Why is it so hard to seperate the two issues here? Breaking the law is wrong and I am not defending it. But the original poster said the threat is exaggerated, which it is not. The threat is real and we need to face it within the bounds of the law. Is this such an extreme position?
Remember all the hype about Y2K? Then nothing happened? Then people complained they went through all that work fixing their code when there was no threat. The reality is that the threat was real, and their hard work thwarted it. There's a running joke in the intelligence community about how you'll never see an intelligence success, or how there's only good ops and bad intel. I always say, any day something doesn't blow up, it's an intelligence success. We are constantly, on a literal daily basis, thwarting terrorists here and abroad. And it's BECAUSE of that they haven't killed you yet. What you see on the news is the 1/10 of 1% of what's going on that won't ruin a source or isn't part of an ongoing investigation.
I'm not interested in giving a fair shake to every vendor, I'm interested in not getting fleeced. By only using vendors with no neg comments in the last 30 days, I'm weeding out all the people who don't know how to do good customer service, as well as a few vendors who have been unfairly accused. I have not been fleeced. It works. It is not dumb.
My rule of thumb for eBay is only buy from vendors with 5,000+ sales, 98% or greater positive feedback, and no negative comments in the last 30 days. I'll adjust that a little here and there, but not much. I've never gotten burnt on eBay out of over a hundred purchases.
All I was trying to say is there are two sides to the story, and equating those who disagree with you, despite having more information, as stupid is a bit of an oversimplification. I'm all for due process, right to trial, right to privacy, etc, but I also realize we actually face a real threat and something must be done to stop it. The post to which I replied suggested the threat is exaggerated, and as an intelligence analyst who's tracked Al Qaeda both inside and out of Iraq, I can say first hand the threat is not exaggerated.
Or, unlike you, he's actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face. Let's not boil this down to "those who agree with you" and "stupid people".
Then after that every other half-baked competing idea, including how the Invisible Pink Unicorn created everything, Lastthursdayism, Unintelligent Design, etc.
That's obviously religious. The theory of Unintelligent Design is what they should be teaching. With all the Pastafarians out there, I hope we can get UD in the classroom right next to Evolution and ID. Should make for interesting classroom discussions.
Right, a modicum of privacy in a medium that is as inherently open as sending a postcard. It seems private to regular users, but it's no more private than talking on a cell phone in public; anyone can listen in, from governments to individuals. If it's out in the open, expect people are listening. If you don't want them listening, use something more secure. Don't blame the government because they're reading your open emails or postcards.
It's about time. If you look at the postal system, people have been using security envelopes or at least sealed envelopes since pretty much the beginning. The only mail postal employees are allowed to read are postcards, since it's pretty hard to stop them. Unencrypted email is basically like a postcard, and it pains me to hear people complain that governments are reading them. Do they complain that postal employees are reading their postcards? If it's important or private, use a security envelope or encryption. Otherwise, don't complain when someone reads it.
how many peices of evidence for earlier crimes we can now find a print where we couldn't before? Maybe solve an unsolved crime or two, or free someone innocent? The ramifications for Iraq alone where we can match prints on IED remnants to current detainees is enough to keep me interested.
I must have missed that. I read TFA and didn't see anything about a sex change, but I did see that Miriam wasn't present in the first due to a snow storm but was present in the second one. That seems to account for there being 2 in the first, and 3 in the second, but like I said maybe I missed something.
Slashdot Mirror
WAIT, there's dust on the book...
that in space, no one can hear you whistle.
Why is it so hard to seperate the two issues here? Breaking the law is wrong and I am not defending it. But the original poster said the threat is exaggerated, which it is not. The threat is real and we need to face it within the bounds of the law. Is this such an extreme position?
Remember all the hype about Y2K? Then nothing happened? Then people complained they went through all that work fixing their code when there was no threat. The reality is that the threat was real, and their hard work thwarted it. There's a running joke in the intelligence community about how you'll never see an intelligence success, or how there's only good ops and bad intel. I always say, any day something doesn't blow up, it's an intelligence success. We are constantly, on a literal daily basis, thwarting terrorists here and abroad. And it's BECAUSE of that they haven't killed you yet. What you see on the news is the 1/10 of 1% of what's going on that won't ruin a source or isn't part of an ongoing investigation.
I'm not interested in giving a fair shake to every vendor, I'm interested in not getting fleeced. By only using vendors with no neg comments in the last 30 days, I'm weeding out all the people who don't know how to do good customer service, as well as a few vendors who have been unfairly accused. I have not been fleeced. It works. It is not dumb.
My rule of thumb for eBay is only buy from vendors with 5,000+ sales, 98% or greater positive feedback, and no negative comments in the last 30 days. I'll adjust that a little here and there, but not much. I've never gotten burnt on eBay out of over a hundred purchases.
All I was trying to say is there are two sides to the story, and equating those who disagree with you, despite having more information, as stupid is a bit of an oversimplification. I'm all for due process, right to trial, right to privacy, etc, but I also realize we actually face a real threat and something must be done to stop it. The post to which I replied suggested the threat is exaggerated, and as an intelligence analyst who's tracked Al Qaeda both inside and out of Iraq, I can say first hand the threat is not exaggerated.
Why would I want search engines crawling through my thumb-drive?
OK, before you mod me troll, that was a joke.
Or, unlike you, he's actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face. Let's not boil this down to "those who agree with you" and "stupid people".
Funny, I never saw any in rural England.
Of course, African elephants are non-migratory.
That's no moon...that's a male African elephant!
Many of us have seen robots in the movies
What are these "robots" of which you speak? I have yet to see one of these in the moving pictures.
Obviously they weren't aware that one data point nullifies a generalization. Stupid indeed.
Well, give yourself a little more time and think it over, then maybe you'll accept it.
Then after that every other half-baked competing idea, including how the Invisible Pink Unicorn created everything, Lastthursdayism, Unintelligent Design, etc.
That's obviously religious. The theory of Unintelligent Design is what they should be teaching. With all the Pastafarians out there, I hope we can get UD in the classroom right next to Evolution and ID. Should make for interesting classroom discussions.
Boy, hindsight sure is great isn't it?
When you're used to working with just stone, how to make stuff with metal would not neccessarily be intuitively obvious.
Shooting down a U.S. military satellite doesn't sound like a particularly well-thought out plan to me.
Raspberry...only one man would dare to give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!
...then ICANN has .chzbrgr?
I'm sorry, I'll show myself out now.
Right, a modicum of privacy in a medium that is as inherently open as sending a postcard. It seems private to regular users, but it's no more private than talking on a cell phone in public; anyone can listen in, from governments to individuals. If it's out in the open, expect people are listening. If you don't want them listening, use something more secure. Don't blame the government because they're reading your open emails or postcards.
It's about time. If you look at the postal system, people have been using security envelopes or at least sealed envelopes since pretty much the beginning. The only mail postal employees are allowed to read are postcards, since it's pretty hard to stop them. Unencrypted email is basically like a postcard, and it pains me to hear people complain that governments are reading them. Do they complain that postal employees are reading their postcards? If it's important or private, use a security envelope or encryption. Otherwise, don't complain when someone reads it.
how many peices of evidence for earlier crimes we can now find a print where we couldn't before? Maybe solve an unsolved crime or two, or free someone innocent? The ramifications for Iraq alone where we can match prints on IED remnants to current detainees is enough to keep me interested.
I must have missed that. I read TFA and didn't see anything about a sex change, but I did see that Miriam wasn't present in the first due to a snow storm but was present in the second one. That seems to account for there being 2 in the first, and 3 in the second, but like I said maybe I missed something.