But at least a lot of the tech news writers seem to have realized that most of their readers don't care. Ads are always going to use buzzwords as promises of undefined awesome stuff, you're right.
And I did actually hear part of that commercial while I was at a restaurant and was surprised how they were trying to equate "cloud" with "everything physically transforms into a desktop when you need it to." I guess there's a reason I don't work in advertising.
Sounds like a modern interpretation of the iron law of wages. If your belt can be tightened, someone should tighten it for you because you owe it to your company. If you aren't getting sick, you don't need days off because you owe that time to the company, and you'd just fritter it away having babies or something which would only decrease your productivity, or relaxing which might make you care less about the company's success. Rather than give you that time or give you the money spent on these stalkers, it's in everyone's best interests if the company keeps an eye on you.
I really tire of these slanted news articles that crumble with the slightest application of common sense.
At least all the yammering about "the cloud" seems to have decreased. I thought they'd never shut up about how computers were going to disappear completely. And it's been a while since I heard anyone proclaim that games were completely dead and downloadable content on the wii was going to be the only thing you'd be able to buy in a month.
They're a company not a charity, it will be easier for them to succeed if they "limit the openess of the web," and the have rights too.
That sounds like three (or really two) reasons why commercial open source compaies have interests that may be counter to ours. That does -not- sound like it's a good reason we should be happy about it when those interests conflict, nor do they sound like reasons to get on board with things like advertiser tracking.
Am I the only one who is given pause by the implicit assurance of a so-called controlled burn that none of these explosives are going to detonate?
I did find it interesting that they claimed there was too much clutter presenting obstacles for remote controlled robots, then later it was stated they had such a detailed inventory of the house that they were confident it would burn in 30 minutes and not level the neighborhood. Seems like if the house is too cluttered to remove the dangerous stuff, you don't really know what's in it to where you can assure people it's not going to be much bigger than you estimate.
Some expert was saying this will be a new chapter in texbooks, breaking new ground in the field of blowing up houses with explosives. Anyone else think this is "Well, it will be more exciting and faster just to blow it up, lets just assume it's not going to hurt anything."
Does anyone else think WikiLeaks might have inadvertently helped the TSA?... attention being drawn to something else is precisely what the TSA needs.
Outside of slashdot, the responses to the porno scanners or gate rape that I was hearing were all sheeple responses of "well, I guess we have to weigh liberty VS safety" with no further analysis. That was about all I was getting from the public. I'm reminded of the quote, apparently by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." News stories about how foolish these procedures are weren't going to motivate -everyone- to grow a spine and say "We will not trade our liberty for slightly more safety" since most people are either apathetic, or that TSA is competent. Were public opinion to really start sliding against TSA, we'd see money spent on "public education" campaigns about how effective TSA has been at stopping those terrorists, so please, grab your ankles for Freedom.
I think the people who were receptive to the message got it, it doesn't need to be repeated too many times to sink in where it's going to sink in, and no matter how many times people hear how worthless these procedures are, they're not going to demand their legislators change it.
the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc
What parts of the country allow such things and what is the cheapest ticket to... oh, you meant separately, didn't you?
I'm amazed you found virgin ground between the old line of "The media has a liberal bias (because we've always said they have a liberal bias)" and "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Sorry to spoil your fun, but I'm going to say that in fact, twitter has a well known conservative bias. For example, whose tweets are the only tweets that the media actually pays attention to? Sarah Palin.
This tempest sounds like a few people, with enough connections to news people, are convinced that the rest of the world *must* be as interested in this topic as they are. With that as their premise, they conclude Twitter is 'cheating.'
Wishful thinking that people would be more interested in international corruption than, say, the european music awards.
I don't see any US bashing here. I see a little bashing of idiots within the government of the united states. Totally separate, like how I can say that I disagree with many things Bush did and disagree with many things Obama is doing, but that doesn't make me racist against white and black people.
Well maybe not the ones this would specifically apply to. Quoting
We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
If you're going to be working for the federal government, or specifically the state department, I don't know, maybe they want to make sure you're a "team player" and trust the state department enough to know what you should and should not be looking at. Which would STILL idiotic, but not unexpected.
Anyway, I'm not sure this is the state department saying "Don't look at it, grad students," this sounds like it could just be some grunt trying to look like he doesn't just get coffee for people. Could be an idiotic individual in the state department just trying to be proactive. Could be a hoax.
I should try e-mailing schools posing as an alum letting them know that female students looking for government jobs should send nude pictures of themselves to this address so they'll have something to compare to the backscatter scanners to speed up the screening process...
I support transparency, but I get the impression that Assange is a hypocrite and egotistical douche.
I'd imagine if I were the target of an international smear campaign, I could be made to look like a hypocritical, egotistical douche too (as opposed to a hypocritical, SEMI-egotistical douche.)
My point is: don't let the character assassination distract you from what's ACTUALLY important, which is of course, not Assange's character.
