Disagree. People still take miraculous claims at face value, entire TV networks exist to take advantage of this. Marketing is not going to collapse from lack of faith in it, because faith is not a factor. These people prey on the human subconcious, they seed desire and then fill that desire, regardless of actual need (and with much waste of resources involved). That would also be why advertising begets disgust, they're telling bald faced lies.
This particular troll however is not really a prime example of good marketing. First of all, I doubt he is a marketing drone at all; it's too obvious a troll, and the audience is wrong, the post is off topic and he fails to provide a call to action. No, this is a sad troll with no life, trying to masturbate his way out of boredom by stirring the pot on/. in a manner pleasing to him.
No, because the due process, in this case, only applies to American citizens. The rest of us get fuck-shafted by whichever email provider we have. To you American types, the recent string of lawsuits over this is good, to the rest of us, it's very bad. It focuses on the rights of you, over the rights of us.
The OP was about switching between US providers, and I guess I should have been clearer that this is only going to work for people, whom the various amendments apply to. All in all, we don't need to figure out which amendment this violates the most, or how many people can be tapped at once to deem it "mass", we need it to stop, period.
Yadda, yadda American news site and all, but this thing really does stretch beyond US soil. And no matter which government is doing the spying, it needs to just.fucking.stop.
I can't imagine why the businesses who have been caught red handed on this aren't being more vocal about the implications for their overseas trade, after all, governments love export more than import.
Right, because handing over your data after loosing a court battle is so much better than doing it before. You're focusing on the wrong part of the problem.
And you STILL want to do business with them? You STILL want to trust their OS with your personal files and/or communications?
It really doesn't matter in what manner the three letter agencies are collecting their information, from the browser, from the SSL socket (pre encryption) or directly from the OS. Google, Facebook, you name it, they'll all have to comply with a national security letter. Oracle would too, and anyone running a Linux based service, the "OS from hell" argument is moot at this point. Nice try though.
I'd love to go to the moon, but I don't have a spare 20 billion lying around, (the rough cost of each previous moon landing). My guess is few people do.
This lady does apparently, she's on the board of directors. I had a similar line of thought when I read the summary, and wanted to see what kind of people were actually backing this venture. Two venture capitalists and a bunch of ex-NASA VIPs on the board. The funny thing about this company is the board of advisors, stuffed full of Hollywood leftovers, among them apparently a set designer on Star Trek; that's interesting.
Denier! Nuance is for pussies. Besides, the title says "Climate Change" (as in, we know it's changing), that's completely different from "Global Warming" (as in, we know it is changing, and we know it is becoming warmer). Since I have now proven you wrong, Slashtiquette allows me to make fun of your spelling, grammar, lack of paragraphs and, perhaps if cocky, make fun of the way you sleep wrapped in a Soviet flag.
Between his campaign and the main super PAC supporting him, Restore Our Future, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has received $9.6 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry. In contrast, President Obama has received about five percent of that total, or just under $500,000 from oil and gas donors
The agreement, first reported by Crikey who obtained the documents, gave the US government permission to store "domestic communications" – with the possibility of using them for spying – using the underwater cables owned by Reach.
Domestic communications were defined in the agreement as communications within the US but could also extend to communications which "originate or terminate" in America, meaning Australian communications with America could have potentially been subject to the agreement.
The Slashdot summary is, as is usual, fails to highlight the really interesting part (not that two consecutive governments approved this isn't interesting)
Telstra also agreed to report to the US government every three months on whether any foreign non-government entities had asked for access to their communications, and complete a compliance report every year which could not be accessed using freedom of information laws.
Oh really? How is that global fight for freedom going for you guys?
The points of contact were to be American citizens and the agreement also stopped Telstra and Reach, which is based in Hong Kong, from complying with any country's laws that certain data should be destroyed.
Fascinating. I wonder why they kept taking it on drills but not include the fixed wing aircraft that were supposed to be the main selling point (did they not know this yet, or was it a spending issue?).
As I replied to another poster in a sub-thread to this one, I'm not arguing that a person with a gun can aim that gun and kill another person who also has gun, but that the solution proposed always has at least one death (the shooter's first victim, or in extreme cases the shooter himself).
