The ultimate intent of this effort is to bring programming salaries down to burger-flipping money, but instead it might teach kids the value and power of a general-purpose computer, leading to a crash in the demand for walled-garden computing devices. This could also create a more security-aware consumer base which will in turn increase demand for the most highly-skilled programmers, driving salaries up.
The chances of the bomb they set off being a fusion bomb are vanishingly slim. The one they set off was probably another one of their fission bombs or possibly even a huge amount of conventional explosives. An underground test is ideal for hiding the source of the explosion, while if they actually had a fusion bomb, an above-ground explosion would prove it to the world beyond any doubt. So they want the rest of the world to think they have a fusion bomb when they clearly don't.
So it seems that escalating tensions is their intent, and the rest of the world is playing into their hands...didn't any world leaders consider this?
I don't know what was on this site in particular, but I know that there are many darknet forums filled with egregious, very non-jailbait child porn, right down to infants. People find them by word-of-mouth and darknet pages (like the infamous "hard candy" page, a hidden list of child porn.onion sites on The Hidden Wiki).
We're a fucked-up species and a certain proportion of adult humans are sexually attracted to children for some reason...it's clean over 1% even by the most conservative estimates, and 1% of 7.1 billion is 70 million, so there are way more than enough for a forum to have 60k users.
If it makes you feel better, even among these, many "have a conscience" and see CP as one of the least harmful ways to get their rocks off.
*Obviously this, possibly naively, assumes that mandatory police cameras are accompanied by appropriate penalties whenever they happen to 'glitch' during high-profile situations.
This is the big problem (which also exists with police dashcam video). I'm thinking that a good solution might be for police to not be in charge of camera footage at all - leave that to internal affairs. Have the cameras timestamp data and perhaps in the future, transmit hashes of video file sections or even the video itself for secure storage.
They put pressure on capitalist societies (especially the US) to keep inequality down - a major talking point of communist propaganda was the amount of inequality capitalism produced, so capitalist societies went out of their way to keep it from skyrocketing out of control just to make a point to the communists. As soon as that pressure was removed inequality has been on a steady, uninterrupted upward trend.
In a dog-eat-dog world, you end up with one very fat dog. Not always one, sometimes two. Most of the world's beer is made by two megacorporations. Most of the world's cars are made by less than a dozen companies, and a few megacorps have the lion's share among them (Volkswagen Auto Group, General Motors, Toyota). Most of the world's computers are made by Foxconn. It's the same with everything. Capitalism only sort-of works with a small population and lowish amounts of automation, and with a credible communist rival to keep it in check. Outside of capitalism's narrow butterzone, it's just low competition between exploitative megacorps and runaway inequality until the system implodes.
I also hate the way tech has been going for a long time now, towards walled-garden computing, unnecessary use of centralized online systems, user privacy violation, and worker exploitation. A disgusting industry that I hate and would like to get out of now.
But Boycotts and such should not be allowed as a method of showing mere disagreement with someone's opinion, what political views they have, who they choose to hire, or activities outside their business ----- the courts should disallow it as tortious interference, up to, and including putting organizers and participants in jail, if they attempt to organize a boycott against someone merely for having a different opinion.
Let's skip right past the gross violations of free speech and freedom of assembly this would require, and get into the practicalities of enforcing this. Tell me how your anti-boycott laws could deal with the following:
1. An anonymous comment, posted via open wifi through a proxy chain including a darket, says "if you disagree with this buisiness owner's opinion, boycott him!" A boycott follows. How will the organizer or the participants be caught and dealt with?
2. A business owner is caught donating to a homophobic cause. Many individuals, on their own free will and with no association with each other, stop dealing with this business. How will these participants be identified and charged with tortious interference, and how can it be proven in court?
Trying to get people fired from their jobs, kicked out of universities, and even arrested goes way beyond a little civilized disagreement, and well into "persecution."
again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech
Yes, that is ABSOLUTELY what I'm saying (if by "consequences" you mean "persecution"). I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the United States we do, in fact, have clear protections in both cases. Both the right to free speech and protection from racial discrimination are considered "civil rights" that all U.S. citizens enjoy (along with freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and many others).
You can't get a person arrested for saying bigoted things (unless they've violated some hate speech law) else Trump would be in prison already, and whether you call it persecution or not makes no difference legally or morally. Now let's examine what would be needed to enable your special protections.
