That article was basically that powerful people at google have ties with powerful people in the government. While that's important to keep an eye on, it's also worth noting that the government has ties with powerful people everywhere. Google isn't unique. And it's clear that the NSA et al will keep an eye on you no matter what phone you have.
I think boycotting based on privacy could help make the tech companies slightly more resistant to handing our data over to the government, but we still need to scale back the government's spying addiction, and we can't rely on companies to help us there.
Well it's kind of like a Ford Thunderbird muffler.
These cars are driverless, and that analogy was made without me controlling where it was going. Does/did Ford even make Thunderbirds? I assume they have mufflers.
I guess the lesson here is that we should be very concerned with driverless cars.
For Christ's sake, if you want someone to take you seriously, never use the words "lololol" ever, ever. Ever.
AC is right. If people online don't take you seriously, then... um... hmm...
What's the advantage of slashdotters taking someone seriously? The article states that they have had a successful kickstarter, so they have convinced people to give money to them. Between people "taking me seriously" and people giving me money, I'd prefer the second. I don't take myself very seriously, nor does my ego depend on people (especially ones who have never met me thinking I'm not "a forty year old, divorced single mother secretary at the end of the hall who is desperately trying to stay relevant, or as a mentally challenged teenage girl who doesn't understand how to show emotion in text."
Hopefully. If everyone knows how bad an idea this is, but we all just go along with it because meh, then that doesn't really say good things about our ability to make decisions.
It wouldn't be a whole lot better if most people went along with the NSA because they honestly believed it was necessary and wouldn't be abused, but at least that would mean that stories like this coming out could make them realize it was a bad idea and change it. Wheras if it's just apathy, then that's not going to be changed as easily.
Tools depend on the skill of the person using them. I thought the new movies were good. In fact, I watched the Wrath of Khan after the most recent star wars movie and (takes a deep breath and cowers behind flame shield) the old one is pretty horrible IMHO.
I'd further argue that J.J. Abrams was a bigger name than Star Trek in the circles that counted when the first remake movie came out. Not among fans obviously, but among the studios.
Even that wouldn't be bad enough. Aside from genocide, it seems like 30 years is beyond the statute of limitations for anything that our political leaders do. Even my example with the patriot act, that would I think be met with a whole lot of "meh" and "Well, we knew that before basically."
Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.
Well it's a real shame no scientist with data supporting climate change ever tried to explain it to the public, then. They all figured a vice president would come along, so why bother before that?
Scientists have been saying this for decades. Not enough people cared. Nothing happened, long after it was obvious a change needed to be made. Better PR was needed. And that still didn't solve it. Even had there not been powerful interests in carbon taxes, I don't think the public would have overcome it's inertia and demanded reducing carbon emissions, they hear it's not going to happen tomorrow and it isn't sex or movies, and ignore it.
What's wrong with Gore anyway? Agenda? Who the hell DOESN'T have an agenda? I've heard he was in on a scheme to get rich from selling carbon credits. So what? Is that a reason not to fight climate change? There are a lot more people who are a lot more evil than Gore getting insanely wealthy off us NOT taxing carbon. Like, OPEC. Gore seems unlikely to take his carbon money and fund it towards suppressing human rights and terrorism, which is not true of oil money. The coal industry isn't quite as bad as OPEC, but there's a lot of terrible people there too.
The message I'm getting is that they're doing something right now so reprehensible that they're worried we'll still be pissed about it in 30 years when it's declassified.
A lot of the shit we pulled decades ago with overthrowing foreign governments, which eventually came back to bite us in the ass, that angers me, but I'm not going to demand we jail Regan's administration and CIA officials from back then. Time heals a lot of wounds, and they know this. Why should it concern them if things from the JFK era are declassified? Perhaps it's because the clock is ticking down for some of the current government officials' earlier sins. Like maybe there's a memo that would otherwise be declassified in the next ten years from some underling typed up and put in the record that was the patriot act down to the punctuation, and a note that the next terrorist attack would be a good opportunity to slip it in?
I'm thinking the subway/bus/taxi/carpool/bike/walking/rollerskates/hitchiking/horseback riding/dogsled option will always be cheaper than a personalized chauffeur. Even an automated one. How much would an automated driving system have to add to the price tag before those would be more attractive options?
I didn't mean amphetamines. There are a lot of weight loss pills out there that work, except people want them to work faster so they take more and it kills them.
People and animals lacking myostatin have abnormal muscle growth, yet they don't appear to be messed up in the face. And it doesn't sound like this drug causes musclebound mice. So I'd guess no it wouldn't cause you to look like a steroid-freak.
I do think you're right that it will be abused. This is why we can't have nice painkillers or weight loss pills.