I'm also challenging the belief that the threat of death is a deterrent to would be mass murderers, it seems that whenever someone produces a link in this thread, it supports my assertion that this is not the case. That is my main point, more guns will not deter these incidents, and no amount of slicing the data is going to obfuscate the fact that a solution involving any amount of guns > 0 will result in death. This should be seen in contrast to a solution that involves no guns (for anyone), and actively trying to understand why these things happen (a preventative measure) instead of trying to fix the problem after it gets out of hand.
I realise that my solution cannot maintain the status quo of gun policy in the states, and I would like to point out that the second amendment does not necessarily have to be divine truth, some of those words were written in a much different time, and one could argue, place. A lot of posters here are up in arms about what they feel is a direct attack at their constitutional rights, and that is fine really, but we're taking the 200 year old words of a bunch of nobles over the welfare of society today - and I feel like I'm the only one who sees that as tantamount to fanatic religious belief.
Your own link seems to contradict what you're saying, although it's not directly on point (the incident was not avoided with guns, it was cut short). 2 students were shot and killed, 7 injured, before the shooter was held up at gun point. The fact that it happened, yet again proves my assertion, that even with an armed guard at the front door, this would have happened - the killer would just have to plan ahead (which they commonly do) to take him out first. Concealed firearms scattered around the premises will not deter it, it might cut the killing spree short, but it is still solving the problem after the fact.
And after that: Air Force will realize that it's stupid to have a carrier that's also a boat, build a plane and the prophecy that is Starcraft will come to pass.
The woman who runs the blog elaborates on that in a later post, she says they claimed they have 55 years of experience between them at the NSA. They're recruiters in the sense that they work for NSA and were assigned to go there, not that that is all they do.
Congress will keep looking until it's too much like work and they give up. Give them anything and they'll stop looking. From there it's just the whistleblowers that are left
I'm sure the reverse engineering effort will be under way shortly, filling up kiddy pron hangouts with lists of phrases to throw at the bots to verify that it's a bot. Compared to actual hackers, kiddy wankers seem to be alot more concious about their own security.
Technically, they're trying to prosecute people living out their socially unacceptable sexuality. Though, instead of wasting resources doing that, why not just market the damn thing to lonely pedophiles instead, they can chat up 14 year old digital girls, and our kids won't have to be bothered by it, win-win.
I'll assume that you take issue with my original questions and perceive the assumptions they make to be incorrect then.
No. I'm calling you out on your use of derogatory statements to bemoan the quality of discussions, specifically the parts that employ derogatory statements, or stereotypes if you will. That is bigotry. I'm not disagreeing with you on the point you so hamfistedly tried to make, but your implementation of it.
Maybe it is to jingoistic "patriots" like yourself.
Fuck you, you simple minded, filthy slut. There, balance restored.
If you're really that thin-skinned, you should get off the Internet
That works both ways, and since you're the one who started the whine thread, this will apply to you specifically, in this context. It's much easier to have a discussion when you preemptively rule out everyone who does not agree with you, but that doesn't add any value now does it?
But since you decided to start a thread, specifically to ask questions framed with sweeping statements about the mindset of everyone on Slashdot (we're nearing the 3 million UID mark), you are in fact trolling. A proper solution would have been to offer counter arguments to those individual posts that you seem to take offense to. For now, you're just a bigot calling everyone else a bigot. Big whoop - that has never been seen before.
Sorry about the abstract only link, I got them mixed up.
I'm not disputing the fact that someone with a gun can aim and kill someone else with a gun, but whether or not it makes a difference to A) the mass murderer, B) the people already killed. You're very focused on statistics, and response times, but the topic of the discussion (at least the part I replied to) was whether the threat of death would be a show stopper for a mass murderer. The "research" you linked to shows clearly that that is not the case, I then went ahead and produced a link to a paper that describes the motivations of a subset of those killers, also very clearly stating that the threat of death is not a deterrent. So I guess in a sense we're on the same page on that one.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that research performed by law enforcement is no less biased than research performed by actual researchers. Remember, in the States, the decision makers of law enforcement are elected officials, and have a vested interest in making reality fit with their agenda, or at least fit enough that another term can be secured.
