You say these are scare tactics to push regulation one direction, but I think this is at worst scare tactics to prevent it being pushed in the OPPOSITE direction. It seems to me that we're at a happy balance between ISPs and google, in other words, regulations seem good balancing us between one group of greedy corporations and another group of greedy corporations. I see your point that some net neutrality proposals could push it toward google, but the current court case appears to still be pushing it off balance, just in the other direction.
If you're a decent ISP operator, good for you, but you're not MY ISP provider, and you're not my mobile provider. You're arguing on the side of AT&T and Verizon, whom I have constant problems with. You're arguing specifically against google. From my perspective, they give me free e-mail that works better than anything else, a free search engine that works better than anything else, and a free mobile phone operating system that works better than anything else. YOUR SIDE has done nothing but take my money and give me nothing. Google's side has done nothing but give me stuff for free (aside from my privacy, which the NSA stole anyway.)
Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.
You mentioned fearmongering? And the government is already doing both of those things a lot already.
If Verizon allows this to happen, people might actually start voting on it. Like, for REALS voting. They'll avoid that possibility at all costs. Even dictators do need to make their citizens like them somewhat: if enough people dislike you, they'll make other options happen, no matter what.
One wonders how they can get away, in any forum, by claiming "We invested in this, we need to make a profit" without literally being punched in the face.
... There's probably a reason I don't work in government.
This would be funny if weren't so likely to be taken seriously by the regulatory agencies which SHOULD currently be waterboarding Verizon's CEO for even suggesting this. With boiling hot oil.
I wish we'd go back to medical names that are whimsical and memorable like that rather than boring and forgettable. H1N1, for example, we could have done better. We could have called it "Tiger Woods Flu" or something.
Gene names, they're working on replacing the ones with memorable names as well. Catch22 and sonic hedgehog, for example.
Good parody up until the last line. I don't think anyone who actually uses "Scientists are always changing their minds" are confused about anything ever. It takes like a microsecond for cognitive dissonance to kick in. Have you ever confronted someone with data that runs contrary to their established worldview? Usually not even a flicker of doubt crosses their face. Any "deep in thought" processes that go on are searching for a reason to throw out the new, unwelcome bit of data rather than considering it.
It's not specific to climate change deniers or conservatives obviously. I had a similar reaction last night to a deeply catholic friend's saying that natural family planning was the most effective form of birth control. I caught myself immediately going to wiki, which backed up his statement, and then I immediately decided no, they were both definitely wrong, I just needed to dig deeper to establish the truth, that NPF was a catholic conspiracy to make more catholic babies. So, we all suffer from it, or at least I do and so do other closed minded idiots. Don't try to prove me wrong on this point!
I'd be fine with free market economics if they showed any sign of solving such a huge externalized cost or self-regulating, but they never have and never will.
I think you misunderstood me. I'm saying Russia's motivations for keeping the UN from intervening or getting rid of Assad had to do with their natural gas monopoly. The civil war itself, you're right, not fossil fuel related.
>If the same thing happened in the US or Russia or England or anywhere, would you like the UN stepping in and removing a government from power so the ultra conservatives could take over? replace ultra conservatives with any political bend you want. The point is, it's up to the people to decide, not the UN.
The UN would have become involved once Assad started killing civilians. So I wouldn't want the UN to replace Obama, unless he started ordering the army to start bombing us, in which case yes, I definitely would want the UN to replace the government.
Thanks for acknowledging that the real purpose of these observations isn't science, but rather to generate a pretext for massive governmental action.
Oh, darn, I accidentally revealed that it's a massive economic conspiracy rather than real science. Shoot. Well, the shadowy board of nefarious figures I work for isn't going to be happy about this...
While I'm concerned about privacy, there are tradeoffs as with any technology. Facebook, obviously, the transaction of your data for social networking is worth it to many people.
The fingerprinting thing too, may be worth it. Muggers target apple device users. Making sure they can't sell stolen phones isn't without benefit to the user. I think it's a lot more likely that some meth head would stab me for my phone than the government trying to do something similar. Fingerprinting could make the first less likely, and that might make it worth it even if it makes the second slightly more likely. At the very least, I'd like the meth head to not get anything, while the government likely already has my fingerprints, and doesn't really need them anyway to ruin my life.
