It is indeed a vast field, and yes nobody knows everything I'm pretty sure, but there is a base line I think which should be learned. I think every programmer must know all security concepts (including encryption), assembly, hardware, and C as a baseline. Yes the detailed knowledge about it pretty much obsolete practically, but what are you going to do when things break? Albeit things look very similar at most levels of abstraction (there are always loops and conditions), but you can't assume your libraries or frameworks will work perfectly, even the best people make mistakes.
On a bad day, I'd much rather have a programmer who can tell me, x package, or x component we are depending on has an issue, and this is how we fix it, than a programmer who says, "Well, that's not Java, I don't know". Consider another scenario where a person might not know why to use a statement vs. a prepared statement. This of course will be perfectly fine if you're running a closed source shop and have your own framework and language in place, but then you're hiring logisticians not programmers.
Basically a programmer is not allowed to say, "I don't know", only "I'm not sure yet".
Right, but as this technology progresses and individual neurons can be targeted for activation, it's going to raise some concerns. Such as security. You thought your cellphone had terrible security, imagine getting brain hacked.
- Hi, my computer is not working, and I have a sudden urge to wire all my saving into an offshore account.
- Did you click on that attachment we warned you about earlier today? ... silence...
- I no click attachment...
- *sigh* I'll be right down, Steve call security until we reinstall Sharon's original brain OS.
Hell yea! Now how do I add my house to this list? Can we just come up with a global "Shooo!" protocol? Upon recieving packet, mark it on the no fly zone list, or do we each individually have to fly our own drone blasting drones? If that's the case, can we just make it legal to shoot drones instead? I mean as if it wasn't annoying enough to have people walking around snapping pictures of everything, now it's automated? Hell, we even have a selfie drone service, and unfortunately in the part of VA I'm at, no projectiles of any kind are allowed. So my solution is going to have to be a SUPER LONG stick, with a Mickey Mouse hand stapled on it and swat those f#$!@s above my land.
Really, Muslims don't explode upon exposure to the image of Mohammad. It's also not the majority opinion in Turkey (30% believe their eyes might melt, they're not sure, they never saw a drawing of Mohammad before). This is basically the current administration in Turkey moving onward with their extreme right wing conservative Muslim image (think Foxnews is the only news, and Bush has been President for more than a decade) to strengthen economical relations with the Arab world. The Arabs tend to be super religious, like Amish religious, and like super wealthy, I mean which-pants-did-I-put-that-billion-yesterday wealthy. So, as a conservative and traditional Arab, I shan't be doing business with a country who lets the drawing of Mohammad run amock on their Internets. Keep in mind Turkey is a country who loves to drink alcohol, that bans you to hell in the Arab world, guess what? There are also new restrictions on alcohol in Turkey.
TL;DR
Zuckerberg is a whore for money.
Erdogan is a whore for money.
So you tell me what the difference is between these two scenarios:
1-) Knock on the door, "Police! We have a warrant to search your home!"
*Person goes to their room, runs their hard drive through a wood chipper*
2-) Knock on the door (presumably), "Police! We have a warrant to search your phone!"
*Person's phone is encrypted*
Here's what's different. Law enforcement can now see through your walls, reroute your traffic, disrupt your radio communications, hell even impersonate a service crewman (cleaning, cable guy, pest control), ALL without any probable cause or warrant, without ever even informing you. So this... "zone of lawlessness" really is created by the pesky Bill of Rights. We really should do away with it and accept the fact that any idiot with a badge is your "life master", who is always watching and you better behave.
That black, gay, Muslim guy is surely up to something, send John to his uhm... *checks database* 12:00AM Friday night party, with uh... let's see... weed, he seems to like weed, then arrest him and bring him here, he needs to be off the streets.
So a brilliant fellow was bullied to suicide and well that's his own damn fault. Yes, our government can definitely be trusted with the power we entrust them, who knows who might be a terrorist. Maybe you're next.
The world stands at 7 billion people today, how many does it take to make life impossible here?
Do we really want to go down with the planet since this seems to be the only body of mass with life on it?
Is this the only body of mass with life on it?
Is it not great to have a unified goal of existence for all human beings no matter who they are?
