Okay, my CS degree is fourteen years old but how can the information identifying whether or not my browser accepts cookies be '0.39 bits'? Isn't it a yes/no, single-bit piece of information? All the other information is described in non-whole-numbers also. Aren't bits discrete?
Whether you're a complete denier of any climate change, or an equivalently head-in-the-sand accepter of everything Al Gore has said, you can't think that the few degrees of fluctuation predicted by even the more aggressive models would make much of a difference.
How was *my* post moderated down as 'troll' when the parent isn't? Advertisers might be annoying and sometimes dishonest, but does anyone really believe they're as corrupt or as abusive of individuals or as coercive as governments? I guess if there were a (-1 smug naive world-weary twentysomthing) score it would be more even.
The question isn't "why shouldn't the government read user e-mails if necessary".
The question is "why is there such a presupposition of necessity that a 'national security letter' forbidding the service provider from even acknowledging its use can be so easily (ab)used to access the private communications of citizens"?
The Fourth Amendment describes the right of The People to be "secure... in their papers and effects" and requires not only a warrant supported by probable cause, but also specificity of what'ts to be searched.
No, you don't "choose" to open yourself up to a "surprise no-knock raid at 3AM where your dog gets shot". Crimes can be committed over your connection, yes - but unless they're something like someone threatening "I'm here with lots of weapons and I'm going to do XXXXX", then a paramiltary assault team is not the right response, and far too many police forces have way too itchy a SWAT-team finger. Find those stories about those raids in which people and/or pets were shot and see how many were in response to something other than a violent crime.
Before you fluff Canada any more, check out BC's awful "Human Rights Commission" decision which does not allow a comedian any 'choice' to exercise his free speech any longer in that province.
Then you're an idiot. Governments can use coercive or deadly force to limit or take freedom from people. Advertisers can use words or images to persuade people to do what they might otherwise not do. To 'fail to see the difference' is to take away any responsibility for a poor choice of the person swayed by advertising.
Not sure if you mean the data collected by their free services, or the wi-fi scanning. If it's the former, then users - wittingly or not - allow their browser to provide information that has value to marketers. Users can configure their browsers not to do so. If it's the latter, then they're being punished, effectively, for listening to what people are yelling out their windows. I haven't seen any accusations whatsoever that Google in any way took advantage of passwords or other sensitive information that morons might have transmitted over an unprotected network.
I don't know that Apple should face a lawsuit for tracking its users to add marketing value, but to surreptitiously track customers who purchased your hardware to make their collected data more valuable to sell is more sinister, IMO.
No, you don't need to give IT a password on your server. That is, as long as you don't plug it into IT's network.
If someone were to do that where I work, well... nothing would happen because you'd be put on the guest network VLAN. But if you could, and did, it would be very poorly looked upon.
This is knee-jerk stupid. A handful of companies had shady practices that caused some economic destabilization, yes. But your painting the entire industry with not even a broad brush but just heaving a bucket in every direction is infantile.
The money handed to banks (which I opposed, for the record) has been paid back with interest. But that part of the story isn't on the front page and most people aren't aware of it. So no, taxpayers aren't footing the bill for it. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers should thank their lucky stars for the taxes squeezed out of the money they make.
So no, it's not hard to understand why the finance industry is not popular: because people who don't understand what happened are the most loudly indignant about it.
Huh? Because computers stop improving exponentially doesn't mean that there won't be continued, and additional, use for those we have. And there are lots of other avenues for innovation for storage, input, output, etc. that might not result in the raw performance gains we've become accustomed to - but will still be innovative and drive research and sales.
You have the right to free speech (in this specific case, the point is that students don't have *less* freedom of expression outside of school because they happen to attend one). You do *not* have a "right" to not have unpleasant things written about you.
Your repeated point that students "can't leave" the school has to do with the hypothetical actions of someone else, which is who the actual target of the discipline should be.
Thank you. You'll acknowledge, I'm sure, that the reason the court considered it a constitutional restriction by the school on the student's speech was because, though it was off-campus, it was an organized school event. Like the other examples, they differ from this one in that regard.
You're actually saying that any communication or interaction between students that take place off of school property - need to be policed and controlled by the government because of the potential harm to a victim from anything they might tell each other or convince each other of.
What can they say on Facebook that isn't illegal but incites "grave psychological damage" (please)?
And the kids don't own property but their parents do, and they're their responsbility and have liability for their actions. Giving a school administrator the power to police students speech off school property and outside school hours is, aggregately, a far worse abuse.
The first two examples concern behavior *in* school, which isn't really apropos. And I can't find reference to the 2007 example - can you provide more detail?
This is f*'ed. It's not the schools business what a student says in a non-school forum, and it's unconstitutional for a compulsory-attendance government school administrator to censor that outside expression.
To compare school bullies to Hitler is nearly insane. If a student is really posting something that incites violence or harassment, then hand it off to the cops. But if there's no law being broken, there's nothing for a school principal to say about it.
It is for people who spend $10 or more every month on music they could a)download and b)belongs to SOCAN. It's not - and grossly unfair to demand - for people who don't.
It's still a cost, and that it's one not directly associated with the actual use of the product it's charging for is less fair, not more, IMO.
so... paying off the a-holes filing the suits is good and fair? Sounds like not too many steps removed from a mob protection scheme, only with a guaranteed (government) collection agency.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, my CS degree is fourteen years old but how can the information identifying whether or not my browser accepts cookies be '0.39 bits'? Isn't it a yes/no, single-bit piece of information? All the other information is described in non-whole-numbers also. Aren't bits discrete?