You seem to be under the impression that mass murderers in general are some kind of magic being that cannot be understood, and the only solution to the problem they pose is to arm a significant portion of the population, in order to kill the murderers once their spree begins, or shortly thereafter. You're also under the assumption that mass murderers choose their venue based on the availability of guns there, which is clearly not the case. Also, I would like to strongly object to your premise, that killing a would-be mass murderer before they hit the magic threshold of 4 people dead, is any kind of a solution. Again, statistics don't mean shit to the 3 other people who are already dead.
I can understand the line of thought though, because to solve a problem it is generally viewed as bad if the status quo cannot be maintained, in this case the right to own a gun, and the added license to carry it concealed. So of course in the minds of gun owners it becomes a problem of trying to maintain that right and avoid being killed by someone else with a gun. The obvious (and false) conclusion is then to arm enough people so that the chance that you are shot before the killer is, is minimized. As I pointed out previously, that does not solve the problem, and to reiterate what the problem is: you have a society that produces mass murderers at a ratio far exceeding what is to be expected if you ignore gun control policy (it is expected if you don't ignore it, but that is a conclusion that is too hard to swallow, and tons of papers on the subject have been produced to try and discredit that, or FUD it up enough to make the point blurry).
As I said earlier in a reply, bending statistics does not bend reality, only our perception of it. And that is the danger of it, especially in this case.
Ok, I have to call FUD on that. The choice of venue is closely related to the motivation of the perp (well, d'uh right?), but that does not imply a causative link between choice of venue and whether or not the venue has stricter than normal gun control. In fact, if that was the case you would expect to see a lot more mass shootings in Europe than in the States, simply based on the much stricter weapon control policies in the former.
On the topic of motivation, just for you to have some actual research to look into, and to support my claim in the previous reply. The “Pseudocommando” Mass Murderer - from the abstract (emphasis mine):
The pseudocommando is a type of mass murderer who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, and comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons. He has no escape planned and expects to be killed during the incident. Research suggests that the pseudocommando is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment, flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated. He views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback.
That is not to say that all mass shootings are motivated by forms of mental illness, far from it actually, but it does suggest that toting guns around won't actually solve any problems. The debate needs to separate belief from facts, because both sides are doing themselves and society a disservice by finding facts to support a given predetermined conclusion and rather than actually solving the problem.
Completely off topic note: why does the wiki entry for iPhone 5 show up fifth in Google's results, when the search term was "mass shootings ratio outside us". That both confuses and enlightens me greatly.
Slashdot Mirror
Disagree. People still take miraculous claims at face value, entire TV networks exist to take advantage of this. Marketing is not going to collapse from lack of faith in it, because faith is not a factor. These people prey on the human subconcious, they seed desire and then fill that desire, regardless of actual need (and with much waste of resources involved). That would also be why advertising begets disgust, they're telling bald faced lies.
This particular troll however is not really a prime example of good marketing. First of all, I doubt he is a marketing drone at all; it's too obvious a troll, and the audience is wrong, the post is off topic and he fails to provide a call to action. No, this is a sad troll with no life, trying to masturbate his way out of boredom by stirring the pot on /. in a manner pleasing to him.
Does not bode well for our collective survival, if that is a picture of what a "next generation" of anything, looks like.
No, because the due process, in this case, only applies to American citizens. The rest of us get fuck-shafted by whichever email provider we have. To you American types, the recent string of lawsuits over this is good, to the rest of us, it's very bad. It focuses on the rights of you, over the rights of us.
The OP was about switching between US providers, and I guess I should have been clearer that this is only going to work for people, whom the various amendments apply to. All in all, we don't need to figure out which amendment this violates the most, or how many people can be tapped at once to deem it "mass", we need it to stop, period.
Yadda, yadda American news site and all, but this thing really does stretch beyond US soil. And no matter which government is doing the spying, it needs to just.fucking.stop.
I can't imagine why the businesses who have been caught red handed on this aren't being more vocal about the implications for their overseas trade, after all, governments love export more than import.
Right, because handing over your data after loosing a court battle is so much better than doing it before. You're focusing on the wrong part of the problem.
NASA Phoenix Mars Lander Confirms Frozen Water
string.Replace("Soviet Russia", "NSA America");
And you STILL want to do business with them? You STILL want to trust their OS with your personal files and/or communications?