Among the people who are too cheap to pay for movies, music, or games, and are also too lazy to type their search out? Yes, I'm sure they're going to exhaustively research competing search engines and remember to not use google, so that they have less typing to do.
Google has got to be terrified of that, I mean they're going to lose out on so much advertising revenue from companies that make products for cheap, lazy people. Knockoff "Clapper" manufacturers for example, are going to move to altavista.
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
How would that second one be a win exactly? I know we like to make fun of Europeans as being a bit snobbish, but are you saying that Sarah Palin having nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the ability to say "Ha ha, you zee, no? Ze Americans are EEEDIOTS!!!"
Unless they're planning to elaborate on the existing flight simulator built into Google Earth by implementing a first person shooter, I'm afraid having trees doesn't seem like a particularly useful development.
These leaks are -targeted-, and by so doing WikiLeaks is by no means just a neutral party, but an active participant in the dialog. Under those terms, I think the site loses its moral position...
Why would that be? The information that -doesn't- put people at risk is the truth and they have a right to say it regardless of how they feel about the subject. The information that arguably -does- put people at risk, I don't see how their neutrality changes the morality there.
If I tell everyone that my neighbor at 123 fake street is unarmed, leaves his door unlocked at night, and has a million dollars under his bed, whether I am indifferent toward him (having a policy of broadcasting who has weapons, millions of dollars, and doesn't lock their door) or whether I hate him, that doesn't seem like it would change anything. I'm still putting him at risk.
...a lot of people recently said that Wikileaks has become an anti-US organization.
A lot of people say I'm anti-US because I believe in the right to free speech, the right to privacy, and the right to due process, and my interpretation of those rights differs from theirs. So take how you will, but I say there is only one significant group of people who are truly anti-American, and those are the people who keep using terms like "anti-American."
Some of the places here provide coffee, a tent, and insulation strippers.
What is the tent for? "Methhead just stripped all the copper out of the last relative's house who let him stay there and now has no other place to go" I'm assuming?
Slashdot Mirror
But at least a lot of the tech news writers seem to have realized that most of their readers don't care. Ads are always going to use buzzwords as promises of undefined awesome stuff, you're right.
And I did actually hear part of that commercial while I was at a restaurant and was surprised how they were trying to equate "cloud" with "everything physically transforms into a desktop when you need it to." I guess there's a reason I don't work in advertising.
Sounds like a modern interpretation of the iron law of wages. If your belt can be tightened, someone should tighten it for you because you owe it to your company. If you aren't getting sick, you don't need days off because you owe that time to the company, and you'd just fritter it away having babies or something which would only decrease your productivity, or relaxing which might make you care less about the company's success. Rather than give you that time or give you the money spent on these stalkers, it's in everyone's best interests if the company keeps an eye on you.
I really tire of these slanted news articles that crumble with the slightest application of common sense.
At least all the yammering about "the cloud" seems to have decreased. I thought they'd never shut up about how computers were going to disappear completely. And it's been a while since I heard anyone proclaim that games were completely dead and downloadable content on the wii was going to be the only thing you'd be able to buy in a month.
They're a company not a charity, it will be easier for them to succeed if they "limit the openess of the web," and the have rights too.
That sounds like three (or really two) reasons why commercial open source compaies have interests that may be counter to ours. That does -not- sound like it's a good reason we should be happy about it when those interests conflict, nor do they sound like reasons to get on board with things like advertiser tracking.
Am I the only one who is given pause by the implicit assurance of a so-called controlled burn that none of these explosives are going to detonate?
I did find it interesting that they claimed there was too much clutter presenting obstacles for remote controlled robots, then later it was stated they had such a detailed inventory of the house that they were confident it would burn in 30 minutes and not level the neighborhood. Seems like if the house is too cluttered to remove the dangerous stuff, you don't really know what's in it to where you can assure people it's not going to be much bigger than you estimate.
Some expert was saying this will be a new chapter in texbooks, breaking new ground in the field of blowing up houses with explosives. Anyone else think this is "Well, it will be more exciting and faster just to blow it up, lets just assume it's not going to hurt anything."
Does anyone else think WikiLeaks might have inadvertently helped the TSA?... attention being drawn to something else is precisely what the TSA needs.
Outside of slashdot, the responses to the porno scanners or gate rape that I was hearing were all sheeple responses of "well, I guess we have to weigh liberty VS safety" with no further analysis. That was about all I was getting from the public. I'm reminded of the quote, apparently by Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." News stories about how foolish these procedures are weren't going to motivate -everyone- to grow a spine and say "We will not trade our liberty for slightly more safety" since most people are either apathetic, or that TSA is competent. Were public opinion to really start sliding against TSA, we'd see money spent on "public education" campaigns about how effective TSA has been at stopping those terrorists, so please, grab your ankles for Freedom.
I think the people who were receptive to the message got it, it doesn't need to be repeated too many times to sink in where it's going to sink in, and no matter how many times people hear how worthless these procedures are, they're not going to demand their legislators change it.