Not that I'm going to get an iPhone ever again. I'd almost rather be stabbed by a meth head than have to use itunes again.
You assume my source was making an appeal to authority, and that it was on TV. Neither one of those things are true. I know I was convinced at one point, and admitted I could be wrong.
If you think admitting you don't know everything is a weakness then please, don't vote in any elections ever.
Show me evidence that CO2 levels changed as rapidly as we are changing them and I'll conclude we have nothing to worry about. Evolution takes time, longer than we're giving it. Even punctuated equilibrium models, the rate of change is still measured in centuries, not years.
The reaction of carbon dioxide plus H2O is reversible. When you ship them back to the lab, the pH would change.
You might want real-time monitoring of large areas to see how or if currents and tides are changing to fit into the model, they're unlikely to be linear changes in most areas. Plus, you compare changes in pH to observations of organisms and you can have better graphs to show to politicians who are just going to fucking ignore it anyway and leave future generations without seafood if it means a thousand dollars in their pockets now.
My point was that Russia (and China) kept the UN from intervening sooner and preventing thousands and thousands of deaths, because of fossil fuel interests.
Keep in mind they vetoed any multilateral UN action to keep the peace in Syria. Russia's involvement is no more humanitarian than the US's involvement.
The first casualty in war is truth. We may never know for CERTAIN that Assad did it. However, it seems unlikely that this was rebels targeting themselves with chemical weapons. For one thing, the rebels are only known by independent groups to have had miniscule amounts of chemical weapons, they never were known to be armed with the attacks that occurred. For another, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have killed thousands of their own just to try to paint it on Assad.
Honestly I forget the details that I did read about the attacks, and can't keep Sunni and Shiite apart, but I remember hearing someone explain it and explained why it was much more likely that the chem attacks were Assad rather than the rebels. Again, no certainty, but you're never going to get that even WITH a confession: whoever wins is going to wring a confession from the loser.
What are herbicide we then saying "yes" to? Something that is healthier than roundup? I have never heard of such a thing, though I'm not a farmer. Roundup is effective and non-toxic compared to other herbicides, that's why it's such a big deal. Organic farming? That's fun for people with a lot of money, but is not a realistic solution for the nation's food supply.
Do prosecutors buy any arguments aside from "Alright, I'll plead guilty if you promise not to fuck me as hard as you say you're going to"?
Anyway, no one said standing up for freedom against the government would be fun, cheap, or easy. This just potentially makes it slightly less costly, slightly easier... and is at least fun to some people to think about in theory.
Perhaps they meant "do we know the government has already given itself the ability" to foil this method?
Focusing on specific known facts is useful if you're trying to be practical in designing something. You can't account for every potential scenario obviously. The government could authorize itself to kidnap your loved ones and threaten to flay them alive until you tell them your password, it's certainly within their capabilities. However, you can't design security around everything the government or other possible criminals COULD do.
If you are trying to make a secure alternative to lavabit, for example, hopefully there will be a lag while they get clearance to compensate for this method. In that lag, the trigger could be tripped. Government goons might go ahead and beat you until you update the site without clearance, however the chances of that are smaller: beating you would be a bigger story, and bigger stories tend to leak. Without approval, the people beating you would be the scapegoats and would end up in jail.
Sometimes, I think Google should change their motto to "Be totally evil, support big brother in shitting on the constitution, and worship Satan." Not because I think that's their goal, just because I think it would be better PR. Google seems to catch a lot more flak than any other tech company, and I think it's because people are always looking to tear down someone for hypocrisy. They should lower expectations,
Straw man argument! No one is FORCING anyone to apologize.
No one is FORCING me to stay sober at work. That doesn't mean I can chug this bottle of whiskey in my desk without consequence.
In this case, no one is FORCING techcrunch to apologize. They just realize the consequences of letting their event sink to the professionalism of Def Comedy Jam are pretty negative.
