I had a "secret" clearance for decades, and I would regularly see classified reports about stuff that had been in the newspaper months before. Even more ridiculous, some of these reports were reporting that a newspaper had reported on a report that was not supposed to be reported on.
I had a DoE Q clearance for a little over a decade with SCI for part of that. I did see information that was classified published publicly. I also saw information published publicly that would have been classified if it was accurate. Confirmation of the information, true or false, was classified as it should be.
Nearly all classified information is mundane garbage that nobody cares about.
I'll agree with that, but there are very important exceptions.
Sunglasses even when I'm using my own phone. It's only a matter of time before we see apps demanding access to the camera so that they can detect "eyes-on-ads". That'll be a sad day.
FB should be a communication tool and not snoop on the content of non-public (i.e. privacy set to anything but "public") communications.
That made me chuckle. Anything you post to FB, you're volunteering to them. It will be mined and used 'against' you. Your job is to sit back and get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected. Just keep feeding them info while they perfect their 'b0s0z0ku' model. It's not really snooping if they tell you up front that you're the product.
Piracy certainly simplifies things. BeyondTV was doing this at least a decade ago. It identified commercials and flagged them for a single-button skip (rather than deleting part of your recording), but it detected commercials in the video you'd recorded automatically.
I use Plex all the time, but not for anything with commercials. Everything I play using Plex has already had commercials removed. What are people 'Plexing' that has commercials?
Many phone companies have a written policy of releasing customer data only when legally compelled to do so.
I believe the issue is how they behave when they get a request that isn't necessarily 'legally compelling'. I have a personal policy of turning over anything that I'm legally compelled to turn over, but that doesn't mean that I blindly comply with every request just because it comes from a government representative.
My apartment complex recently banned smoking inside apartments. The rationale was that the smoke could travel through electrical outlets endangering other residents' clean air. I don't know whether they've bought into the BS or whether there's some other actual motive. The Truth ads even make more sense than second-hand smoke through electrical outlets.
So what can the consumer be accused of? Intent of having dirty thoughts?
Pretty much. Like AmiMoJo points out above, in the UK the same catalog could be legal for the person buying his daughter a bathing suit, but illegal for the guy spanking to it.
"Renting" movies is when you put on your Walkman, ride your skateboard down to Blockbuster, and pay to borrow something that the rest of the world pays to stream or downloads for free.
Netflix's DVD library is pretty extensive compared to the streaming services, but so is TPB's.
Presumably anyone whose intent they can 'prove'; creator, distributor, or consumer. I can't think of a fair way of establishing intent that doesn't involve somebody declaring it themselves.
If they are gambling, then kids shouldn't be allowed to buy Magic packs...
Have you been to a modern video arcade? When I was a kid, there were plenty of machines waiting to trade game play for tasty quarters. At some (like pizza shops), there might also be skeet ball to play for tickets to trade for pencil erasers and such. They've evolved into casinos for kids. You can still trade quarters (tokens now) for game play, but a lot of the machines are trading tokens for chances at ever increasing ticket payouts. Many have no 'game' involved. You're not even trying to put a ball in the right hole or compete; You're just guessing, for example, "Will the puff of air I buy be enough to pop this giant balloon?" All of this is to win tickets for prizes. Apparently since there's no cash payout, this is legal.
The question isn't "Is buying Magic packs gambling?", it's "To what degree should we let our children gamble?"
Nobody would be stupid enough to believe that pills are going to cure their cancer. That requires magnets and crystals. A little pricey if you want them charged and balanced to conform to your chakra, but cheaper than chemo. Prayer is cheaper, but a proper faith healer might want a donation.
He's bred, the genes are passed on. He has proven he is fit enough to procreate, which is all Darwin suggests.
Unless I missed it, TFA says nothing about him having children. Do you know something we don't? Even if he does, there's nothing stopping him from having more. This stunt could be all it takes to win him a buxom young 30-year-old to carry his seed. 61 isn't too old for a man to reproduce.
Misapplying Darwinian theory is one of the reasons people don't believe science.
Maybe there's something to a steam powered booster that makes it more attractive/economical than a traditional rocket - this could be the next 10x reduction in launch costs.
Maybe one day we'll have the tech to test unmanned rockets.
Slashdot Mirror
Good idea. No secrets. We'll just publish our nuclear weapon designs online so that everyone's on a level playing field.
I had a "secret" clearance for decades, and I would regularly see classified reports about stuff that had been in the newspaper months before. Even more ridiculous, some of these reports were reporting that a newspaper had reported on a report that was not supposed to be reported on.
I had a DoE Q clearance for a little over a decade with SCI for part of that. I did see information that was classified published publicly. I also saw information published publicly that would have been classified if it was accurate. Confirmation of the information, true or false, was classified as it should be.
Nearly all classified information is mundane garbage that nobody cares about.
I'll agree with that, but there are very important exceptions.
Sunglasses even when I'm using my own phone. It's only a matter of time before we see apps demanding access to the camera so that they can detect "eyes-on-ads". That'll be a sad day.