Best case though would be the TSA dies groping my awesome, dignified fireballs.
the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc
What parts of the country allow such things and what is the cheapest ticket to... oh, you meant separately, didn't you?
Russ Feingold too.
I believe he was demoing a joke right there. The keygen for the full version spits out "whoosh."
And suing one of several people in the Vatican... lets just say that might be one time to expect the Spanish inquisition.
Yes. In fact, just a company changing it's logo on it's front page temporarily, when it does so almost every other day, is worthy of TWO news posts!
Specifically, Google changed it's logo to pac man and then people spent a lot of time playing pac man on google.
Oh, sorry, I forgot that we like google but hate facebook...
I'm amazed you found virgin ground between the old line of "The media has a liberal bias (because we've always said they have a liberal bias)" and "Reality has a well known liberal bias."
Sorry to spoil your fun, but I'm going to say that in fact, twitter has a well known conservative bias. For example, whose tweets are the only tweets that the media actually pays attention to? Sarah Palin.
This tempest sounds like a few people, with enough connections to news people, are convinced that the rest of the world *must* be as interested in this topic as they are. With that as their premise, they conclude Twitter is 'cheating.'
Wishful thinking that people would be more interested in international corruption than, say, the european music awards.
I don't see any US bashing here. I see a little bashing of idiots within the government of the united states. Totally separate, like how I can say that I disagree with many things Bush did and disagree with many things Obama is doing, but that doesn't make me racist against white and black people.
What I'm trying to figure out is how a "potential employer" or whoever will know what I have and have not read.
They tell you a secret, and if it shows up in wikileaks, they know it was you and you read wikileaks.
Well maybe not the ones this would specifically apply to. Quoting
We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.
If you're going to be working for the federal government, or specifically the state department, I don't know, maybe they want to make sure you're a "team player" and trust the state department enough to know what you should and should not be looking at. Which would STILL idiotic, but not unexpected.
Anyway, I'm not sure this is the state department saying "Don't look at it, grad students," this sounds like it could just be some grunt trying to look like he doesn't just get coffee for people. Could be an idiotic individual in the state department just trying to be proactive. Could be a hoax.
I should try e-mailing schools posing as an alum letting them know that female students looking for government jobs should send nude pictures of themselves to this address so they'll have something to compare to the backscatter scanners to speed up the screening process...
Publicly, sure. Private, who knows. I'm not confident Bush had a good understanding of the internet beyond "It brings me funny kitty pictures."
I support transparency, but I get the impression that Assange is a hypocrite and egotistical douche.
I'd imagine if I were the target of an international smear campaign, I could be made to look like a hypocritical, egotistical douche too (as opposed to a hypocritical, SEMI-egotistical douche.)
My point is: don't let the character assassination distract you from what's ACTUALLY important, which is of course, not Assange's character.
Among the people who are too cheap to pay for movies, music, or games, and are also too lazy to type their search out? Yes, I'm sure they're going to exhaustively research competing search engines and remember to not use google, so that they have less typing to do.
Google has got to be terrified of that, I mean they're going to lose out on so much advertising revenue from companies that make products for cheap, lazy people. Knockoff "Clapper" manufacturers for example, are going to move to altavista.
Speaking as a non-american, I'd call it a win-win. Either she loses the race for the GOP or the rest of the world has incontrovertible proof that the US has become a nation that worships morons.
How would that second one be a win exactly? I know we like to make fun of Europeans as being a bit snobbish, but are you saying that Sarah Palin having nuclear weapons is a small price to pay for the ability to say "Ha ha, you zee, no? Ze Americans are EEEDIOTS!!!"
Unless they're planning to elaborate on the existing flight simulator built into Google Earth by implementing a first person shooter, I'm afraid having trees doesn't seem like a particularly useful development.
You'd call a FPS a -useful- development?
...okay...
These leaks are -targeted-, and by so doing WikiLeaks is by no means just a neutral party, but an active participant in the dialog. Under those terms, I think the site loses its moral position...
Why would that be? The information that -doesn't- put people at risk is the truth and they have a right to say it regardless of how they feel about the subject. The information that arguably -does- put people at risk, I don't see how their neutrality changes the morality there.
If I tell everyone that my neighbor at 123 fake street is unarmed, leaves his door unlocked at night, and has a million dollars under his bed, whether I am indifferent toward him (having a policy of broadcasting who has weapons, millions of dollars, and doesn't lock their door) or whether I hate him, that doesn't seem like it would change anything. I'm still putting him at risk.
...a lot of people recently said that Wikileaks has become an anti-US organization.
A lot of people say I'm anti-US because I believe in the right to free speech, the right to privacy, and the right to due process, and my interpretation of those rights differs from theirs. So take how you will, but I say there is only one significant group of people who are truly anti-American, and those are the people who keep using terms like "anti-American."
Some of the places here provide coffee, a tent, and insulation strippers.
What is the tent for? "Methhead just stripped all the copper out of the last relative's house who let him stay there and now has no other place to go" I'm assuming?