Let's use the case of Brendan Eich. To keep him in his job, we would need to make it illegal for people to boycott Mozilla due to his opinions & actions. Maybe by forcing them to continue business based on some previous average, and by having hearings with a government "anti-persecution" tribunal to justify future changes in business? We'd need to censor people from voicing negative opinions about Brendan Eich...just censor them all. And I assume we'd need to find a way to make sure they'd be boycotting/verbally disapproving of him because of his homophobic stance instead of, say, because he likes polo shirts, which I assume would not receive special protection. That's a lot of government control, censorship, and intrusion needed where none was involved before.
Now let's look at a totally hypothetical situation. The owner of the shop where you buy tires is caught funding a group you vehemently disapprove of. Do you want to stop giving him business and say that you disagree? Too bad, his speech gets special protection from your "persecution." You must continue to indirectly fund this group by buying a set of tires every 4 years in accordance with your previous business. If you want to buy tires he doesn't sell, you have to go before the anti-persecution tribunal and argue your case. Is this what you want?
And yes you can verbally disapprove of and boycott a business based solely on someone's political affiliation if you like. Many people do this already with Koch-owned businesses or movies starring actors with certain political positions. There is nothing in US law currently protecting your opinions, I challenge you to find any law that says otherwise.
Haha so boycotts and legal, nonviolent shunning are the same as racially-motivated violence to you? And then you imply that expressed opinions are equivalent to race, again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech - just like we protect people from racial discrimination. But opinions are not like ethnicity. You can safely change them or keep them private. That's why we don't treat opinions the same way.
What Social Injustice Enthusiasts call "SJWs" are not actually some cabal of activists, but an anthropomorphism of the societal consequences that free speech may carry. Social Injustice Enthusiasts want special immunity from these consequences.
For some reason SIEs perceive the greater consequences in recent times, where both the targeted group and non-targeted groups get involved at a massive scale, as a completely separate phenomenon to boycotts and shunning in the past where only the targeted group and a small core of non-targeted supporters were involved, and as such carried lesser consequences.
BTW, "SJW" is just the modern, general-purpose descendant of "nigger-lover." Mark my words.
Well unless your computer is inside a secure cabinet preventing access to its internal components and any firewire ports, you DO need to have an armed guard at your computer 24/7 if you don't trust everyone who could have physical access to it. A bootloader password is of no use on a physically unsecured computer.
A person standing in front of a computer without proper credentials could also access the boot selection menu (immediately before the bootloader menu), boot from a USB drive/CD/floppy/network device, and mount your hard drive for the purpose of stealing files and/or planting malware.
A bootloader password could only be useful on a computer inside a secure cabinet with a BIOS password that also protects boot device selection - and even then, full-disk encryption seems like a safer bet if you want to keep unauthorized users from booting your computer.
If Google can't control what people post on the Internet, Bill Gates should be able to block them from the Internet entirely. This guy should talk to Bill Gates, and say that Donald Trump sent him!
This story sounds very questionable. If they were selling music for use in commercial videos, rather than to consumers, how could their income go down with piracy? Using their music in commercial videos without permission would mean a major payday for your musician friends in court and massive loss for the people who pirated the music. They were wasting their time with the wrong target at best.
Exactly, this is a very common tactic, whenever you hear "X will create Y jobs" without greater detail, you can be sure that Y is a hilariously overinflated estimate that includes anyone who could possibly have anything to do with the setup or running of X, right down to the guy who shows up once to install the sign on the building. This deception benefits everyone except the working class.
Also it's a very obscure and generally unimportant feature. The only way a bootloader password could provide meaningful security is on a computer in a secure kiosk, where random users can get to the keyboard and but not the insides.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds closer to the "Crime Coefficient" from Psycho-Pass.
They lost a run-of-the-mill cold-war-era missile!?!? ZOMG TEH SECRET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES!!1uno
The ultimate intent of this effort is to bring programming salaries down to burger-flipping money, but instead it might teach kids the value and power of a general-purpose computer, leading to a crash in the demand for walled-garden computing devices. This could also create a more security-aware consumer base which will in turn increase demand for the most highly-skilled programmers, driving salaries up.
