Actually there's a third option you're overlooking. Trump was not targeted but the Russians were. If you call someone who's phone is tapped (Russian Diplomat) that doesn't mean YOUR phones have been tapped, but your conversation will still get recorded and logged anyway. Same as if you phone a mobster who's phone has been tapped you're going to get recorded.
This is so true. Back in the late 80's I was so proud of what us geeks were doing to free information. We were naive and ultimately wrong. Now I just feel shame at having participated in the creation of the tools that were (mis?)used to elect Trump. I have no idea how to unf*ck the mess we've made, or even if it's possible to find a technology solution for bots, fake news and state/corporate/government manipulation of social media.
Oh damn you caught me. You're right, I'm on the government payroll and I've been paid to tell you that I think Julian is a slimy weasel.
The truth is I'm not even American, Russian or traditionally employed by anyone. This post is only my opinion, and not a particularly important one at that, but the opinion of one who has the gall to believe you might be wrong. *shrug* At one time this very old school privacy nerd vehemently supported wikileaks, but learned to hate Julian when he, IMHO, jumped the shark with the panama papers. Around then it became obvious to me that his philosophy and mine espoused *very* different interpretations of his supposed driving principle of "information wants to be free". I believe all information on all parties should be treated equally and should be liberated to enact change as it will. Julian clearly believes information is leverage to apply pressure forcing change toward a particular goal he envisions. He has an agenda and it's not, at least by my standards, hacker or cypherpunk compatible and I'd really appreciate it if he kept his slimy hands and suspect narrative off the freed bits and bytes.
FWIW I support Chelsea's release. I think Snowden did the right thing, and believe psyops both exist and are being actively deployed world wide. I feel you might be existing in some weird backwards eddy of internet information if you don't realise that there are currently multiple paid adversaries (US & Russia being only the two largest, DNC & RNC being the most political) that are currently manipulating "grass roots" internet sentiment.
One thing that makes me believe the anti Julian sentiment is real is that it's always been there just modded/scored/deleted/buried below the surface. You just had to go look for it where the bots had buried it so it wasn't so visible. Ever since the end of the election a *lot* of pro-Trump, pro-Russian, pro-Wikileaks accounts have suddenly gone dark across the entire social media landscape, and that has left a lot of people confused because the massive "grass roots" support those ideas once had isn't there and is now easily drowned out by the remaining legitimate accounts, and those once hidden comments/posts are now easily visible. In other words this anti Julian hate has been here for quite some time but was drowned out by all the election propaganda. Of course an alternative explanation is..
I just earned my two dollars (quite a good rate too btw) for attempting to change your mind or at least for sowing doubt in the truth of your post and pushing my alternate narrative. You know, active measures and all that.
If you're really rich and connected, you don't even see the inside of a court room, never mind having to worry about a fair trial. See: Hil^D^DDonald Trump
This is "active measures" consistent and only supports the theory that wikileaks has been compromised. The stated purpose "(to) develop a metric to understand influence networks based on proximity graphs", and presumably shine light on those "hidden relationships/secret collusion" seems on the face noble. But the execution will/is flawed (I believe intentionally). A pillar of Russian propaganda is to sow confusion so that the target no longer has certainly of what is or isn't true and thus is more receptive to intentionally false narratives. There has been a consistent attack on the reputation of main stream media (some of it well deserved, some not) but that the end result has been to further the delegitimizing of western media and/their/ narratives and thus create a vacuum into which alternative and more friendly narratives can take hold.
Make no mistake this is a direct attack on the credibility of main stream reporters and their publications (the majority of which have verified accounts), and gives a free pass to the agent provocateur's who aren't stupid enough to have verified accounts or that have hidden their true identities. I hate being lied to and manipulated as much as the next person but there is a HUGE difference between being lied to by corporate interests for money (who at least require the window dressing of western society to exist) and being lied to by a hostile nation who's end goal is to end the influence of America on the global stage (and will destroy western society to achieve it).
I expect the troll army to pull their regular attack on this post so I've gone anon because I honestly am sick of dealing with them and have found it's best to just ignore them instead of giving them a larger attack surface. Also I'm not even American so I didn't have a political pony in this race or a reason to push my own false narrative. I'm just a/very/ concerned "neighbor" who's own country is in deep shit if you American's don't get your act together.
p.s. there is a reason Russia controls and filters internet access, they know it is impossible to defend against the very type of attack the USA is experiencing now. Perhaps we just need to "pull the plug" on the internet?