I know it's fun to hate on political correctness, but make sure you limit it to when someone is actually infringing on your freedom of speech rather than A: someone saying they were offended by something and you can take that how you will or B: someone dealing with consequences of being seen as an asshole. If it's the government saying the thought police are going to tazer you if you say "Black" instead of "African American," then you have cause to be upset over PC speech. If someone is just saying "Hey, maybe don't use 'gay' as an insult and you won't be fired from someplace that prefers to hire adults," then, well, you can be offended if you like, but you are a fucking idiot.
You posted that at 10:34, the story went up at 10:22. It's possible that there was someone out there who was stupid enough to not realize that apple was not making breaking bad, and he or she happened to somehow have enough money to hire a lawyer who was willing to take their money in exchange for nothing. But it's also possible that whoever is behind this spent longer than 12 minutes thinking about it and has a better idea of what they're doing than you do.
There's probably already a rule for this, but I'm going to go ahead and state that as a general rule, any one line objections raised about a story within the first 15 minutes of the story going up on slashdot are probably not really that insightful. If you think you've found a gaping hole in a legal strategy, maybe consider that the strategy is more complex than the headline suggests. If it's a story about a scientific study, and you don't bother reading the actual published paper, maybe don't bother spouting a one line rejection of it.
Perhaps it takes some slashdotters less than 15 minutes to read a scientific paper, digest it, and crystalize a major problem to one line, maybe there are slashdot lawyers out there who pull up the documents online and read through a court case and then explain in one single sentence the glaring flaw. But I doubt it has ever actually worked like that.
You failed to mention the important part: that inevitably, free speech criticizing the political groups pushing this will be labeled "bad for the children" or "obscene."
With the web, it will be super easy to do this. You can just block a website critical of you and then say "oops, it was an accident." People are used to government being hamfisted, they'll blame some scapegoat. They'll also remind you that this is not censorship, precisely because of the "Oh, you can bypass the filters if you're the type of scum that likes that smut" confident that the vast majority of people won't opt out. And if they start opting out, you can just arbitrarily change the opt-out method. Require a paper form to be faxed some place.
If a particular critic of you is very motivated to get uncensored, you could always find ways around it. If they have comments, post anonymously on it with very profane statements until it qualifies.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're a decent ISP operator, good for you, but you're not MY ISP provider, and you're not my mobile provider. You're arguing on the side of AT&T and Verizon, whom I have constant problems with. You're arguing specifically against google. From my perspective, they give me free e-mail that works better than anything else, a free search engine that works better than anything else, and a free mobile phone operating system that works better than anything else. YOUR SIDE has done nothing but take my money and give me nothing. Google's side has done nothing but give me stuff for free (aside from my privacy, which the NSA stole anyway.)
Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.
You mentioned fearmongering? And the government is already doing both of those things a lot already.
If Verizon allows this to happen, people might actually start voting on it. Like, for REALS voting. They'll avoid that possibility at all costs. Even dictators do need to make their citizens like them somewhat: if enough people dislike you, they'll make other options happen, no matter what.
One wonders how they can get away, in any forum, by claiming "We invested in this, we need to make a profit" without literally being punched in the face.
... There's probably a reason I don't work in government.
This would be funny if weren't so likely to be taken seriously by the regulatory agencies which SHOULD currently be waterboarding Verizon's CEO for even suggesting this. With boiling hot oil.
I wish we'd go back to medical names that are whimsical and memorable like that rather than boring and forgettable. H1N1, for example, we could have done better. We could have called it "Tiger Woods Flu" or something.
Gene names, they're working on replacing the ones with memorable names as well. Catch22 and sonic hedgehog, for example.
Good parody up until the last line. I don't think anyone who actually uses "Scientists are always changing their minds" are confused about anything ever. It takes like a microsecond for cognitive dissonance to kick in. Have you ever confronted someone with data that runs contrary to their established worldview? Usually not even a flicker of doubt crosses their face. Any "deep in thought" processes that go on are searching for a reason to throw out the new, unwelcome bit of data rather than considering it.