FB should be a communication tool and not snoop on the content of non-public (i.e. privacy set to anything but "public") communications.
That made me chuckle. Anything you post to FB, you're volunteering to them. It will be mined and used 'against' you. Your job is to sit back and get injected, inspected, detected, infected, neglected and selected. Just keep feeding them info while they perfect their 'b0s0z0ku' model. It's not really snooping if they tell you up front that you're the product.
Are you saying that if you're about to get into a car wreck, you should do your best to kill the other driver?
Piracy certainly simplifies things. BeyondTV was doing this at least a decade ago. It identified commercials and flagged them for a single-button skip (rather than deleting part of your recording), but it detected commercials in the video you'd recorded automatically.
I use Plex all the time, but not for anything with commercials. Everything I play using Plex has already had commercials removed. What are people 'Plexing' that has commercials?
Many phone companies have a written policy of releasing customer data only when legally compelled to do so.
I believe the issue is how they behave when they get a request that isn't necessarily 'legally compelling'. I have a personal policy of turning over anything that I'm legally compelled to turn over, but that doesn't mean that I blindly comply with every request just because it comes from a government representative.
My apartment complex recently banned smoking inside apartments. The rationale was that the smoke could travel through electrical outlets endangering other residents' clean air. I don't know whether they've bought into the BS or whether there's some other actual motive. The Truth ads even make more sense than second-hand smoke through electrical outlets.
So what can the consumer be accused of? Intent of having dirty thoughts?
Pretty much. Like AmiMoJo points out above, in the UK the same catalog could be legal for the person buying his daughter a bathing suit, but illegal for the guy spanking to it.
"Renting" movies is when you put on your Walkman, ride your skateboard down to Blockbuster, and pay to borrow something that the rest of the world pays to stream or downloads for free.
Netflix's DVD library is pretty extensive compared to the streaming services, but so is TPB's.
Presumably anyone whose intent they can 'prove'; creator, distributor, or consumer. I can't think of a fair way of establishing intent that doesn't involve somebody declaring it themselves.
There's nothing illegal or unethical about marketing to "jew haters"...
If your business strategy requires you to market to "Jew haters," there might be something unethical about your product.
If they are gambling, then kids shouldn't be allowed to buy Magic packs...
Have you been to a modern video arcade? When I was a kid, there were plenty of machines waiting to trade game play for tasty quarters. At some (like pizza shops), there might also be skeet ball to play for tickets to trade for pencil erasers and such. They've evolved into casinos for kids. You can still trade quarters (tokens now) for game play, but a lot of the machines are trading tokens for chances at ever increasing ticket payouts. Many have no 'game' involved. You're not even trying to put a ball in the right hole or compete; You're just guessing, for example, "Will the puff of air I buy be enough to pop this giant balloon?" All of this is to win tickets for prizes. Apparently since there's no cash payout, this is legal.
The question isn't "Is buying Magic packs gambling?", it's "To what degree should we let our children gamble?"
If that asshole's pacemaker has a minimum bandwidth requirement to keep him safe, there is something critically wrong with that asshole's pacemaker.
Well, is he still sick?
I don't have access to do a physical, but my guess is that he has a fairly severe case of necrosis. He's not well.
Quack: Just take these pills and you'll be fine.
Nobody would be stupid enough to believe that pills are going to cure their cancer. That requires magnets and crystals. A little pricey if you want them charged and balanced to conform to your chakra, but cheaper than chemo. Prayer is cheaper, but a proper faith healer might want a donation.
I could probably use similar data to suggest that title loan businesses are targeting minorities.
Tiny: Volunteer duty!
Cole: I didn't volunteer.
Tiny: You making trouble again?
Cole: No; no trouble.
He's bred, the genes are passed on. He has proven he is fit enough to procreate, which is all Darwin suggests.
Unless I missed it, TFA says nothing about him having children. Do you know something we don't? Even if he does, there's nothing stopping him from having more. This stunt could be all it takes to win him a buxom young 30-year-old to carry his seed. 61 isn't too old for a man to reproduce.
Misapplying Darwinian theory is one of the reasons people don't believe science.
So stop it.
I don't think the burden of proof is particularly strict for your average Flat Earther.
Looks flat from here. Flat Earth proven!
Maybe there's something to a steam powered booster that makes it more attractive/economical than a traditional rocket - this could be the next 10x reduction in launch costs.
Maybe one day we'll have the tech to test unmanned rockets.
...the guy who decided not to stop him...
I'm guessing that guy is you, me, and pretty well everyone else.
I've heard people spout "Taxation is theft" before. This is the first time I've seen someone claim "Taxation is 'slave labor'."
It seems that if I know that I'm only worth $10/hr to an employer, I should be allowed to work rather than being prevented to by minimum wage laws.
There are alternatives.
Leaving the weak to die isn't something a civilized society should do.
Sorry for the self-reply and for quoting myself, but it occurs to me how depressing it is that I made a partisan statement right there.