FTA: "mitigations include disabling HTTP compression"
What's the point of HTTP compression anyway? Text is a small part of the bandwidth, and most other stuff (pictures, etc.) are already kept/stored/transferred in highly compressed formats like JPEG. Trying to compress files like that does little or no good. What am I missing here?
Your husband is arrested, but at the trial it is revealed that there were cameras in your house which reveals that not only were you cheating on your husband multiple times with multiple men, but one of those other men also beat you up, and that your husband is innocent.
It's perfectly legal to put cameras in your own home. They have, for example, been used to catch nannies who were abusing the children, and the courts have ruled that those cameras are perfectly legal and admissible evidence.
What if there were cameras pointed at Zimmerman when he attacked and murdered Trayvon in cold blood.
Then that could have been used as evidence. I'm not even opposed to things like cameras in convenience stores, whose video can be used to find and prosecute criminals. All I object to is large networks of cameras, which can be used (especially with emerging software technologies) to track anybody and everybody. Having a non-networked camera in the local 7-11 is fine. If a crime is committed then yank the video and use it.
A real solution will need to be a bit more nuanced than just legalize and tax.
Unfortunately a real solution may not exist. People do stupid and self-destructive things. I'm all for helping such people, but I realize you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. I'm not starry eyed about it.
Nevertheless I'd rather have junkies committing petty property crimes than gun battles amongst drug dealers and the "authorities" wiping their butts with the Bill of Rights. Lower prices would also mean the junkies wouldn't need to steal as much, and we could save a bundle on taxes if we got rid of this part of the "law" enforcement-prison-industrial complex.
I've broken a few laws, like traffic and copyright. But those aren't criminal laws.
Bully for you, but you're probably wrong. You've probably been guilty of criminal violations without even realizing it.
Meanwhile, both the current and previous president have admitted to violating criminal drug laws. This seems to be accepted as part of growing up at any time during the last 40 or 50 years. I'd accept it as such too, if it wasn't for the bizarre and extreme hypocrisy of continuing to prosecute people for the same laws that they broke.
Your nihilism is well justified. There is, for example, no difference between the US in its currently deplorable state and say the USSR under Stalin and Beria.
Was it really Nixon, who presided over the original Prohibition?
The original Prohibition was repealed in 1933, as I'm sure you know. The GP was referring to Nixon's "War on Drugs". In reality I wouldn't place the blame squarely on Tricky Dick. He was just the first to use, or popularize, the term. He's also one of our most hateable presidents. But yes, the war on drugs started before Nixon and has been continued long after he resigned.
Your Turing machines? They were invented in America. Yes, by your man, who was admittedly a rather clever fellow. But he only did it when he had the sense to go to the States (Princeton) and study under the American mathematician Alonzo Church.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You sound like some kind of radical. I'll bet if you had a few beefs with the king you'd advocate a revolution.
As an American I know that when you go to school here you're boiled in the history and causes of the Revolution and the Constitution from a young age. That's how it should be. But it amazes me how many people are oblivious to what it really means. This is a country that was created by a bunch of radicals because they had beefs with the government, and wouldn't adopt the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added. Yet supposedly being aware of this, people kowtow to the idea of "government necessity" trumping our rights.
>>the FBI swung into action, believing the worst possible thing -- he was a terrorist, he was trying to destroy america, he was some kind of muslim radical.
OR just because Goldman had enough connections UP THERE, made some phone calls, and had FBI pick him up. All because they wanted to teach the programmer a lesson.
Once federal judges acquited him, they had their friends in the State go after him.
If the State too is forced to acquit him, they will get someone else to go after him.
Let any other employee think twice before leaving the Brotherhood.
In fact NSA is tracking those who are commenting in his favor here and passing the list to Goldman.
With Goldman, anything's possible.
At least the Mafia does their own enforcement instead of squandering government resources.
Asset forfeiture is sufficient punishment for criminal acts? Ok, let's start with car thieves and the like. See how that works with small time crooks and how people accept it. If that works out, we can work up to the major criminals in bespoke suits.
Perhaps you should save your sanctimony for criminals, and those authorities that conspire not to prosecute the ones wearing bespoke suits, instead of someone blowing off steam on the Internet.
A toilet requires a 38-button control panel with a liquid-crystal display. I wish I was joking...
I especially like the large buttons with the butt wash and butt dry symbols. For once those kind of symbols seem intelligible. Very accommodating to foreign travelers too. If I encountered one of these in a public restroom in Japan I might be able to figure out basic operations despite being unable to read Japanese. I wonder what the display looks like when it issues the warning "Overload imminent - gaijin buttocks detected".