Consider how many kings claimed mountains for their own, humanity named the same mountains quite a few times. In the great scheme of things, life as we know it is nothing but a complex chemical reaction occuring on the surface of the Earth. Earth went from being a ball of lava, to having a surface full of gas, to this mostly water structure, freezing and thawing, until pretty lights started glowing on its dark side, sattelites looking down at the very people who made them, should it all just end here?
I suppose we should first get people thinking about caring for the "next generation", and hopefully space exploration will eventually take shape as well. Otherwise we can just continue killing each other to limit the population, hope that a super virus doesn't come about, and just procreate until the planet gets swallowed up by our mid-age Sun. I think the former sounds better.
Even if that lack of trust, as Caldwell claimed, is based largely on misinformation about the technical abilities of the law enforcement tools and the manners in which they are used.
I doubt it's a good idea to bank on the fact that being uneducated about a subject would lead to safety. There has never been a good way to balance this, hence the Bill of Rights.
The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.
A reasonable person. Like Snoop Dogg or Katie Couric? I have a feeling that Snoop will believe at least the guy was trying to rhyme, Katie would probably feel extremely threatened. I personally don't think this guy would even be in front of a judge if he kept his amazing rhyming skills to himself when drawing upon the memories of meeting an FBI agent. There is this thing called context one must ask for before assuming anything I think, but maybe not? This case is going to be setting an interesting precedent for online speech in general, lets just hope the judge listens to rap in his free time. An interesting question is, are we under oath when posting on Facebook? If I posted, "I killed that bitch, ripped her head off with her spine through her torso." A reasonable person might believe I've committed murder, unless they asked, "What do you mean?", at which time I would reply, "I was playing Mortal Kombat against Sheeva using Sub-Zero, got the Fatality just in time."
I don't believe any "burried deep within your cables" type organization would require this sort of access. It's a lot easier to exploit some kind of a firmware vulnerability and download the private key to the CA, or simply VNC into the target user's machine to see the requested data before it was encrypted. This is to keep out private hackers, organized hackers, wealthy hackers etc. The government will always have access to your data, well since they tend to have tanks the persuation tends to be unmatchable. The turn of the tide for our century is to see if the governments who do have such access will show equal attention to everyone rather than be in favor of economics, lets be honest having access to all of someone's data immediately tends to reduce respect to that person, objectifying them. This is the culture which is really the root of all the privacy issues. I think ultimately we need to rebrand the NSA err I mean shut down the NSA. Because truly, nobody is watching your computer... O_O... That's the point, when you KNOW someone is watching, it screws up the whole experience.
When something's strange, in your computer, who you gonna call? Momentarily the answer is, "Tough luck" We've been talking about a "government layer" within the network stack (jokingly at first) for decades. As it is however, the world has a major respect issue between authority and economically disadvantaged. It's really a very complex issue. But I'd say the only good way out is read-only access, which doesn't exist, by highly trained (and hopefully paid) employees who just don't exist.
If you're asking, isn't that the case today anyways? The answer is no, there are 0 checks and balances, apparently. In that, a family was raided (agents boxed in their cars), and interrogated because they Googled, "pressure cooker". Heads of such agencies lied to the Congress, in public, and nobody cared. There is this feeling that there are no consequences to invading people's privacy, whereas it should be jail time for the officials. You see? That's the issue with respect, the person who is watching isn't intimidated at all into peering over a person's private life.
I completely understand you. It's fairly normal to feel suicidal at least once in your life, it reiterates the fact of mortality and lets people sort out their priorities given a finite amount of time creates the concept of things being precious. The point I was trying to make was if people are in a fairly good mood, and all their friends start talking about suicide all of a sudden, it might sway their thoughts to a darker zone where none existed before. It's just how we tend to consume information and generate opinions based on it. I guess in short my point is assumption, is the mother of all fuck ups.
It really has much to do with the people involved in the security groups for the popular browsers. I have a feeling EFF, Cisco, Mozilla and Akamai are big enough names to push this through to production.
... it just doesn't want to go the utility route...
I'm sorry Comcast, but no. You can be like Atmos, that's about it. A good percentage of people don't have any other service such as phone or maybe even access to their homes without the Internet, we even check the time through the Internet. I sincerely hope POTUS doesn't succumb to this sly public Comcast facade.