The chances of the bomb they set off being a fusion bomb are vanishingly slim. The one they set off was probably another one of their fission bombs or possibly even a huge amount of conventional explosives. An underground test is ideal for hiding the source of the explosion, while if they actually had a fusion bomb, an above-ground explosion would prove it to the world beyond any doubt. So they want the rest of the world to think they have a fusion bomb when they clearly don't.
So it seems that escalating tensions is their intent, and the rest of the world is playing into their hands...didn't any world leaders consider this?
I don't know what was on this site in particular, but I know that there are many darknet forums filled with egregious, very non-jailbait child porn, right down to infants. People find them by word-of-mouth and darknet pages (like the infamous "hard candy" page, a hidden list of child porn .onion sites on The Hidden Wiki).
We're a fucked-up species and a certain proportion of adult humans are sexually attracted to children for some reason...it's clean over 1% even by the most conservative estimates, and 1% of 7.1 billion is 70 million, so there are way more than enough for a forum to have 60k users.
If it makes you feel better, even among these, many "have a conscience" and see CP as one of the least harmful ways to get their rocks off.
*Obviously this, possibly naively, assumes that mandatory police cameras are accompanied by appropriate penalties whenever they happen to 'glitch' during high-profile situations.
This is the big problem (which also exists with police dashcam video). I'm thinking that a good solution might be for police to not be in charge of camera footage at all - leave that to internal affairs. Have the cameras timestamp data and perhaps in the future, transmit hashes of video file sections or even the video itself for secure storage.
It's way older than me and I've never used it and didn't know what CP/M stood for, but even I'm vaguely aware that it's an ancient operating system.
Beaten, I was just going to say that Jarvis - (personality+prediction) = PocketSphinx + Jasper + Hubot.
They put pressure on capitalist societies (especially the US) to keep inequality down - a major talking point of communist propaganda was the amount of inequality capitalism produced, so capitalist societies went out of their way to keep it from skyrocketing out of control just to make a point to the communists. As soon as that pressure was removed inequality has been on a steady, uninterrupted upward trend.
In a dog-eat-dog world, you end up with one very fat dog. Not always one, sometimes two. Most of the world's beer is made by two megacorporations. Most of the world's cars are made by less than a dozen companies, and a few megacorps have the lion's share among them (Volkswagen Auto Group, General Motors, Toyota). Most of the world's computers are made by Foxconn. It's the same with everything. Capitalism only sort-of works with a small population and lowish amounts of automation, and with a credible communist rival to keep it in check. Outside of capitalism's narrow butterzone, it's just low competition between exploitative megacorps and runaway inequality until the system implodes.
I also hate the way tech has been going for a long time now, towards walled-garden computing, unnecessary use of centralized online systems, user privacy violation, and worker exploitation. A disgusting industry that I hate and would like to get out of now.
But Boycotts and such should not be allowed as a method of showing mere disagreement with someone's opinion, what political views they have, who they choose to hire, or activities outside their business ----- the courts should disallow it as tortious interference, up to, and including putting organizers and participants in jail, if they attempt to organize a boycott against someone merely for having a different opinion.
Let's skip right past the gross violations of free speech and freedom of assembly this would require, and get into the practicalities of enforcing this. Tell me how your anti-boycott laws could deal with the following:
1. An anonymous comment, posted via open wifi through a proxy chain including a darket, says "if you disagree with this buisiness owner's opinion, boycott him!" A boycott follows. How will the organizer or the participants be caught and dealt with?
2. A business owner is caught donating to a homophobic cause. Many individuals, on their own free will and with no association with each other, stop dealing with this business. How will these participants be identified and charged with tortious interference, and how can it be proven in court?
Trying to get people fired from their jobs, kicked out of universities, and even arrested goes way beyond a little civilized disagreement, and well into "persecution."
again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech
Yes, that is ABSOLUTELY what I'm saying (if by "consequences" you mean "persecution"). I'm not sure what country you're from. But in the United States we do, in fact, have clear protections in both cases. Both the right to free speech and protection from racial discrimination are considered "civil rights" that all U.S. citizens enjoy (along with freedom of religion, freedom to assemble and many others).