Assuming the pill isn't an enormous suppository, it's not really mutually exclusive with walking. You could take the drug and also walk to make sure you were healthy.
Out of curiosity, why didn't anyone just sink it in international waters? I don't think that would be the best thing for all concerned, that just sounds like it would be the path of least resistance for whichever corporation owned it and thus the most likely thing to happen.
Please spam everyone and everything with these cease and desist letters. For EVERYTHING. Especially politicians and voters who don't generally care about IP laws.
The sooner everyone realizes how thoroughly stupid it is to give you this as a weapon, the sooner someone will take it away from you and all the other sociopathic organizations out there.
Hopefully anyway. At the very least, it will be entertaining to watch you claim copyright over "#yolo" on twitter.
The one I saw had dozens of dead children who looked like they were sleeping. To me, I'm more disturbed by that than blood and gore. Perhaps it's just because I've seen more pictures on the internet of blood and gore than I should have.
- He's illogical
- He thinks he is a God and can't possibly be affected by other countries. They've been letting this go on for a year now, it's not like Syria is going to be much easier for us to come into now.
- He's so desperate that he's less worried about the international response than he is about surviving the week
- He thinks that the rebellion will be crushed before the international community can arrive. Other countries probably aren't willing to depose him if there's nothing left to replace him
- It may be part of a negotiation we're not aware of. "Rebel leader, surrender now or I'm going to start gassing. Okay, you didn't, time for the gas."
- He may think he can scapegoat it on the other side or a rogue commander
- He may have realized he can't win and just wants to kill as many people as he can out of spite
I'm not suggesting we make it part of the job description, just that we avoid submitting to journals that are scummy, and demanding open access legislation.
Researchers at universities generally have access through their host institution. This is still annoying as your university then has to waste millions of dollars subscribing to every crappy elsevier journal out there, using money from your grants. And there will still be an interesting-sounding article in a journal your university decided not to pay the toll for. And if you're at home, you have to log in via VPN to read it.
All because researchers prefer to focus on their research rather than shaking off parasites.
Slashdot Mirror
That article was basically that powerful people at google have ties with powerful people in the government. While that's important to keep an eye on, it's also worth noting that the government has ties with powerful people everywhere. Google isn't unique. And it's clear that the NSA et al will keep an eye on you no matter what phone you have.
I think boycotting based on privacy could help make the tech companies slightly more resistant to handing our data over to the government, but we still need to scale back the government's spying addiction, and we can't rely on companies to help us there.
"LOLOLOL" is not "incredibly immature."
Well it's kind of like a Ford Thunderbird muffler.
These cars are driverless, and that analogy was made without me controlling where it was going. Does/did Ford even make Thunderbirds? I assume they have mufflers.
I guess the lesson here is that we should be very concerned with driverless cars.
For Christ's sake, if you want someone to take you seriously, never use the words "lololol" ever, ever. Ever.
AC is right. If people online don't take you seriously, then... um... hmm...
What's the advantage of slashdotters taking someone seriously? The article states that they have had a successful kickstarter, so they have convinced people to give money to them. Between people "taking me seriously" and people giving me money, I'd prefer the second. I don't take myself very seriously, nor does my ego depend on people (especially ones who have never met me thinking I'm not "a forty year old, divorced single mother secretary at the end of the hall who is desperately trying to stay relevant, or as a mentally challenged teenage girl who doesn't understand how to show emotion in text."
Hopefully. If everyone knows how bad an idea this is, but we all just go along with it because meh, then that doesn't really say good things about our ability to make decisions.
It wouldn't be a whole lot better if most people went along with the NSA because they honestly believed it was necessary and wouldn't be abused, but at least that would mean that stories like this coming out could make them realize it was a bad idea and change it. Wheras if it's just apathy, then that's not going to be changed as easily.
Tools depend on the skill of the person using them. I thought the new movies were good. In fact, I watched the Wrath of Khan after the most recent star wars movie and (takes a deep breath and cowers behind flame shield) the old one is pretty horrible IMHO.
I'd further argue that J.J. Abrams was a bigger name than Star Trek in the circles that counted when the first remake movie came out. Not among fans obviously, but among the studios.
You could just pirate the ebooks you buy. You have permanent access that way.
Even that wouldn't be bad enough. Aside from genocide, it seems like 30 years is beyond the statute of limitations for anything that our political leaders do. Even my example with the patriot act, that would I think be met with a whole lot of "meh" and "Well, we knew that before basically."
Yes, his stupid documentary made me want to vomit. Science should be explained by scientists, not those with agendas.
Well it's a real shame no scientist with data supporting climate change ever tried to explain it to the public, then. They all figured a vice president would come along, so why bother before that?