I think people are missing something important. Follow this chain of thought and see if it's seems valid:
1) SCO sues IBM for violation of their contract because IBM distributed code that was a DERIVITIVE of SCO owned code.
These facts are not in dispute: that IBM did distribute the code, that the code was derived in some manner from SCO code. The dispute is if IBM had a right to distribute derivitives of SCO code. SCO says no IBM says yes.
2) The GPL is a license (contract between user and copyright holder) that has as it's core the users obligations and rights to DERIVITIVE works of the code covered by copyright.
On the one hand the argument must be that the license cannot (does not, will not) allow the rights of the copyright holder to extend to derivitive works.
On the other hand that the license does allow the rights of the copyright holder to extend to derivitive works.
Boies isn't dumb. If the above conflicting arguments can be framed in the context of copyright law (i.e. either one or the other are permissible under copyright law) then IBM loses.
This I think is the really argument. This Samba/GPL/Linux Code stuff is just a diversion to keep people busy and confused.
Of course this begs the question about HOW commited big blue is to Open Source, are they willing to lose the law suit and argue for the GPL if it comes to that?
Jeeze, like learn some math already. I keep seeing the "14% of pop. is black, 16% of Gore votes were from blacks" election rhetoric in the comments for this article. This although factually true, is intended to be misleading.
It doesn't mean a thing! If we asssume for the sake of argument that half the remaing races in the state ( 86% of pop. so 1/2 is 43%) voted for gore we can see quite handlily that they obviously represent more than 43% of the people of other races that voted for Gore (the remainder being 100%-16%=84%)
So... to recap: Apples =! Oranges
An interesting implication of your bad math if followed to it's logical conclusion would be:
Assuming NO blacks voted for Bush (not all that unlikely) then 86% of the Population of Florida is non-black yet non-blacks represent 100% of the votes Bush recieved, where did he get those extra votes from? FRAUD! I tell you FRAUD!
25% of American Pop. Doesn't Live in Urban Area's
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
According to the data on this page 25% of the Canadian and American population don't live in urban areas. The definition of urban is a population center greater than 2000 people, which in itself isn't very large. The most interesting statistic is that more than half the world population doesn't live in an urban area. To say that the percentage of people that live in rural area's is so small as to be irrelevant is wrong.
Now on the rural vs. urban topic it is true that urban dwellers (100k+ towns) will be enabled less, but they will be enabled. I know I have been. Communcation is alot easier for me now. True rural people will be helped the most, but this is not to say that the other 75% urban dwellers aren't going to be helped to it's just not going to make as much of an impact on their lives.
The point I was trying to make is that there is very little data to support the conclusions that this study implies: that the net has in some how negatively impacted interpersonal communication. Instead it seems that there is a large amount of contrary anecdotal evidence to suggest that were there a different methodology, different questions asked (perhaps less (net==evil & net communication != real communication)) then this study would arrive at conclusion's that more closely reflect what people are themselves observing.
My parents live quite literally deep in the wilds of northern British Columbia. Nearest town an hour away. Nearest neighbor 5 kilometers away. But now.. they're wired, and the net has allowed them to connect and communicate a lot more than was possible before. It' enabled them. Given them IM/E-mail/mailing lists and web communitys. It's given them extended neighbors.
For once in their lives the physical isolation of this beautiful section of British Columbia is not an issue for them. Now They can keep up to date with the happenings of their scattered family, make friends, talk to neighbors all without the difficultys that have plauged them all their lives.
As for myself I spend at least an hour or more a day IM, and a dozen or so emails each day talking with scattered family. This study's results are not something that (in my experiance at least) are true.
In net time this little tagline is _old_ beyond belief. It's almost finished it's predictions.. 'cept for the encryptation one.. mind you if the nsa can just turn the software off when it wants to...
"First they came for the hackers. But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers. But I thought there was too much smut on the internet anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers. But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users. But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Finally they came for me. And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
As someone who learned most of his high school and up till second year college mathematics reading books on Pascal algorithms, I enjoyed this book.
I've always found it easier to understand mathematic concepts transcribed to code because of the lack of vagueness allowed by computer languages. The author can't skip a step(s), refer broadly to previous concepts that may or may not have been explained/understood, or hide ideas necessary for full understanding by invoking the classic "you don't need to know this yet" mantra extolled in most lower level mathematic books.