You can't get a person arrested for saying bigoted things (unless they've violated some hate speech law) else Trump would be in prison already, and whether you call it persecution or not makes no difference legally or morally. Now let's examine what would be needed to enable your special protections.
Let's use the case of Brendan Eich. To keep him in his job, we would need to make it illegal for people to boycott Mozilla due to his opinions & actions. Maybe by forcing them to continue business based on some previous average, and by having hearings with a government "anti-persecution" tribunal to justify future changes in business? We'd need to censor people from voicing negative opinions about Brendan Eich...just censor them all. And I assume we'd need to find a way to make sure they'd be boycotting/verbally disapproving of him because of his homophobic stance instead of, say, because he likes polo shirts, which I assume would not receive special protection. That's a lot of government control, censorship, and intrusion needed where none was involved before.
Now let's look at a totally hypothetical situation. The owner of the shop where you buy tires is caught funding a group you vehemently disapprove of. Do you want to stop giving him business and say that you disagree? Too bad, his speech gets special protection from your "persecution." You must continue to indirectly fund this group by buying a set of tires every 4 years in accordance with your previous business. If you want to buy tires he doesn't sell, you have to go before the anti-persecution tribunal and argue your case. Is this what you want?
And yes you can verbally disapprove of and boycott a business based solely on someone's political affiliation if you like. Many people do this already with Koch-owned businesses or movies starring actors with certain political positions. There is nothing in US law currently protecting your opinions, I challenge you to find any law that says otherwise.
So is a crime-free world, but it doesn't keep us from trying to get as close as we can.
Haha so boycotts and legal, nonviolent shunning are the same as racially-motivated violence to you? And then you imply that expressed opinions are equivalent to race, again suggesting that you should have special protection from the consequences of this speech - just like we protect people from racial discrimination. But opinions are not like ethnicity. You can safely change them or keep them private. That's why we don't treat opinions the same way.
What Social Injustice Enthusiasts call "SJWs" are not actually some cabal of activists, but an anthropomorphism of the societal consequences that free speech may carry. Social Injustice Enthusiasts want special immunity from these consequences.
For some reason SIEs perceive the greater consequences in recent times, where both the targeted group and non-targeted groups get involved at a massive scale, as a completely separate phenomenon to boycotts and shunning in the past where only the targeted group and a small core of non-targeted supporters were involved, and as such carried lesser consequences.
BTW, "SJW" is just the modern, general-purpose descendant of "nigger-lover." Mark my words.
Well unless your computer is inside a secure cabinet preventing access to its internal components and any firewire ports, you DO need to have an armed guard at your computer 24/7 if you don't trust everyone who could have physical access to it. A bootloader password is of no use on a physically unsecured computer.
A person standing in front of a computer without proper credentials could also access the boot selection menu (immediately before the bootloader menu), boot from a USB drive/CD/floppy/network device, and mount your hard drive for the purpose of stealing files and/or planting malware.
A bootloader password could only be useful on a computer inside a secure cabinet with a BIOS password that also protects boot device selection - and even then, full-disk encryption seems like a safer bet if you want to keep unauthorized users from booting your computer.
If Google can't control what people post on the Internet, Bill Gates should be able to block them from the Internet entirely. This guy should talk to Bill Gates, and say that Donald Trump sent him!
Yep, just like health care and gun laws :-P
There is one street in SF which is a well-known mass hobo bathroom (don't remember the name of it). I guess he ran into that one.
This story sounds very questionable. If they were selling music for use in commercial videos, rather than to consumers, how could their income go down with piracy? Using their music in commercial videos without permission would mean a major payday for your musician friends in court and massive loss for the people who pirated the music. They were wasting their time with the wrong target at best.
Exactly, this is a very common tactic, whenever you hear "X will create Y jobs" without greater detail, you can be sure that Y is a hilariously overinflated estimate that includes anyone who could possibly have anything to do with the setup or running of X, right down to the guy who shows up once to install the sign on the building. This deception benefits everyone except the working class.
roman_mir is a landlord!? 8-(
FSM help his tenants...
Also it's a very obscure and generally unimportant feature. The only way a bootloader password could provide meaningful security is on a computer in a secure kiosk, where random users can get to the keyboard and but not the insides.
Book's available for free now...on the phone it goes!
https://archive.org/details/Ru...
Bwahaha serves the idiot DRM-purchasers right!