I thought I remembered something like that. City of London police has been in the news before for some nefarious practices and things that are outright illegal in civilized areas of the planet.
...unless of course the manufacturer was so "smart" to think that the data he gets from the item is absolutely critical, so the toaster only works if it's online...
Oh please let that bullshit backfire on them, just once!
Vigilantism logically happens when law enforcement fails to uphold a law that is in the interest of the people. This is why it's not only critical that the law reflects the ideals of the population but also that it's executed. If you have laws that run contrary to what the people consider right, you can only enforce them with force against your own people and you can logically assume that your own population fights you. This is, among other things, what fell communism.
If you're unwilling or unable to establish AND enact laws, the result is vigilantism.
WW2 was the penultimate time US meddling in foreign affairs turned into something that was eventually better for the locals. The last time was Korea, by the way.
Everything since has been one train wreck after another, culminating in the total destabilization of the Middle East. I still don't understand why you had to remove your former lapdog Saddam. I just don't get you. He always did what you wanted him to do, you could order him around and he'd be a good little boy, even served well as a whipping boy when Bill needed a distraction from that pesky intern. Why go and kill someone that useful off?
Politics in the Middle East is complicated. Especially when you don't understand what Sunnis and Shiites are and why Iran would make the perfect ally for the US. But it seems you're hell bent on shooting your own foot over and over and over. Well, don't worry, the rest of the world likes the dance of the one-footed clown.
There IS an immediate credible threat. A device that can trivially be taken over IS a threat.
What you have here is a loaded weapon lying right out in the front yard. Any criminal can walk by, pick it up and use it to commit a crime. Do you think this gun should be removed?
If you install a revolving door and your home is used as a squat by the local crack junkie population who terrorize the neighborhood, and the police doesn't do diddly squat against it, what should I do as your neighbor? Grin and bear it?
Yes it will. Companies may not care about your security, but they do care about you coming and demanding refund or replacement. That cuts into their bottom line and that's what they do care about.
I think the big difference is that this time the equipment is actually affordable and consumer-ready. We're talking about a few 100 bucks for the hardware and you don't need a master's degree in computer science to set it up.
A friend of mine is a paleoanthropologist (I hope that's the word in English too for "the guy that digs human bones from the ground that have been there a million years and tries to make sense of them"). According to him "ritualistic" and "religious" has become some sort of in-joke for everything that makes no sense. If they find something and can't really see any purpose of the ancient human for doing it, it's for "ritual" or "religious" reasons, because that doesn't have to make sense and it's as good an excuse as any for finding bones and other stuff in odd places, odd settings or arranged in some particular fashion for no apparent reason.
In other words, whenever you get to hear one of them talk about "ritual" reasons for something, it basically means "we really have no good idea why the heck they did that".
Appropriate and measured? Why did the US do? Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
Guess it's like the Joker said, it's not about money, it's about sending a message. Because I wouldn't be surprised if using those weapons set back the US more than it did the side owning the targets.
So... you say the recent retaliation strike managed to take out an early terrorist indoctrination camp alongside two places where terrorists who are otherwise no longer useful to the regime are prepared for suicide missions?
But why risk it? I might develop something that Twitter doesn't like for some odd reason because it... purple monkey dishwasher. And poof, gone it is.
And please don't say that never happened. It did. More often than you could imagine.
Why should I invest time and energy into a market that is so highly risky that the chances are pretty good that the moment it becomes successful someone gets "offended" by its very existence and it is going to be shut down?
What you're dealing here is essentially the social media equivalent of a failed state that is run by some tinpot dictator council. You have zero economic certainty that the money you invest in it will not be taken away from you if they don't like your nose anymore.
That's fine too. Hey, you do have that right to not listen to anyone, that's absolutely ok. But as far as I'm concerned I, and only I, should have the right to decide what I want to listen to and what not.
In turn, you, and only you, should have the right to decide what you want to listen to.
I honestly don't give a fuck what spectrum gets banned. For the record, I am a liberal. Leaning towards socialist even. Hey, I'm European, for the average American I'm probably a commie anyway.
But I DO want to hear what everyone has to say! Yes, that includes that I want you to be allowed that this Opportunist bastard should be dropped out of a plane without a parachute. I want you to be allowed to say that! I want you to be allowed to speak your mind, even if I think it's complete and utter bullshit!
I do reserve the right to reply to it, though. And I do expect that I get to be heard too. I am a firm believer in audiatur et altera pars, everyone has to be heard if you at least want to have a CHANCE to get to the true core of a problem.
So... both sides hate Twitter? A few postings up, we heard that it's just Trump's propaganda machine, here we get to learn that it's just Hillary's feel-good show.
Wow, even Fox News only managed to piss off one side of the political fence.