I find also that because computer languages have been engineered from the ground up to reuse previously mastered concepts ( functions & | objects) they lend themselves well to explaining very complex ideas.
Higher level mathematics can and are expressed as proofs, lower level mathematics should be expressed as computer algorithms..? Written in perl? Works for me!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually there's a third option you're overlooking. Trump was not targeted but the Russians were. If you call someone who's phone is tapped (Russian Diplomat) that doesn't mean YOUR phones have been tapped, but your conversation will still get recorded and logged anyway. Same as if you phone a mobster who's phone has been tapped you're going to get recorded.
This is so true. Back in the late 80's I was so proud of what us geeks were doing to free information. We were naive and ultimately wrong. Now I just feel shame at having participated in the creation of the tools that were (mis?)used to elect Trump. I have no idea how to unf*ck the mess we've made, or even if it's possible to find a technology solution for bots, fake news and state/corporate/government manipulation of social media.
Oh damn you caught me. You're right, I'm on the government payroll and I've been paid to tell you that I think Julian is a slimy weasel.
The truth is I'm not even American, Russian or traditionally employed by anyone. This post is only my opinion, and not a particularly important one at that, but the opinion of one who has the gall to believe you might be wrong. *shrug* At one time this very old school privacy nerd vehemently supported wikileaks, but learned to hate Julian when he, IMHO, jumped the shark with the panama papers. Around then it became obvious to me that his philosophy and mine espoused *very* different interpretations of his supposed driving principle of "information wants to be free". I believe all information on all parties should be treated equally and should be liberated to enact change as it will. Julian clearly believes information is leverage to apply pressure forcing change toward a particular goal he envisions. He has an agenda and it's not, at least by my standards, hacker or cypherpunk compatible and I'd really appreciate it if he kept his slimy hands and suspect narrative off the freed bits and bytes.
FWIW I support Chelsea's release. I think Snowden did the right thing, and believe psyops both exist and are being actively deployed world wide. I feel you might be existing in some weird backwards eddy of internet information if you don't realise that there are currently multiple paid adversaries (US & Russia being only the two largest, DNC & RNC being the most political) that are currently manipulating "grass roots" internet sentiment.
One thing that makes me believe the anti Julian sentiment is real is that it's always been there just modded/scored/deleted/buried below the surface. You just had to go look for it where the bots had buried it so it wasn't so visible. Ever since the end of the election a *lot* of pro-Trump, pro-Russian, pro-Wikileaks accounts have suddenly gone dark across the entire social media landscape, and that has left a lot of people confused because the massive "grass roots" support those ideas once had isn't there and is now easily drowned out by the remaining legitimate accounts, and those once hidden comments/posts are now easily visible. In other words this anti Julian hate has been here for quite some time but was drowned out by all the election propaganda. Of course an alternative explanation is ..
I just earned my two dollars (quite a good rate too btw) for attempting to change your mind or at least for sowing doubt in the truth of your post and pushing my alternate narrative. You know, active measures and all that.
Oh my, so true. Also the words "integrity" and "honourable", more words that are unable to fit within that twitter account's tweets.
If you're really rich and connected, you don't even see the inside of a court room, never mind having to worry about a fair trial. See: Hil^D^DDonald Trump
Fixed that for you.
This is "active measures" consistent and only supports the theory that wikileaks has been compromised. The stated purpose "(to) develop a metric to understand influence networks based on proximity graphs", and presumably shine light on those "hidden relationships/secret collusion" seems on the face noble. But the execution will/is flawed (I believe intentionally). A pillar of Russian propaganda is to sow confusion so that the target no longer has certainly of what is or isn't true and thus is more receptive to intentionally false narratives. There has been a consistent attack on the reputation of main stream media (some of it well deserved, some not) but that the end result has been to further the delegitimizing of western media and /their/ narratives and thus create a vacuum into which alternative and more friendly narratives can take hold.
Make no mistake this is a direct attack on the credibility of main stream reporters and their publications (the majority of which have verified accounts), and gives a free pass to the agent provocateur's who aren't stupid enough to have verified accounts or that have hidden their true identities. I hate being lied to and manipulated as much as the next person but there is a HUGE difference between being lied to by corporate interests for money (who at least require the window dressing of western society to exist) and being lied to by a hostile nation who's end goal is to end the influence of America on the global stage (and will destroy western society to achieve it).