Statistically (well let's call it machine learning analysis for the sake of the article) the military has always been impressed by electronics, and there seems to be this trend of amazement at Big Data, given the amount of signals being collected in any given military institution processed through iteratively data adjusted logic gates. I admit it's pretty cool, but it makes a fatal assumption, heuristic analysis is always correct. Take the case of someone who wasn't suicidal, fits the criteria of "he who must be suicidal", if everyone within the community of this person starts treating them like they're suicidal, well that might make them suicidal. I just hope all they do is send a pamphlet otherwise I feel for the non-married 27 year-olds in the military.
Firstly, programmers are lazy by design. That's a good thing because that means energy efficiency, which also equates to better algorithms in the pattern of thought (that's why we have coffee, to move a lazy programmer into coding). Does automation make a programmer lazy? Not if they practice both. At home as a hobby, open up a Hex Editor and code with directly inputting 0s and 1s like a real man! At work, use your IDE's bean generators and the like, the key point being, as long as you are not helpless when the automation doesn't function as it should.
There is a public debate. Every citizen of the Campaign-funding Corporations of America has the ability to vote, through their elected Lobbyists.
Oh, wait... now I see. Whoever submitted the story was referring to the form of government that the U.S. had around 1800.
Here's the rule of thumb, if it's a long term decision (in this case forever) it MUST be as public as possible. If it's a short term decision, do it behind closed doors it's going to fade anyhow. Evils to watch out for:
First one, "short term decisions re-extended forever" (That's a long term decision, much like, "Okay, this is my last drink..." next day "Okay this is my last drink" years later "Damn! My liver!")
The second one, "long term decisions unenforced" (That's a short term decision, much like, "Meh, I'll get to that pile of laundry tomorrow. Do we even need to do laundry?")
Real world example on the second one from history would be the Secularism rule, "Don't mix religion and government!" The Shah of Iran gets toppled, Ayatollah Khomeini brings about religious rule. Country goes from Weekly fashion magazines for women to women must cover up wherever they go in public (punished by whipping) and eventually pregnant women shot in the streets. You don't want public whippings in your country, keep it rational (Oh and compensate your employees well).
Real world example on the first one from history would be (most recently the Patriot Act) Mobarak of Egypt. Okay this will be my best term as elected president! Erm, I'm gonna need another term. You don't want a totalitarian government (see Mussolini) don't indulge so permanently, nor describe the total life goals of a nation, whether out in public or in secret.
Now, coming back to The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), America (and most other technologically literate countries) have already decided that we want no part in this through SOPA and PIPA reactions. We want our Internet roaming free like the Buffalo. But seeing as how https//www.information.com turned into http//$$$.your_private_information.buy I don't see any realistic way the people could have a say in it, unless our governments just suddenly decide to do the right thing. It would be nice. But why should they?
So the choice comes to anyone with a decent income as such, "Beat this dying horse to war, and double your money!" or "Do the right thing, but possibly lose money, like donating to a charity."
In this case it might be in the interest of eBay and Amazon type companies who simply need the Internet as a communication medium vs. companies like Facebook who'd like to know your mother's maiden name. The problem with that is, Amazon is also in the business of wanting to know your mom personally, as a profit on the side, since everybody does it.
Eighty-three healthy individuals (males/females = 41/42; age = 18â"62; mean [SD] = 29.0 [11.3] years) in Roanoke and Blacksburg, VA, area were recruited...
Second:
They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage.
So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?
That is the problem with these "studies". DO NOT look in your backyard for cases that support your bias. Look for cases that contradict your bias. Even if you have to look at the people in other countries. Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.
Did you know that Blacksburg is an international college town? We have more Chinese and Indian people here than local Virginians depending on the year and semester. So the 18-30 is a global mix, 30-62 would most likely be the more "backyard" bias, although we also have locals from around the world, like Iranians, Turks, it's a fairly diverse town to represent a sampling of the planet.
They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage.
Also you seemed to imply here that taking a survey of the people's political opinions is a negative? Well how else are they supposed to compare the results? I'm assuming in your mind simply doing the experiment and not checking to see if the correlation actually existed would be good enough?
Just make a social networking site with no ads, no back alley sales, no access to anyone PERIOD! But you have to pay monthly subscription. Wouldn't you pay for a social networking site like a Netflix subscription for them to guarantee privacy? I would. Somebody patent this and be a billionaire already, chop chop!