Twitter, the problem is a fundamentally different one: Why bother with you?
Twitter was a very good platform to get points across quickly. You would say what you want and people could reply to it, could write short counterpoints to it, it was quite the place. A veritable "marketplace of ideas". And actually, the short format worked in the favor of this. Instead of writing an endless stream of words where the average reader's eyes glaze over somewhere in the middle (like, say, this wall of text here), you had to be terse and get your point across. Which allowed readers to quickly go down the list of replies and counterpoints, allowing a reader to get a really good grasp of a topic he was interested in and hearing many opinions, conflicting opinions that sometimes led to quite heated and interesting discussions.
That time is gone. Now that you can't even be sure anymore that you get to hear everyone. With shadowbans left and right, and some people outright getting banned to "make a point against different views, I mean, hate speech". Hate speech? Disagreeing with someone has become hate speech now? Don't get me wrong, if someone said that group X should be strung up, I could at least see the point, but we're talking about people whose "crime" was to disagree with someone and make them drop out of their echo chamber.
TL;DR: Twitter became irrelevant when not hurting someone's feelings became more important than hearing all sides of a story.
You know, I'm self taught in the area of embedded development. You know what I do? Right now, write an IP stack fully in assembler. Because I know the assembler of the MC I use better than I know its C. Plus the compiler creates shit code.
Do you want that in a professional, production environment? Hell no! That code can be maintained by exactly one person: Me. If that. This is not what you want! What you want is someone who has the skill to plan his code for a team, who understands the necessity of well defined interfaces and who can code to spec. That isn't exactly what you get from self taught programmers.
Self-taught programmers that then go and get a college degree to refine their skill. Those are the ones that you really want. You neither want the self taught person who found out a way that works without knowing why or, worse, why his approach is not really a good one when it comes to efficiency or security, and you neither want the theoretical ivory-tower dweller that knows what the best practices would be in theory... if it never had to encounter reality.
You want the guy that has a degree and some relevant github projects to point at. That's what you want!
Slashdot Mirror
If we're talking about this Alex Jones: Are you really asking or just trolling?
I thought I remembered something like that. City of London police has been in the news before for some nefarious practices and things that are outright illegal in civilized areas of the planet.
Oh that would be win-win if they charged him...
Intelligent Devices, Internet Of Things.
Everyone buying them is a good example for the acronym thereof.
...unless of course the manufacturer was so "smart" to think that the data he gets from the item is absolutely critical, so the toaster only works if it's online...
Oh please let that bullshit backfire on them, just once!
Vigilantism logically happens when law enforcement fails to uphold a law that is in the interest of the people. This is why it's not only critical that the law reflects the ideals of the population but also that it's executed. If you have laws that run contrary to what the people consider right, you can only enforce them with force against your own people and you can logically assume that your own population fights you. This is, among other things, what fell communism.
If you're unwilling or unable to establish AND enact laws, the result is vigilantism.
WW2 was the penultimate time US meddling in foreign affairs turned into something that was eventually better for the locals. The last time was Korea, by the way.
Everything since has been one train wreck after another, culminating in the total destabilization of the Middle East. I still don't understand why you had to remove your former lapdog Saddam. I just don't get you. He always did what you wanted him to do, you could order him around and he'd be a good little boy, even served well as a whipping boy when Bill needed a distraction from that pesky intern. Why go and kill someone that useful off?
Politics in the Middle East is complicated. Especially when you don't understand what Sunnis and Shiites are and why Iran would make the perfect ally for the US. But it seems you're hell bent on shooting your own foot over and over and over. Well, don't worry, the rest of the world likes the dance of the one-footed clown.
There IS an immediate credible threat. A device that can trivially be taken over IS a threat.
What you have here is a loaded weapon lying right out in the front yard. Any criminal can walk by, pick it up and use it to commit a crime. Do you think this gun should be removed?
If you install a revolving door and your home is used as a squat by the local crack junkie population who terrorize the neighborhood, and the police doesn't do diddly squat against it, what should I do as your neighbor? Grin and bear it?
Yes it will. Companies may not care about your security, but they do care about you coming and demanding refund or replacement. That cuts into their bottom line and that's what they do care about.
I think the big difference is that this time the equipment is actually affordable and consumer-ready. We're talking about a few 100 bucks for the hardware and you don't need a master's degree in computer science to set it up.
A friend of mine is a paleoanthropologist (I hope that's the word in English too for "the guy that digs human bones from the ground that have been there a million years and tries to make sense of them"). According to him "ritualistic" and "religious" has become some sort of in-joke for everything that makes no sense. If they find something and can't really see any purpose of the ancient human for doing it, it's for "ritual" or "religious" reasons, because that doesn't have to make sense and it's as good an excuse as any for finding bones and other stuff in odd places, odd settings or arranged in some particular fashion for no apparent reason.