I expect the troll army to pull their regular attack on this post so I've gone anon because I honestly am sick of dealing with them and have found it's best to just ignore them instead of giving them a larger attack surface. Also I'm not even American so I didn't have a political pony in this race or a reason to push my own false narrative. I'm just a /very/ concerned "neighbor" who's own country is in deep shit if you American's don't get your act together.
p.s. there is a reason Russia controls and filters internet access, they know it is impossible to defend against the very type of attack the USA is experiencing now. Perhaps we just need to "pull the plug" on the internet?
WTH is going on around here?
I think people are missing something important. Follow this chain of thought and see if it's seems valid:
1) SCO sues IBM for violation of their contract because IBM distributed code that was a DERIVITIVE of SCO owned code.
These facts are not in dispute: that IBM did distribute the code, that the code was derived in some manner from SCO code. The dispute is if IBM had a right to distribute derivitives of SCO code. SCO says no IBM says yes.
2) The GPL is a license (contract between user and copyright holder) that has as it's core the users obligations and rights to DERIVITIVE works of the code covered by copyright.
On the one hand the argument must be that the license cannot (does not, will not) allow the rights of the copyright holder to extend to derivitive works.
On the other hand that the license does allow the rights of the copyright holder to extend to derivitive works.
Boies isn't dumb. If the above conflicting arguments can be framed in the context of copyright law (i.e. either one or the other are permissible under copyright law) then IBM loses.
This I think is the really argument. This Samba/GPL/Linux Code stuff is just a diversion to keep people busy and confused.
Of course this begs the question about HOW commited big blue is to Open Source, are they willing to lose the law suit and argue for the GPL if it comes to that?
disclaimer: I am not a lawyer
It doesn't mean a thing! If we asssume for the sake of argument that half the remaing races in the state ( 86% of pop. so 1/2 is 43%) voted for gore we can see quite handlily that they obviously represent more than 43% of the people of other races that voted for Gore (the remainder being 100%-16%=84%)
So... to recap: Apples =! Oranges
An interesting implication of your bad math if followed to it's logical conclusion would be:
Assuming NO blacks voted for Bush (not all that unlikely) then 86% of the Population of Florida is non-black yet non-blacks represent 100% of the votes Bush recieved, where did he get those extra votes from? FRAUD! I tell you FRAUD!
Now on the rural vs. urban topic it is true that urban dwellers (100k+ towns) will be enabled less, but they will be enabled. I know I have been. Communcation is alot easier for me now. True rural people will be helped the most, but this is not to say that the other 75% urban dwellers aren't going to be helped to it's just not going to make as much of an impact on their lives.
The point I was trying to make is that there is very little data to support the conclusions that this study implies: that the net has in some how negatively impacted interpersonal communication. Instead it seems that there is a large amount of contrary anecdotal evidence to suggest that were there a different methodology, different questions asked (perhaps less (net==evil & net communication != real communication)) then this study would arrive at conclusion's that more closely reflect what people are themselves observing.
For once in their lives the physical isolation of this beautiful section of British Columbia is not an issue for them. Now They can keep up to date with the happenings of their scattered family, make friends, talk to neighbors all without the difficultys that have plauged them all their lives.
As for myself I spend at least an hour or more a day IM, and a dozen or so emails each day talking with scattered family. This study's results are not something that (in my experiance at least) are true.
In net time this little tagline is _old_ beyond belief. It's almost finished it's predictions.. 'cept for the encryptation one.. mind you if the nsa can just turn the software off when it wants to...
"First they came for the hackers.
But I never did anything illegal with my computer, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the pornographers.
But I thought there was too much smut on the internet anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the anonymous remailers.
But a lot of nasty stuff gets sent from anon.penet.fi, so I didn't speak up.
Then they came for the encryption users.
But I could never figure out how to work PGP anyway, so I didn't speak up.
Finally they came for me.
And by that time there was no one left to speak up."
I've always found it easier to understand mathematic concepts transcribed to code because of the lack of vagueness allowed by computer languages. The author can't skip a step(s), refer broadly to previous concepts that may or may not have been explained/understood, or hide ideas necessary for full understanding by invoking the classic "you don't need to know this yet" mantra extolled in most lower level mathematic books.
I find also that because computer languages have been engineered from the ground up to reuse previously mastered concepts ( functions & | objects) they lend themselves well to explaining very complex ideas.
Higher level mathematics can and are expressed as proofs, lower level mathematics should be expressed as computer algorithms..? Written in perl? Works for me!
This book is just fun. :)