It's not a contradiction. Anarchists, or at least social anarchists, understand the need for some political organization. In fact anarchists don't believe in anarchy. It was a label slapped on them by those who didn't agree with their approach. After a while the anarchists got tired of fighting the label and just adopted it as their own. Unfortunately (and understandably) it's the source of much confusion.
I find it weird that with most of the public able to gain access to so many news sources that papers under the Murdoch banner would dare to publish the rubbish they have been. It's rather easy to loose a consumer and extremely difficult to attain one, publishing false information in a news source is the best way to create a situation where the populous decides at whole to boycott the publications and to even go further and mock those around them until they follow suit. Being scared of loosing market share and doing the actions they are would seem to me a reason for them to loose it. [emphasis added]
Hardly. Most people watch/read whatever news source feeds their biases. It can become a vicious cycle too where people's bias inclines them to a certain source, that source then feeds their biases and makes them more biased, etc.
I'm not saying that I'm above watching/reading news sources that feed my biases, but I at least try to sample the other side once in a while, and listen to counterarguments against my side's positions. I personally know plenty of people on the other side who do likewise.
However, for many/most people politics becomes a team sport. They identify with "Team Conservative" or "Team Liberal", and cheer every victory for their side like it was the home team winning. That's fine for sports, but a lousy approach to politics. It makes people especially subject to manipulation as they don't choose their team's positions, but will always support their team. Either side could decide that roasting small children for holidays was a fine idea, and many people would support it.
Slashdot Mirror
>> the NSA is building a data center in Utah with a 65 MW power supply.
Why don't you just go ahead and tell everyone the LAT/LON coordinates too while you're at it...
40.43153 N, 111.933092 W (WGS84)
Set the old time machine to the 1950s!
Sure, if you'll pay the electric bill for the 1.21GW (or just tell me what corner drug store I can buy plutonium from).
FTA: "mitigations include disabling HTTP compression"
What's the point of HTTP compression anyway? Text is a small part of the bandwidth, and most other stuff (pictures, etc.) are already kept/stored/transferred in highly compressed formats like JPEG. Trying to compress files like that does little or no good. What am I missing here?
Expect lots of pro-H1B editorials. No wait, they already have those.
Could be worse - at least it's not Murdoch.
irony
noun \-r-n also (-)r-n\
2
a : the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning
Your husband is arrested, but at the trial it is revealed that there were cameras in your house which reveals that not only were you cheating on your husband multiple times with multiple men, but one of those other men also beat you up, and that your husband is innocent.
It's perfectly legal to put cameras in your own home. They have, for example, been used to catch nannies who were abusing the children, and the courts have ruled that those cameras are perfectly legal and admissible evidence.
What if there were cameras pointed at Zimmerman when he attacked and murdered Trayvon in cold blood.
Then that could have been used as evidence. I'm not even opposed to things like cameras in convenience stores, whose video can be used to find and prosecute criminals. All I object to is large networks of cameras, which can be used (especially with emerging software technologies) to track anybody and everybody. Having a non-networked camera in the local 7-11 is fine. If a crime is committed then yank the video and use it.
A real solution will need to be a bit more nuanced than just legalize and tax.
Unfortunately a real solution may not exist. People do stupid and self-destructive things. I'm all for helping such people, but I realize you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. I'm not starry eyed about it.
Nevertheless I'd rather have junkies committing petty property crimes than gun battles amongst drug dealers and the "authorities" wiping their butts with the Bill of Rights. Lower prices would also mean the junkies wouldn't need to steal as much, and we could save a bundle on taxes if we got rid of this part of the "law" enforcement-prison-industrial complex.
I've broken a few laws, like traffic and copyright. But those aren't criminal laws.
Bully for you, but you're probably wrong. You've probably been guilty of criminal violations without even realizing it.
Meanwhile, both the current and previous president have admitted to violating criminal drug laws. This seems to be accepted as part of growing up at any time during the last 40 or 50 years. I'd accept it as such too, if it wasn't for the bizarre and extreme hypocrisy of continuing to prosecute people for the same laws that they broke.
Your nihilism is well justified. There is, for example, no difference between the US in its currently deplorable state and say the USSR under Stalin and Beria.
Was it really Nixon, who presided over the original Prohibition?
The original Prohibition was repealed in 1933, as I'm sure you know. The GP was referring to Nixon's "War on Drugs". In reality I wouldn't place the blame squarely on Tricky Dick. He was just the first to use, or popularize, the term. He's also one of our most hateable presidents. But yes, the war on drugs started before Nixon and has been continued long after he resigned.
And we Brits want our Turing Machines back!
