Someday we'll realize all these divisions and patriotism only help to keep us occupied and divided instead of trying to find a way to avoid the corruption of those with power/money.
We're all humans after all, no matter what religion, ideology or place of birth.
One could use the same kind of argument to say that TV was stopping communication between them in the first place. "In my time grandma and grandpa sat by the fireplace and talked while she knat, that TV thing keeps both of them from talking to each other, watching images move, like mindless zombies!"
It would work even better if non US citizens were not considered as subhuman.
It's becoming a trend that every time the US government strips your rights they find a way to deny your citizenship (anwar al-waki & son) so that no one can complain.
If you are american, you should stop excusing injustices if they don't seen to happen to "proper US citizens".
Anything can and should be joked about but I agree that the concept that ilegal assaults (of whatever type) inside prison are ok because they might happen to guilty people is completely farfetched.
The punishment is prison, containment and isolation. There shouldn't be extra violence and it certainly doesn't aid in the supposed rehabilitation.
Is there more than one Starship Troopers book? Because I've read that one a couple of times and don't remember any of what you're saying. I didn't watch the movie though.
The problem is that, if the first and popular comments address that as a relevant issue, people might get the idea that the personality of the affected characters actually matter.
That's why it's so easy to effectively use ad hominen against public characters sometimes, discrediting them completely in the eyes of many.
Does it matter? What matters is the law. If we change our attitude towards the validity of the law because we like or dislike someone we're going down the wrong path.
What the fuck. Entrapment of the worst kind. I guess they're following the FBI's game, catching made up criminals is far easier than actually catching criminals.
Do you have a cellphone? Do you use smartphone apps? do you use google or other search engine? do you use an email service? Do you use an ISP? what software do you use? Do you monitor your outgoing connections? Do you wear hoodies in front of cameras when you enter commercial buildings?
All these things affect your privacy. You're arbitrarily deciding FB is not worth that "invasion" but trying to convince others that FB should objectively be excluded and is somehow radically different than all these other examples where you give up privacy is disingenuous.
Well, you're reading those who hating so much, you're not reading those who use it because those who use it don't go all around slashdot complaining.
If you pay attention, we've been over this. In some places, FB (or any online service where people you know use) is an extremely practical way to contact be in touch with people (and later take that online interaction to, let's call it, real life) .
Now, the problems of privacy and all that shit are big but, at this point, human culture has basically stated they crap on privacy and will upload YOUR photos without your consent wether you want it or not. If you're not registered to these services, you'll still be in them, but you just won't know it.
What one can do is take the time to deal with these needlessly complex and open by default settings and set things to your liking. And not use whatever you find wrong.
I don't use facebook apps, I don't upload phots of myself (Except the odd profile photo), most things to max, I try to separate groups and keep things separate, etc.
It's not necessary but it's convinient (same as email, cellphones, cellphone apps and so many other tech things that where our privacy is definitively not the first concern).
Sure. It protects you but if an officer of the law uses his authority you're helpless and he WILL obtain your data. You can refuse and he can arrest you.
The problem comes when, upon suing law enforcement or trying to rule the evidence inadmissible (I'm talking out of my ass here, I'm not sure what the exact procedures are) you get one of those arguments to assert the legality of the search.
Slashdot Mirror
also, arguably very different to a point it's hard to compare.
If we're talking about productivity with an OS. I'll stick to bash+gnu tools every time although I'm very glad that powershell exists.
"programming languages"? I don't understand what you mean, unless you're talking about IDEs.
You're committing the same flaw of the user you replied to.
Giving every user the same stereotype and personality.
Someday we'll realize all these divisions and patriotism only help to keep us occupied and divided instead of trying to find a way to avoid the corruption of those with power/money.
We're all humans after all, no matter what religion, ideology or place of birth.
Your comment is alarmist.