It's not specific to climate change deniers or conservatives obviously. I had a similar reaction last night to a deeply catholic friend's saying that natural family planning was the most effective form of birth control. I caught myself immediately going to wiki, which backed up his statement, and then I immediately decided no, they were both definitely wrong, I just needed to dig deeper to establish the truth, that NPF was a catholic conspiracy to make more catholic babies. So, we all suffer from it, or at least I do and so do other closed minded idiots. Don't try to prove me wrong on this point!
I'd be fine with free market economics if they showed any sign of solving such a huge externalized cost or self-regulating, but they never have and never will.
>If the same thing happened in the US or Russia or England or anywhere, would you like the UN stepping in and removing a government from power so the ultra conservatives could take over? replace ultra conservatives with any political bend you want. The point is, it's up to the people to decide, not the UN.
The UN would have become involved once Assad started killing civilians. So I wouldn't want the UN to replace Obama, unless he started ordering the army to start bombing us, in which case yes, I definitely would want the UN to replace the government.
you can have better graphs to show to politicians
Thanks for acknowledging that the real purpose of these observations isn't science, but rather to generate a pretext for massive governmental action.
Oh, darn, I accidentally revealed that it's a massive economic conspiracy rather than real science. Shoot. Well, the shadowy board of nefarious figures I work for isn't going to be happy about this...
While I'm concerned about privacy, there are tradeoffs as with any technology. Facebook, obviously, the transaction of your data for social networking is worth it to many people.
The fingerprinting thing too, may be worth it. Muggers target apple device users. Making sure they can't sell stolen phones isn't without benefit to the user. I think it's a lot more likely that some meth head would stab me for my phone than the government trying to do something similar. Fingerprinting could make the first less likely, and that might make it worth it even if it makes the second slightly more likely. At the very least, I'd like the meth head to not get anything, while the government likely already has my fingerprints, and doesn't really need them anyway to ruin my life.
Not that I'm going to get an iPhone ever again. I'd almost rather be stabbed by a meth head than have to use itunes again.
You assume my source was making an appeal to authority, and that it was on TV. Neither one of those things are true. I know I was convinced at one point, and admitted I could be wrong.
If you think admitting you don't know everything is a weakness then please, don't vote in any elections ever.
Compared to how much CO2 we're adding? Citation needed.
Show me evidence that CO2 levels changed as rapidly as we are changing them and I'll conclude we have nothing to worry about. Evolution takes time, longer than we're giving it. Even punctuated equilibrium models, the rate of change is still measured in centuries, not years.
The reaction of carbon dioxide plus H2O is reversible. When you ship them back to the lab, the pH would change.
You might want real-time monitoring of large areas to see how or if currents and tides are changing to fit into the model, they're unlikely to be linear changes in most areas. Plus, you compare changes in pH to observations of organisms and you can have better graphs to show to politicians who are just going to fucking ignore it anyway and leave future generations without seafood if it means a thousand dollars in their pockets now.
My point was that Russia (and China) kept the UN from intervening sooner and preventing thousands and thousands of deaths, because of fossil fuel interests.
Keep in mind they vetoed any multilateral UN action to keep the peace in Syria. Russia's involvement is no more humanitarian than the US's involvement.
Good post on this subject from reddit yesterday. And by "good post" I mean "I have ABSOLUTELY no idea if it's right or not, but it sounds convincing????"
The first casualty in war is truth. We may never know for CERTAIN that Assad did it. However, it seems unlikely that this was rebels targeting themselves with chemical weapons. For one thing, the rebels are only known by independent groups to have had miniscule amounts of chemical weapons, they never were known to be armed with the attacks that occurred. For another, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have killed thousands of their own just to try to paint it on Assad.
Honestly I forget the details that I did read about the attacks, and can't keep Sunni and Shiite apart, but I remember hearing someone explain it and explained why it was much more likely that the chem attacks were Assad rather than the rebels. Again, no certainty, but you're never going to get that even WITH a confession: whoever wins is going to wring a confession from the loser.
What are herbicide we then saying "yes" to? Something that is healthier than roundup? I have never heard of such a thing, though I'm not a farmer. Roundup is effective and non-toxic compared to other herbicides, that's why it's such a big deal. Organic farming? That's fun for people with a lot of money, but is not a realistic solution for the nation's food supply.