Your Turing machines? They were invented in America. Yes, by your man, who was admittedly a rather clever fellow. But he only did it when he had the sense to go to the States (Princeton) and study under the American mathematician Alonzo Church.
Umm, businesses don't have to worry about that so much.
And we all know that security holes are never a problem.
If you want real protection from government scrutiny, buy the government. Works for Wall Street.
This is why:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You sound like some kind of radical. I'll bet if you had a few beefs with the king you'd advocate a revolution.
As an American I know that when you go to school here you're boiled in the history and causes of the Revolution and the Constitution from a young age. That's how it should be. But it amazes me how many people are oblivious to what it really means. This is a country that was created by a bunch of radicals because they had beefs with the government, and wouldn't adopt the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights was added. Yet supposedly being aware of this, people kowtow to the idea of "government necessity" trumping our rights.
Might just be nit-picking ...
Worse, you're making a distinction without a difference.
No, it isn't zero.
Rajat Gupta, ex GS board member is serving time.
That's like arresting one Mafioso and claiming you've destroyed organized crime.
>>the FBI swung into action, believing the worst possible thing -- he was a terrorist, he was trying to destroy america, he was some kind of muslim radical.
OR just because Goldman had enough connections UP THERE, made some phone calls, and had FBI pick him up. All because they wanted to teach the programmer a lesson.
Once federal judges acquited him, they had their friends in the State go after him.
If the State too is forced to acquit him, they will get someone else to go after him.
Let any other employee think twice before leaving the Brotherhood.
In fact NSA is tracking those who are commenting in his favor here and passing the list to Goldman.
With Goldman, anything's possible.
At least the Mafia does their own enforcement instead of squandering government resources.
Asset forfeiture is sufficient.
Asset forfeiture is sufficient punishment for criminal acts? Ok, let's start with car thieves and the like. See how that works with small time crooks and how people accept it. If that works out, we can work up to the major criminals in bespoke suits.
Perhaps you should save your sanctimony for criminals, and those authorities that conspire not to prosecute the ones wearing bespoke suits, instead of someone blowing off steam on the Internet.
If people can get their heads out of the gutter for a moment ...
If you can't see the humor in a hacked toilet, you're either too stuck up to be tolerable, or too humorless to remain sane.
A toilet requires a 38-button control panel with a liquid-crystal display. I wish I was joking...
I especially like the large buttons with the butt wash and butt dry symbols. For once those kind of symbols seem intelligible. Very accommodating to foreign travelers too. If I encountered one of these in a public restroom in Japan I might be able to figure out basic operations despite being unable to read Japanese. I wonder what the display looks like when it issues the warning "Overload imminent - gaijin buttocks detected".
Thousands of people in Japan are getting hot water sprayed up their asses right now.
Do they consider that desirable or undesirable? Japanese culture has always been a bit difficult for me to understand.
Slashdot, bringing pedantry to a new level.
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing. If my wife or kids get tired of my pedantry, I can just point them here. They ain't heard nuttin' yet.
Political power in anarchist societies...
???
It's not a contradiction. Anarchists, or at least social anarchists, understand the need for some political organization. In fact anarchists don't believe in anarchy. It was a label slapped on them by those who didn't agree with their approach. After a while the anarchists got tired of fighting the label and just adopted it as their own. Unfortunately (and understandably) it's the source of much confusion.
I find it weird that with most of the public able to gain access to so many news sources that papers under the Murdoch banner would dare to publish the rubbish they have been. It's rather easy to loose a consumer and extremely difficult to attain one, publishing false information in a news source is the best way to create a situation where the populous decides at whole to boycott the publications and to even go further and mock those around them until they follow suit. Being scared of loosing market share and doing the actions they are would seem to me a reason for them to loose it. [emphasis added]
Hardly. Most people watch/read whatever news source feeds their biases. It can become a vicious cycle too where people's bias inclines them to a certain source, that source then feeds their biases and makes them more biased, etc.
I'm not saying that I'm above watching/reading news sources that feed my biases, but I at least try to sample the other side once in a while, and listen to counterarguments against my side's positions. I personally know plenty of people on the other side who do likewise.
However, for many/most people politics becomes a team sport. They identify with "Team Conservative" or "Team Liberal", and cheer every victory for their side like it was the home team winning. That's fine for sports, but a lousy approach to politics. It makes people especially subject to manipulation as they don't choose their team's positions, but will always support their team. Either side could decide that roasting small children for holidays was a fine idea, and many people would support it.
Your foreign policy did that many years ago, as well a pricing higher education out of the majority's financial means, and then some for health care.
At least two out of those three were aided and abetted by Murdoch's American "news" operations.