Slashdot Mirror
It is indeed a vast field, and yes nobody knows everything I'm pretty sure, but there is a base line I think which should be learned. I think every programmer must know all security concepts (including encryption), assembly, hardware, and C as a baseline. Yes the detailed knowledge about it pretty much obsolete practically, but what are you going to do when things break? Albeit things look very similar at most levels of abstraction (there are always loops and conditions), but you can't assume your libraries or frameworks will work perfectly, even the best people make mistakes.
On a bad day, I'd much rather have a programmer who can tell me, x package, or x component we are depending on has an issue, and this is how we fix it, than a programmer who says, "Well, that's not Java, I don't know". Consider another scenario where a person might not know why to use a statement vs. a prepared statement. This of course will be perfectly fine if you're running a closed source shop and have your own framework and language in place, but then you're hiring logisticians not programmers.
Basically a programmer is not allowed to say, "I don't know", only "I'm not sure yet".
If you tell any group of people, here's a few billion, go get me some terrorists, they're going to.
Right, but as this technology progresses and individual neurons can be targeted for activation, it's going to raise some concerns. Such as security. You thought your cellphone had terrible security, imagine getting brain hacked.
... silence ...
- Hi, my computer is not working, and I have a sudden urge to wire all my saving into an offshore account.
- Did you click on that attachment we warned you about earlier today?
- I no click attachment...
- *sigh* I'll be right down, Steve call security until we reinstall Sharon's original brain OS.
Hell yea! Now how do I add my house to this list? Can we just come up with a global "Shooo!" protocol? Upon recieving packet, mark it on the no fly zone list, or do we each individually have to fly our own drone blasting drones? If that's the case, can we just make it legal to shoot drones instead? I mean as if it wasn't annoying enough to have people walking around snapping pictures of everything, now it's automated? Hell, we even have a selfie drone service, and unfortunately in the part of VA I'm at, no projectiles of any kind are allowed. So my solution is going to have to be a SUPER LONG stick, with a Mickey Mouse hand stapled on it and swat those f#$!@s above my land.
Really, Muslims don't explode upon exposure to the image of Mohammad. It's also not the majority opinion in Turkey (30% believe their eyes might melt, they're not sure, they never saw a drawing of Mohammad before). This is basically the current administration in Turkey moving onward with their extreme right wing conservative Muslim image (think Foxnews is the only news, and Bush has been President for more than a decade) to strengthen economical relations with the Arab world. The Arabs tend to be super religious, like Amish religious, and like super wealthy, I mean which-pants-did-I-put-that-billion-yesterday wealthy. So, as a conservative and traditional Arab, I shan't be doing business with a country who lets the drawing of Mohammad run amock on their Internets. Keep in mind Turkey is a country who loves to drink alcohol, that bans you to hell in the Arab world, guess what? There are also new restrictions on alcohol in Turkey.
TL;DR
Zuckerberg is a whore for money.
Erdogan is a whore for money.
So you tell me what the difference is between these two scenarios:
... "zone of lawlessness" really is created by the pesky Bill of Rights. We really should do away with it and accept the fact that any idiot with a badge is your "life master", who is always watching and you better behave.
... weed, he seems to like weed, then arrest him and bring him here, he needs to be off the streets.
1-) Knock on the door, "Police! We have a warrant to search your home!"
*Person goes to their room, runs their hard drive through a wood chipper*
2-) Knock on the door (presumably), "Police! We have a warrant to search your phone!"
*Person's phone is encrypted*
Here's what's different. Law enforcement can now see through your walls, reroute your traffic, disrupt your radio communications, hell even impersonate a service crewman (cleaning, cable guy, pest control), ALL without any probable cause or warrant, without ever even informing you. So this
That black, gay, Muslim guy is surely up to something, send John to his uhm... *checks database* 12:00AM Friday night party, with uh... let's see
Well, there goes RSA.
...I predict we will see more close access work...
How is actually watching the person you wanted to watch ethically worse than mass watching millions in secret?
Somebody didn't have their coffee that morning XD Hahahaha
So a brilliant fellow was bullied to suicide and well that's his own damn fault. Yes, our government can definitely be trusted with the power we entrust them, who knows who might be a terrorist. Maybe you're next.
Consider how many kings claimed mountains for their own, humanity named the same mountains quite a few times. In the great scheme of things, life as we know it is nothing but a complex chemical reaction occuring on the surface of the Earth. Earth went from being a ball of lava, to having a surface full of gas, to this mostly water structure, freezing and thawing, until pretty lights started glowing on its dark side, sattelites looking down at the very people who made them, should it all just end here?