Do prosecutors buy any arguments aside from "Alright, I'll plead guilty if you promise not to fuck me as hard as you say you're going to"?
Anyway, no one said standing up for freedom against the government would be fun, cheap, or easy. This just potentially makes it slightly less costly, slightly easier... and is at least fun to some people to think about in theory.
Perhaps they meant "do we know the government has already given itself the ability" to foil this method?
Focusing on specific known facts is useful if you're trying to be practical in designing something. You can't account for every potential scenario obviously. The government could authorize itself to kidnap your loved ones and threaten to flay them alive until you tell them your password, it's certainly within their capabilities. However, you can't design security around everything the government or other possible criminals COULD do.
If you are trying to make a secure alternative to lavabit, for example, hopefully there will be a lag while they get clearance to compensate for this method. In that lag, the trigger could be tripped. Government goons might go ahead and beat you until you update the site without clearance, however the chances of that are smaller: beating you would be a bigger story, and bigger stories tend to leak. Without approval, the people beating you would be the scapegoats and would end up in jail.
Sometimes, I think Google should change their motto to "Be totally evil, support big brother in shitting on the constitution, and worship Satan." Not because I think that's their goal, just because I think it would be better PR. Google seems to catch a lot more flak than any other tech company, and I think it's because people are always looking to tear down someone for hypocrisy. They should lower expectations,
Straw man argument! No one is FORCING anyone to apologize.
No one is FORCING me to stay sober at work. That doesn't mean I can chug this bottle of whiskey in my desk without consequence.
In this case, no one is FORCING techcrunch to apologize. They just realize the consequences of letting their event sink to the professionalism of Def Comedy Jam are pretty negative.
I know it's fun to hate on political correctness, but make sure you limit it to when someone is actually infringing on your freedom of speech rather than A: someone saying they were offended by something and you can take that how you will or B: someone dealing with consequences of being seen as an asshole. If it's the government saying the thought police are going to tazer you if you say "Black" instead of "African American," then you have cause to be upset over PC speech. If someone is just saying "Hey, maybe don't use 'gay' as an insult and you won't be fired from someplace that prefers to hire adults," then, well, you can be offended if you like, but you are a fucking idiot.
You posted that at 10:34, the story went up at 10:22. It's possible that there was someone out there who was stupid enough to not realize that apple was not making breaking bad, and he or she happened to somehow have enough money to hire a lawyer who was willing to take their money in exchange for nothing. But it's also possible that whoever is behind this spent longer than 12 minutes thinking about it and has a better idea of what they're doing than you do.
There's probably already a rule for this, but I'm going to go ahead and state that as a general rule, any one line objections raised about a story within the first 15 minutes of the story going up on slashdot are probably not really that insightful. If you think you've found a gaping hole in a legal strategy, maybe consider that the strategy is more complex than the headline suggests. If it's a story about a scientific study, and you don't bother reading the actual published paper, maybe don't bother spouting a one line rejection of it.
Perhaps it takes some slashdotters less than 15 minutes to read a scientific paper, digest it, and crystalize a major problem to one line, maybe there are slashdot lawyers out there who pull up the documents online and read through a court case and then explain in one single sentence the glaring flaw. But I doubt it has ever actually worked like that.
You failed to mention the important part: that inevitably, free speech criticizing the political groups pushing this will be labeled "bad for the children" or "obscene."
With the web, it will be super easy to do this. You can just block a website critical of you and then say "oops, it was an accident." People are used to government being hamfisted, they'll blame some scapegoat. They'll also remind you that this is not censorship, precisely because of the "Oh, you can bypass the filters if you're the type of scum that likes that smut" confident that the vast majority of people won't opt out. And if they start opting out, you can just arbitrarily change the opt-out method. Require a paper form to be faxed some place.
If a particular critic of you is very motivated to get uncensored, you could always find ways around it. If they have comments, post anonymously on it with very profane statements until it qualifies.
Oh thanks a lot slashdot, now whenever I put two legos together with the pegs in the holes of the next one, I'm going to feel aroused and confused.