I think that this reflects a problem on those organizations. Not Slashdot.
My advice, come up with a wikileaks blocker and use it. Why deprive ANYONE else of a link just because?
Another thing. If you're at work, why browse slashdot at work?:P If you're at home, why is it that your employers control what you can or can not read in your house? It's public info.
Just to clarify. I'm not saying I support any control or plans by the UN (That would probably just legitimize censorship). Just pointing out how the freedom works only when we don't move and notice the shackles.
Well... We can trust that, as long as the interests of the U.S. goverment and its corporate affiliates are not affected, we will have as much "internet freedom" as we want.
Just don't write things like Wikileaks and you'll be fine.
Why in all of the universe don't you bother to look basically presentable and behave in a basically likeable way? Do you really not realize that you are the Free Software movement's greatest liability because of your shitty appearance and behaviour? How does this basic fact of humanity manage to evade you for all these years?
I call bullshit. Every single leader that pushes for a controversial or minority issue will suffer character assassination.
When it's not personal appearance it will be personality, if he is successful, he will be made out to look like "a pompous prick", if he is good looking he will be a "womanizer" or "dumb model", If he is not from your country he will be "foreign" and "weird", etc.
I understand and argument for... well, it's shorter and everyone is calling it linux already but your argument made NO sense. It's like saying someone is hilarious for calling ubuntu, linux.
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
He doesn't refuse,if you've ever met him. He doesn't. He might repeat again where the difference relies and why he says one instead of the other but, if you meet him, you'll see he is nothing like you portray.
Anyway, it's always easy for people to criticize someone they don't agree with. Specially when they don't adhere to the norm (whether it be for behavior, personality or image).
A real problem many are accurately mentioning is that it won't necessarily increase transparency because usually, on cases of abuse of authority, the recordings "fail" or "are lost" protecting illegal or wrongful activities by the officers.
I'm a big fan too but I can't really remember if I got that quote from a specific book. It's more likely that I got it from some article or quoting site. Which means it could be completely misattributed. Good phrase though, I felt it fit Slashdot.
By the way, kudos on your own sig from the great Bob Heinlein.
Most computer users don't want a Wild West computer experience. They want a safe, functional one where the computer interface is as inobtrusive as possible.
I dispute that. Once they get mildly comfortable they hear about things they can do and WANT to do them at any cost. That's when installing X software comes in. If you can assure them that every type of "X software" will be available in their app stores, I guess they won't have a problem. But if the app is somehow there but out of reach, I think you will have some inconvenienced users.
For the average user, being able to use something when they want beats security concerns every time. Security only becomes a factor when it affects usability.
I know this is meant as a joke but in case it's also a criticism of rapid release cycles as more insecure, I'll just point that slow release cycles often left vulnerabilities in the open for long periods of time. Who needs a zero day when the flaws are open and unpatched?
Being transparent (and therefore disclosing what can be seen as wrongdoing) is a GOOD thing.
I did not like the "too transparent" suggestion that seems to lead to the conclusion that it's better to be secretive so you can get away with wrongdoing. Which is where USA seems to be going. No oversight due to never ending secrecy claims.
Now, in this specific case, the revelation had little to do with transparency of that issue but of a mistake regarding government expenditure.
Oh right, please use the privacy-friendly search engine that uses bing instead, right?/facepalm
This sounds exactly like the typical "Would you rather have Romney do that..." that we keep reading every time someone has a valid criticism against Obama.
You first claim that he doesn't have an argument to assume the worst and later say that there's no privacy anywhere (assuming the worst everywhere?).
I'd say that the problem is that politicians are working on day to day politics instead of thinking long term. Being elected, maintaining their positions, etc is always a higher priority (And short term) than anything long term and that benefits everyone more generally. The rewards for his short term political goals are immediate and satisfactory. Long term rewards are diffuse and uncertain and might mean risking the achievement of short term goals.
Maybe similar to what you would do with ssh keys and an online repository like github? Have different keys in each machine, but all linked to the account?
We have people dying in deserts, we have the entire world economy on the brink of ruin, we have people starving and farmers going bankrupt while millions of tons of red spring wheat rots in warehouses, we get irradiated and/or molested if we want to travel, we have both sides of the political spectrum eroding the buffer that keeps the poor from eating the rich...
Unfortunately. Those share bipartisan consensus.
So we must debate on less relevant but highly controversial and emotional issues.
And remember, it's all about the right image and rhetoric. The other guy is a tool and you are THE BEST!
Democracy is flawed in the sense that, it's not about representing people but winning one contest every couple of years and then being able to act like a king (with or without opposition from nobles of another faction).
What if our own survival is benefited by the controlled existence of these species?
According to your way of thinking we should allow indiscriminate hunting, fishing and other exploitation of natural resources because if those resources go extinct it means they weren't fit to survive and don't deserve to.
If we proceeded that way, many useful (and interesting) things would've gone the way of the Dodo a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that this reflects a problem on those organizations. Not Slashdot.