Whether you're a complete denier of any climate change, or an equivalently head-in-the-sand accepter of everything Al Gore has said, you can't think that the few degrees of fluctuation predicted by even the more aggressive models would make much of a difference.
How was *my* post moderated down as 'troll' when the parent isn't? Advertisers might be annoying and sometimes dishonest, but does anyone really believe they're as corrupt or as abusive of individuals or as coercive as governments? I guess if there were a (-1 smug naive world-weary twentysomthing) score it would be more even.
The question isn't "why shouldn't the government read user e-mails if necessary".
The question is "why is there such a presupposition of necessity that a 'national security letter' forbidding the service provider from even acknowledging its use can be so easily (ab)used to access the private communications of citizens"?
The Fourth Amendment describes the right of The People to be "secure ... in their papers and effects" and requires not only a warrant supported by probable cause, but also specificity of what'ts to be searched.
No, you don't "choose" to open yourself up to a "surprise no-knock raid at 3AM where your dog gets shot". Crimes can be committed over your connection, yes - but unless they're something like someone threatening "I'm here with lots of weapons and I'm going to do XXXXX", then a paramiltary assault team is not the right response, and far too many police forces have way too itchy a SWAT-team finger. Find those stories about those raids in which people and/or pets were shot and see how many were in response to something other than a violent crime.
Before you fluff Canada any more, check out BC's awful "Human Rights Commission" decision which does not allow a comedian any 'choice' to exercise his free speech any longer in that province.
Then you're an idiot. Governments can use coercive or deadly force to limit or take freedom from people. Advertisers can use words or images to persuade people to do what they might otherwise not do. To 'fail to see the difference' is to take away any responsibility for a poor choice of the person swayed by advertising.
Not sure if you mean the data collected by their free services, or the wi-fi scanning. If it's the former, then users - wittingly or not - allow their browser to provide information that has value to marketers. Users can configure their browsers not to do so. If it's the latter, then they're being punished, effectively, for listening to what people are yelling out their windows. I haven't seen any accusations whatsoever that Google in any way took advantage of passwords or other sensitive information that morons might have transmitted over an unprotected network.
I don't know that Apple should face a lawsuit for tracking its users to add marketing value, but to surreptitiously track customers who purchased your hardware to make their collected data more valuable to sell is more sinister, IMO.
No, you don't need to give IT a password on your server. That is, as long as you don't plug it into IT's network.
If someone were to do that where I work, well ... nothing would happen because you'd be put on the guest network VLAN. But if you could, and did, it would be very poorly looked upon.
F all that education talk. My TiVO is going to be tied to my television choice?!
This is knee-jerk stupid. A handful of companies had shady practices that caused some economic destabilization, yes. But your painting the entire industry with not even a broad brush but just heaving a bucket in every direction is infantile.
The money handed to banks (which I opposed, for the record) has been paid back with interest. But that part of the story isn't on the front page and most people aren't aware of it. So no, taxpayers aren't footing the bill for it. As a matter of fact, the taxpayers should thank their lucky stars for the taxes squeezed out of the money they make.
So no, it's not hard to understand why the finance industry is not popular: because people who don't understand what happened are the most loudly indignant about it.
n900 here too. Will AT&T's hard-on for 'tethering' metastasize to T-Mobile?
Huh? Because computers stop improving exponentially doesn't mean that there won't be continued, and additional, use for those we have. And there are lots of other avenues for innovation for storage, input, output, etc. that might not result in the raw performance gains we've become accustomed to - but will still be innovative and drive research and sales.
You have the right to free speech (in this specific case, the point is that students don't have *less* freedom of expression outside of school because they happen to attend one). You do *not* have a "right" to not have unpleasant things written about you.
Your repeated point that students "can't leave" the school has to do with the hypothetical actions of someone else, which is who the actual target of the discipline should be.
Censoring speech! Come on, man.
Thank you. You'll acknowledge, I'm sure, that the reason the court considered it a constitutional restriction by the school on the student's speech was because, though it was off-campus, it was an organized school event. Like the other examples, they differ from this one in that regard.
You're actually saying that any communication or interaction between students that take place off of school property - need to be policed and controlled by the government because of the potential harm to a victim from anything they might tell each other or convince each other of.
Sorry, that's horseshit.
What can they say on Facebook that isn't illegal but incites "grave psychological damage" (please)?
And the kids don't own property but their parents do, and they're their responsbility and have liability for their actions. Giving a school administrator the power to police students speech off school property and outside school hours is, aggregately, a far worse abuse.
The first two examples concern behavior *in* school, which isn't really apropos. And I can't find reference to the 2007 example - can you provide more detail?
"society is very stratified"
You're using class warfare to explain *bullying* now? Christ.
Right. D & F are wrong. Unless A suggested hurting B, he might be a douchebag but not a criminal.
This is f*'ed. It's not the schools business what a student says in a non-school forum, and it's unconstitutional for a compulsory-attendance government school administrator to censor that outside expression.
To compare school bullies to Hitler is nearly insane. If a student is really posting something that incites violence or harassment, then hand it off to the cops. But if there's no law being broken, there's nothing for a school principal to say about it.
It is for people who spend $10 or more every month on music they could a)download and b)belongs to SOCAN. It's not - and grossly unfair to demand - for people who don't.
It's still a cost, and that it's one not directly associated with the actual use of the product it's charging for is less fair, not more, IMO.
so ... paying off the a-holes filing the suits is good and fair? Sounds like not too many steps removed from a mob protection scheme, only with a guaranteed (government) collection agency.
"being able to listen to whatever you want without a direct cost"
And that "$10/mo Internet Fee" is better than your avoided "direct cost" how?