One could use the same kind of argument to say that TV was stopping communication between them in the first place. "In my time grandma and grandpa sat by the fireplace and talked while she knat, that TV thing keeps both of them from talking to each other, watching images move, like mindless zombies!"
Wow. You're good at Govspeak.
It would work even better if non US citizens were not considered as subhuman.
It's becoming a trend that every time the US government strips your rights they find a way to deny your citizenship (anwar al-waki & son) so that no one can complain.
If you are american, you should stop excusing injustices if they don't seen to happen to "proper US citizens".
Anything can and should be joked about but I agree that the concept that ilegal assaults (of whatever type) inside prison are ok because they might happen to guilty people is completely farfetched.
The punishment is prison, containment and isolation. There shouldn't be extra violence and it certainly doesn't aid in the supposed rehabilitation.
Or worse, if companies block it voluntarily without apparent government intervention so everything seems fine and dandy.
heh, noted. I'll put on my list.
Not only *Can* this happen but there's quite a track record of it happening.
There's no transparency if surveillance goes only one way. That's total control.
Is there more than one Starship Troopers book? Because I've read that one a couple of times and don't remember any of what you're saying. I didn't watch the movie though.
When defending anyone who is on the opposing end of an abuse of power, you're also defending your future self.
The problem is that, if the first and popular comments address that as a relevant issue, people might get the idea that the personality of the affected characters actually matter.
That's why it's so easy to effectively use ad hominen against public characters sometimes, discrediting them completely in the eyes of many.
Does it matter? What matters is the law. If we change our attitude towards the validity of the law because we like or dislike someone we're going down the wrong path.
Well, you don't need BYOD to take the company's data home. You can use a portable hard drive, cd, use a cloud service, email, etc.
What the fuck. Entrapment of the worst kind. I guess they're following the FBI's game, catching made up criminals is far easier than actually catching criminals.
You can't patent Shakespeare either. Do not confuse patents with copyright.
So you've probably hate The Guardian's Live Blogging.
It's not about reviewing EVERYTHING, it's about the latest. If you're really interested, you can scroll down and move up.
I don't really see the average user struggling with this.
Do you have a cellphone? Do you use smartphone apps? do you use google or other search engine? do you use an email service? Do you use an ISP? what software do you use? Do you monitor your outgoing connections? Do you wear hoodies in front of cameras when you enter commercial buildings?
All these things affect your privacy. You're arbitrarily deciding FB is not worth that "invasion" but trying to convince others that FB should objectively be excluded and is somehow radically different than all these other examples where you give up privacy is disingenuous.
Well, you're reading those who hating so much, you're not reading those who use it because those who use it don't go all around slashdot complaining.
If you pay attention, we've been over this. In some places, FB (or any online service where people you know use) is an extremely practical way to contact be in touch with people (and later take that online interaction to, let's call it, real life) .
Now, the problems of privacy and all that shit are big but, at this point, human culture has basically stated they crap on privacy and will upload YOUR photos without your consent wether you want it or not. If you're not registered to these services, you'll still be in them, but you just won't know it.
What one can do is take the time to deal with these needlessly complex and open by default settings and set things to your liking. And not use whatever you find wrong.
I don't use facebook apps, I don't upload phots of myself (Except the odd profile photo), most things to max, I try to separate groups and keep things separate, etc.
It's not necessary but it's convinient (same as email, cellphones, cellphone apps and so many other tech things that where our privacy is definitively not the first concern).
Oh, dumb native speaker uses grammar of non-native speaker to try and make a point. I'm sorry you don't feel smart enough to actually offer arguments.
My point is that your personal anecdote an insults are useless.
You haven't seen much then.
Sure. It protects you but if an officer of the law uses his authority you're helpless and he WILL obtain your data. You can refuse and he can arrest you.
The problem comes when, upon suing law enforcement or trying to rule the evidence inadmissible (I'm talking out of my ass here, I'm not sure what the exact procedures are) you get one of those arguments to assert the legality of the search.