My advice, come up with a wikileaks blocker and use it. Why deprive ANYONE else of a link just because?
Another thing. If you're at work, why browse slashdot at work? :P If you're at home, why is it that your employers control what you can or can not read in your house? It's public info.
Who said anything about Jews?
Oh. Do not underestimate the power of information, my friend.
And the internet is THE vehicle for information at the moment.
Just to clarify. I'm not saying I support any control or plans by the UN (That would probably just legitimize censorship). Just pointing out how the freedom works only when we don't move and notice the shackles.
Well... We can trust that, as long as the interests of the U.S. goverment and its corporate affiliates are not affected, we will have as much "internet freedom" as we want.
Just don't write things like Wikileaks and you'll be fine.
s/per say/Per se/g
I call bullshit. Every single leader that pushes for a controversial or minority issue will suffer character assassination.
When it's not personal appearance it will be personality, if he is successful, he will be made out to look like "a pompous prick", if he is good looking he will be a "womanizer" or "dumb model", If he is not from your country he will be "foreign" and "weird", etc.
Linux -> Kernel.
GNU -> Whole frigging system.
And you wonder why it should have gnu, in it?
I understand and argument for... well, it's shorter and everyone is calling it linux already but your argument made NO sense. It's like saying someone is hilarious for calling ubuntu, linux.
Well, that's why you'll always hear him emphasizing "Free software" instead of "Open Source".
From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The 4 rules:
He doesn't refuse,if you've ever met him. He doesn't. He might repeat again where the difference relies and why he says one instead of the other but, if you meet him, you'll see he is nothing like you portray.
Anyway, it's always easy for people to criticize someone they don't agree with. Specially when they don't adhere to the norm (whether it be for behavior, personality or image).
It's not touchy and pedantic to ask for the proper term when the term you are using has a different meaning.
Confusion often strives from people using the same words to talk about different things.
A real problem many are accurately mentioning is that it won't necessarily increase transparency because usually, on cases of abuse of authority, the recordings "fail" or "are lost" protecting illegal or wrongful activities by the officers.
There's a handful of examples with car cams.
Reminds me of Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders" (from the Jack Ryan Saga).
Yep. That's the problem with such high positions. Failure is worth a gazillion times the success of any other job.
There's such a thing as rotatable monitors. I have one from Dell, for example.
I'm a big fan too but I can't really remember if I got that quote from a specific book. It's more likely that I got it from some article or quoting site. Which means it could be completely misattributed. Good phrase though, I felt it fit Slashdot.
By the way, kudos on your own sig from the great Bob Heinlein.
I dispute that. Once they get mildly comfortable they hear about things they can do and WANT to do them at any cost. That's when installing X software comes in. If you can assure them that every type of "X software" will be available in their app stores, I guess they won't have a problem. But if the app is somehow there but out of reach, I think you will have some inconvenienced users.
For the average user, being able to use something when they want beats security concerns every time. Security only becomes a factor when it affects usability.
Excellent read. Thanks.
I know this is meant as a joke but in case it's also a criticism of rapid release cycles as more insecure, I'll just point that slow release cycles often left vulnerabilities in the open for long periods of time. Who needs a zero day when the flaws are open and unpatched?
I don't understand why the modded you down.
Being transparent (and therefore disclosing what can be seen as wrongdoing) is a GOOD thing.
I did not like the "too transparent" suggestion that seems to lead to the conclusion that it's better to be secretive so you can get away with wrongdoing. Which is where USA seems to be going. No oversight due to never ending secrecy claims.
Now, in this specific case, the revelation had little to do with transparency of that issue but of a mistake regarding government expenditure.
This sounds exactly like the typical "Would you rather have Romney do that..." that we keep reading every time someone has a valid criticism against Obama.
You first claim that he doesn't have an argument to assume the worst and later say that there's no privacy anywhere (assuming the worst everywhere?).
I'd say that the problem is that politicians are working on day to day politics instead of thinking long term. Being elected, maintaining their positions, etc is always a higher priority (And short term) than anything long term and that benefits everyone more generally. The rewards for his short term political goals are immediate and satisfactory. Long term rewards are diffuse and uncertain and might mean risking the achievement of short term goals.
Maybe similar to what you would do with ssh keys and an online repository like github? Have different keys in each machine, but all linked to the account?
Unfortunately. Those share bipartisan consensus.
So we must debate on less relevant but highly controversial and emotional issues.
And remember, it's all about the right image and rhetoric. The other guy is a tool and you are THE BEST!
Democracy is flawed in the sense that, it's not about representing people but winning one contest every couple of years and then being able to act like a king (with or without opposition from nobles of another faction).
What if our own survival is benefited by the controlled existence of these species?
According to your way of thinking we should allow indiscriminate hunting, fishing and other exploitation of natural resources because if those resources go extinct it means they weren't fit to survive and don't deserve to.
If we proceeded that way, many useful (and interesting) things would've gone the way of the Dodo a long time ago.