I suppose we should first get people thinking about caring for the "next generation", and hopefully space exploration will eventually take shape as well. Otherwise we can just continue killing each other to limit the population, hope that a super virus doesn't come about, and just procreate until the planet gets swallowed up by our mid-age Sun. I think the former sounds better.
Even if that lack of trust, as Caldwell claimed, is based largely on misinformation about the technical abilities of the law enforcement tools and the manners in which they are used.
I doubt it's a good idea to bank on the fact that being uneducated about a subject would lead to safety. There has never been a good way to balance this, hence the Bill of Rights.
The government says it does not matter what Elonis intended, and that the true test of a threat is whether his words make a reasonable person feel threatened.
A reasonable person. Like Snoop Dogg or Katie Couric? I have a feeling that Snoop will believe at least the guy was trying to rhyme, Katie would probably feel extremely threatened. I personally don't think this guy would even be in front of a judge if he kept his amazing rhyming skills to himself when drawing upon the memories of meeting an FBI agent. There is this thing called context one must ask for before assuming anything I think, but maybe not? This case is going to be setting an interesting precedent for online speech in general, lets just hope the judge listens to rap in his free time. An interesting question is, are we under oath when posting on Facebook? If I posted, "I killed that bitch, ripped her head off with her spine through her torso." A reasonable person might believe I've committed murder, unless they asked, "What do you mean?", at which time I would reply, "I was playing Mortal Kombat against Sheeva using Sub-Zero, got the Fatality just in time."
I don't believe any "burried deep within your cables" type organization would require this sort of access. It's a lot easier to exploit some kind of a firmware vulnerability and download the private key to the CA, or simply VNC into the target user's machine to see the requested data before it was encrypted. This is to keep out private hackers, organized hackers, wealthy hackers etc. The government will always have access to your data, well since they tend to have tanks the persuation tends to be unmatchable. The turn of the tide for our century is to see if the governments who do have such access will show equal attention to everyone rather than be in favor of economics, lets be honest having access to all of someone's data immediately tends to reduce respect to that person, objectifying them. This is the culture which is really the root of all the privacy issues. I think ultimately we need to rebrand the NSA err I mean shut down the NSA. Because truly, nobody is watching your computer... O_O ... That's the point, when you KNOW someone is watching, it screws up the whole experience.
When something's strange, in your computer, who you gonna call? Momentarily the answer is, "Tough luck" We've been talking about a "government layer" within the network stack (jokingly at first) for decades. As it is however, the world has a major respect issue between authority and economically disadvantaged. It's really a very complex issue. But I'd say the only good way out is read-only access, which doesn't exist, by highly trained (and hopefully paid) employees who just don't exist.
If you're asking, isn't that the case today anyways? The answer is no, there are 0 checks and balances, apparently. In that, a family was raided (agents boxed in their cars), and interrogated because they Googled, "pressure cooker". Heads of such agencies lied to the Congress, in public, and nobody cared. There is this feeling that there are no consequences to invading people's privacy, whereas it should be jail time for the officials. You see? That's the issue with respect, the person who is watching isn't intimidated at all into peering over a person's private life.
Agreed :) Talk about reducing the total entropy of a human being into a few gigs of storage space and organized LEDs.
I completely understand you. It's fairly normal to feel suicidal at least once in your life, it reiterates the fact of mortality and lets people sort out their priorities given a finite amount of time creates the concept of things being precious. The point I was trying to make was if people are in a fairly good mood, and all their friends start talking about suicide all of a sudden, it might sway their thoughts to a darker zone where none existed before. It's just how we tend to consume information and generate opinions based on it. I guess in short my point is assumption, is the mother of all fuck ups.
It really has much to do with the people involved in the security groups for the popular browsers. I have a feeling EFF, Cisco, Mozilla and Akamai are big enough names to push this through to production.
... it just doesn't want to go the utility route...
I'm sorry Comcast, but no. You can be like Atmos, that's about it. A good percentage of people don't have any other service such as phone or maybe even access to their homes without the Internet, we even check the time through the Internet. I sincerely hope POTUS doesn't succumb to this sly public Comcast facade.
