would take their business elsewhere.
When were the Democrats in power?
A few months ago when the executive branch was held by the Democratic Party. This article is about the legislative branch undoing those executive actions.
This was a regulation pushed by an unelected bureaucrat,
He reports to the President. Unelected bureaucrat means nothing, he was appointed by the President and reported directly to President Obama. One of the big criticisms of Tom Wheeler that people against Net Neutrality said ofhim was that under presidential pressure, he changed his stance on net neutrality from somewhat anti-net-neutral (or neutral-agnostic) to pro-net-neutrality after Obama publicly called for ISPs to be classified as common carriers.
God fucking forbid you update your bias based on this new information. Nice to see everyone still ignores Bayes here.
Both sides are total sellouts, they just sell out to groups that only occasionally overlap.
Right, and ISPs and municipalities get away with it because they know that no one in their right mind is going to sell their house and move because their ISP monopoly sucks.
But you can use Google anonymously. You can go to google.com, block any cookies and scripts, don't have any google signon, and you can still use their search just fine.
There is no more competition, companies are merging like mad, and when a giant multinational corporation or bank fails the government bails them out with taxpayer's money.
I partially blame "retirement plans" for this. We all have our retirement plans diversified over the economy, and when if an enormous corporation sinks, we all take a big hit. They have to bail out giant companies because the fallout from that economic crater would impact people who can't afford it. At least it's better than the pension system, where if a company went belly up all its former workers would lose all their retirement.
"Too big to fail" should mean "too big to exist."
Hmm, no, what we tell you is that https does not do nearly as much to protect your privacy as you might expect. Traffic analysis on the metadata alone is enough to even isolate which objects you are receiving/sending depending on exactly what site you are connecting to, and likewise may leak what site you are connecting to.
Also, the ISP can actively MITM *every* connection, allowing for automated, orchestrated attacks against any PKI we might attempt to deploy to work around the fact that it is trivial to bypass the https CA system against joe-random user (by simply replacing x509 certificates in-transit). DNSSEC (NSEC3) might help, but it is not nearly widespread enough to. And now, it is even more unlikely that it will ever be.
Also, so many websites fuck up their own certificates and web servers so often that it's far, far more likely that when you see your web browser screaming at you that something is wrong with the certs that you'll just ignore it.