Scientists have been saying this for decades. Not enough people cared. Nothing happened, long after it was obvious a change needed to be made. Better PR was needed. And that still didn't solve it. Even had there not been powerful interests in carbon taxes, I don't think the public would have overcome it's inertia and demanded reducing carbon emissions, they hear it's not going to happen tomorrow and it isn't sex or movies, and ignore it.
What's wrong with Gore anyway? Agenda? Who the hell DOESN'T have an agenda? I've heard he was in on a scheme to get rich from selling carbon credits. So what? Is that a reason not to fight climate change? There are a lot more people who are a lot more evil than Gore getting insanely wealthy off us NOT taxing carbon. Like, OPEC. Gore seems unlikely to take his carbon money and fund it towards suppressing human rights and terrorism, which is not true of oil money. The coal industry isn't quite as bad as OPEC, but there's a lot of terrible people there too.
I'm confused. Why would someone shoot themselves in the foot after seeing that?
The message I'm getting is that they're doing something right now so reprehensible that they're worried we'll still be pissed about it in 30 years when it's declassified.
A lot of the shit we pulled decades ago with overthrowing foreign governments, which eventually came back to bite us in the ass, that angers me, but I'm not going to demand we jail Regan's administration and CIA officials from back then. Time heals a lot of wounds, and they know this. Why should it concern them if things from the JFK era are declassified? Perhaps it's because the clock is ticking down for some of the current government officials' earlier sins. Like maybe there's a memo that would otherwise be declassified in the next ten years from some underling typed up and put in the record that was the patriot act down to the punctuation, and a note that the next terrorist attack would be a good opportunity to slip it in?
I'm thinking the subway/bus/taxi/carpool/bike/walking/rollerskates/hitchiking/horseback riding/dogsled option will always be cheaper than a personalized chauffeur. Even an automated one. How much would an automated driving system have to add to the price tag before those would be more attractive options?
Depending on inflation, she will get at least $30 from at least me. I'll definitely be buying the book.
I didn't mean amphetamines. There are a lot of weight loss pills out there that work, except people want them to work faster so they take more and it kills them.
For example, DNP was the one I was thinking of.
People and animals lacking myostatin have abnormal muscle growth, yet they don't appear to be messed up in the face. And it doesn't sound like this drug causes musclebound mice. So I'd guess no it wouldn't cause you to look like a steroid-freak.
I do think you're right that it will be abused. This is why we can't have nice painkillers or weight loss pills.
Citation: just wait a few decades, then tell me that wear and tear isn't anything to be concerned with.
Assuming the pill isn't an enormous suppository, it's not really mutually exclusive with walking. You could take the drug and also walk to make sure you were healthy.
Out of curiosity, why didn't anyone just sink it in international waters? I don't think that would be the best thing for all concerned, that just sounds like it would be the path of least resistance for whichever corporation owned it and thus the most likely thing to happen.
I disagree.
Dear, Dear Comcast:
Please spam everyone and everything with these cease and desist letters. For EVERYTHING. Especially politicians and voters who don't generally care about IP laws.
The sooner everyone realizes how thoroughly stupid it is to give you this as a weapon, the sooner someone will take it away from you and all the other sociopathic organizations out there.
Hopefully anyway. At the very least, it will be entertaining to watch you claim copyright over "#yolo" on twitter.
The one I saw had dozens of dead children who looked like they were sleeping. To me, I'm more disturbed by that than blood and gore. Perhaps it's just because I've seen more pictures on the internet of blood and gore than I should have.
Wow, you just don't really like anyone, do you?
Assad may have done it for a variety of reasons
- He's illogical
- He thinks he is a God and can't possibly be affected by other countries. They've been letting this go on for a year now, it's not like Syria is going to be much easier for us to come into now.
- He's so desperate that he's less worried about the international response than he is about surviving the week
- He thinks that the rebellion will be crushed before the international community can arrive. Other countries probably aren't willing to depose him if there's nothing left to replace him
- It may be part of a negotiation we're not aware of. "Rebel leader, surrender now or I'm going to start gassing. Okay, you didn't, time for the gas."
- He may think he can scapegoat it on the other side or a rogue commander
- He may have realized he can't win and just wants to kill as many people as he can out of spite
I'm not suggesting we make it part of the job description, just that we avoid submitting to journals that are scummy, and demanding open access legislation.
I think "already" was used in the sense of "the transition is further along than we thought it was."
Researchers at universities generally have access through their host institution. This is still annoying as your university then has to waste millions of dollars subscribing to every crappy elsevier journal out there, using money from your grants. And there will still be an interesting-sounding article in a journal your university decided not to pay the toll for. And if you're at home, you have to log in via VPN to read it.
All because researchers prefer to focus on their research rather than shaking off parasites.