Statistically (well let's call it machine learning analysis for the sake of the article) the military has always been impressed by electronics, and there seems to be this trend of amazement at Big Data, given the amount of signals being collected in any given military institution processed through iteratively data adjusted logic gates. I admit it's pretty cool, but it makes a fatal assumption, heuristic analysis is always correct. Take the case of someone who wasn't suicidal, fits the criteria of "he who must be suicidal", if everyone within the community of this person starts treating them like they're suicidal, well that might make them suicidal. I just hope all they do is send a pamphlet otherwise I feel for the non-married 27 year-olds in the military.
Firstly, programmers are lazy by design. That's a good thing because that means energy efficiency, which also equates to better algorithms in the pattern of thought (that's why we have coffee, to move a lazy programmer into coding). Does automation make a programmer lazy? Not if they practice both. At home as a hobby, open up a Hex Editor and code with directly inputting 0s and 1s like a real man! At work, use your IDE's bean generators and the like, the key point being, as long as you are not helpless when the automation doesn't function as it should.
*salutes*
There is a public debate. Every citizen of the Campaign-funding Corporations of America has the ability to vote, through their elected Lobbyists.
Oh, wait... now I see. Whoever submitted the story was referring to the form of government that the U.S. had around 1800.
Here's the rule of thumb, if it's a long term decision (in this case forever) it MUST be as public as possible. If it's a short term decision, do it behind closed doors it's going to fade anyhow. Evils to watch out for:
First one, "short term decisions re-extended forever" (That's a long term decision, much like, "Okay, this is my last drink..." next day "Okay this is my last drink" years later "Damn! My liver!")
The second one, "long term decisions unenforced" (That's a short term decision, much like, "Meh, I'll get to that pile of laundry tomorrow. Do we even need to do laundry?")
Real world example on the second one from history would be the Secularism rule, "Don't mix religion and government!" The Shah of Iran gets toppled, Ayatollah Khomeini brings about religious rule. Country goes from Weekly fashion magazines for women to women must cover up wherever they go in public (punished by whipping) and eventually pregnant women shot in the streets. You don't want public whippings in your country, keep it rational (Oh and compensate your employees well).
Real world example on the first one from history would be (most recently the Patriot Act) Mobarak of Egypt. Okay this will be my best term as elected president! Erm, I'm gonna need another term. You don't want a totalitarian government (see Mussolini) don't indulge so permanently, nor describe the total life goals of a nation, whether out in public or in secret.
Now, coming back to The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), America (and most other technologically literate countries) have already decided that we want no part in this through SOPA and PIPA reactions. We want our Internet roaming free like the Buffalo. But seeing as how https//www.information.com turned into http//$$$.your_private_information.buy I don't see any realistic way the people could have a say in it, unless our governments just suddenly decide to do the right thing. It would be nice. But why should they?
So the choice comes to anyone with a decent income as such, "Beat this dying horse to war, and double your money!" or "Do the right thing, but possibly lose money, like donating to a charity."
In this case it might be in the interest of eBay and Amazon type companies who simply need the Internet as a communication medium vs. companies like Facebook who'd like to know your mother's maiden name. The problem with that is, Amazon is also in the business of wanting to know your mom personally, as a profit on the side, since everybody does it.
I can see we're pretty much SOL.
First:
Second:
So what would the results be if the recruits were from a more "Liberal" country?
That is the problem with these "studies". DO NOT look in your backyard for cases that support your bias. Look for cases that contradict your bias. Even if you have to look at the people in other countries. Particularly countries where there is less focus on the items that are controversial in the USofA.
Did you know that Blacksburg is an international college town? We have more Chinese and Indian people here than local Virginians depending on the year and semester. So the 18-30 is a global mix, 30-62 would most likely be the more "backyard" bias, although we also have locals from around the world, like Iranians, Turks, it's a fairly diverse town to represent a sampling of the planet.
They also completed a survey about their political beliefs, which included questions about their attitudes toward school prayer, gun control, immigration, and gay marriage.
Also you seemed to imply here that taking a survey of the people's political opinions is a negative? Well how else are they supposed to compare the results? I'm assuming in your mind simply doing the experiment and not checking to see if the correlation actually existed would be good enough?
Personally I'm brilliant!
Just make a social networking site with no ads, no back alley sales, no access to anyone PERIOD! But you have to pay monthly subscription. Wouldn't you pay for a social networking site like a Netflix subscription for them to guarantee privacy? I would. Somebody patent this and be a billionaire already, chop chop!