In other words, whenever you get to hear one of them talk about "ritual" reasons for something, it basically means "we really have no good idea why the heck they did that".
There are exactly three reasons why we go after animals:
It's fun
They're pests
They're tasty
Usually, we only hunt humans for the former two. But why not add the last one to the mix?
Appropriate and measured? Why did the US do? Dump multi-millions of military hardware onto a target without even bothering to wanting to hit something.
Guess it's like the Joker said, it's not about money, it's about sending a message. Because I wouldn't be surprised if using those weapons set back the US more than it did the side owning the targets.
Looks like in 2017 he found a few leftovers and decided it would be a shame if they went to waste.
So ... you say the recent retaliation strike managed to take out an early terrorist indoctrination camp alongside two places where terrorists who are otherwise no longer useful to the regime are prepared for suicide missions?
Yup, not gonna make that mistake again!
But why risk it? I might develop something that Twitter doesn't like for some odd reason because it ... purple monkey dishwasher. And poof, gone it is.
And please don't say that never happened. It did. More often than you could imagine.
Why should I invest time and energy into a market that is so highly risky that the chances are pretty good that the moment it becomes successful someone gets "offended" by its very existence and it is going to be shut down?
What you're dealing here is essentially the social media equivalent of a failed state that is run by some tinpot dictator council. You have zero economic certainty that the money you invest in it will not be taken away from you if they don't like your nose anymore.
Somebody? You act as if that was only one person. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink.
The fun part is that what you USED TO be able to do is to simply reply to it and call people out on their bullshit. Try that now.
That's fine too. Hey, you do have that right to not listen to anyone, that's absolutely ok. But as far as I'm concerned I, and only I, should have the right to decide what I want to listen to and what not.
In turn, you, and only you, should have the right to decide what you want to listen to.
I honestly don't give a fuck what spectrum gets banned. For the record, I am a liberal. Leaning towards socialist even. Hey, I'm European, for the average American I'm probably a commie anyway.
But I DO want to hear what everyone has to say! Yes, that includes that I want you to be allowed that this Opportunist bastard should be dropped out of a plane without a parachute. I want you to be allowed to say that! I want you to be allowed to speak your mind, even if I think it's complete and utter bullshit!
I do reserve the right to reply to it, though. And I do expect that I get to be heard too. I am a firm believer in audiatur et altera pars, everyone has to be heard if you at least want to have a CHANCE to get to the true core of a problem.
So ... both sides hate Twitter? A few postings up, we heard that it's just Trump's propaganda machine, here we get to learn that it's just Hillary's feel-good show.
Wow, even Fox News only managed to piss off one side of the political fence.
Twitter, the problem is a fundamentally different one: Why bother with you?
Twitter was a very good platform to get points across quickly. You would say what you want and people could reply to it, could write short counterpoints to it, it was quite the place. A veritable "marketplace of ideas". And actually, the short format worked in the favor of this. Instead of writing an endless stream of words where the average reader's eyes glaze over somewhere in the middle (like, say, this wall of text here), you had to be terse and get your point across. Which allowed readers to quickly go down the list of replies and counterpoints, allowing a reader to get a really good grasp of a topic he was interested in and hearing many opinions, conflicting opinions that sometimes led to quite heated and interesting discussions.
That time is gone. Now that you can't even be sure anymore that you get to hear everyone. With shadowbans left and right, and some people outright getting banned to "make a point against different views, I mean, hate speech". Hate speech? Disagreeing with someone has become hate speech now? Don't get me wrong, if someone said that group X should be strung up, I could at least see the point, but we're talking about people whose "crime" was to disagree with someone and make them drop out of their echo chamber.
TL;DR: Twitter became irrelevant when not hurting someone's feelings became more important than hearing all sides of a story.
You know, I'm self taught in the area of embedded development. You know what I do? Right now, write an IP stack fully in assembler. Because I know the assembler of the MC I use better than I know its C. Plus the compiler creates shit code.
Do you want that in a professional, production environment? Hell no! That code can be maintained by exactly one person: Me. If that. This is not what you want! What you want is someone who has the skill to plan his code for a team, who understands the necessity of well defined interfaces and who can code to spec. That isn't exactly what you get from self taught programmers.
Erh... no.
Self-taught programmers that then go and get a college degree to refine their skill. Those are the ones that you really want. You neither want the self taught person who found out a way that works without knowing why or, worse, why his approach is not really a good one when it comes to efficiency or security, and you neither want the theoretical ivory-tower dweller that knows what the best practices would be in theory ... if it never had to encounter reality.
You want the guy that has a degree and some relevant github projects to point at. That's what you want!