It really doesn't matter in what manner the three letter agencies are collecting their information, from the browser, from the SSL socket (pre encryption) or directly from the OS. Google, Facebook, you name it, they'll all have to comply with a national security letter. Oracle would too, and anyone running a Linux based service, the "OS from hell" argument is moot at this point. Nice try though.
I'd love to go to the moon, but I don't have a spare 20 billion lying around, (the rough cost of each previous moon landing).
My guess is few people do.
This lady does apparently, she's on the board of directors.
I had a similar line of thought when I read the summary, and wanted to see what kind of people were actually backing this venture. Two venture capitalists and a bunch of ex-NASA VIPs on the board. The funny thing about this company is the board of advisors, stuffed full of Hollywood leftovers, among them apparently a set designer on Star Trek; that's interesting.
Denier! Nuance is for pussies. Besides, the title says "Climate Change" (as in, we know it's changing), that's completely different from "Global Warming" (as in, we know it is changing, and we know it is becoming warmer). Since I have now proven you wrong, Slashtiquette allows me to make fun of your spelling, grammar, lack of paragraphs and, perhaps if cocky, make fun of the way you sleep wrapped in a Soviet flag.
I can think of some
Between his campaign and the main super PAC supporting him, Restore Our Future, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has received $9.6 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry. In contrast, President Obama has received about five percent of that total, or just under $500,000 from oil and gas donors
The Guardian disagrees with you.
The agreement, first reported by Crikey who obtained the documents, gave the US government permission to store "domestic communications" – with the possibility of using them for spying – using the underwater cables owned by Reach.
Domestic communications were defined in the agreement as communications within the US but could also extend to communications which "originate or terminate" in America, meaning Australian communications with America could have potentially been subject to the agreement.
The Slashdot summary is, as is usual, fails to highlight the really interesting part (not that two consecutive governments approved this isn't interesting)
Telstra also agreed to report to the US government every three months on whether any foreign non-government entities had asked for access to their communications, and complete a compliance report every year which could not be accessed using freedom of information laws.
Oh really? How is that global fight for freedom going for you guys?
The points of contact were to be American citizens and the agreement also stopped Telstra and Reach, which is based in Hong Kong, from complying with any country's laws that certain data should be destroyed.
51% sure, or how was that?
Fascinating. I wonder why they kept taking it on drills but not include the fixed wing aircraft that were supposed to be the main selling point (did they not know this yet, or was it a spending issue?).
As I replied to another poster in a sub-thread to this one, I'm not arguing that a person with a gun can aim that gun and kill another person who also has gun, but that the solution proposed always has at least one death (the shooter's first victim, or in extreme cases the shooter himself).
I'm also challenging the belief that the threat of death is a deterrent to would be mass murderers, it seems that whenever someone produces a link in this thread, it supports my assertion that this is not the case. That is my main point, more guns will not deter these incidents, and no amount of slicing the data is going to obfuscate the fact that a solution involving any amount of guns > 0 will result in death. This should be seen in contrast to a solution that involves no guns (for anyone), and actively trying to understand why these things happen (a preventative measure) instead of trying to fix the problem after it gets out of hand.
I realise that my solution cannot maintain the status quo of gun policy in the states, and I would like to point out that the second amendment does not necessarily have to be divine truth, some of those words were written in a much different time, and one could argue, place. A lot of posters here are up in arms about what they feel is a direct attack at their constitutional rights, and that is fine really, but we're taking the 200 year old words of a bunch of nobles over the welfare of society today - and I feel like I'm the only one who sees that as tantamount to fanatic religious belief.
Your own link seems to contradict what you're saying, although it's not directly on point (the incident was not avoided with guns, it was cut short). 2 students were shot and killed, 7 injured, before the shooter was held up at gun point. The fact that it happened, yet again proves my assertion, that even with an armed guard at the front door, this would have happened - the killer would just have to plan ahead (which they commonly do) to take him out first. Concealed firearms scattered around the premises will not deter it, it might cut the killing spree short, but it is still solving the problem after the fact.
And after that:
Air Force will realize that it's stupid to have a carrier that's also a boat, build a plane and the prophecy that is Starcraft will come to pass.
The woman who runs the blog elaborates on that in a later post, she says they claimed they have 55 years of experience between them at the NSA. They're recruiters in the sense that they work for NSA and were assigned to go there, not that that is all they do.
Congress will keep looking until it's too much like work and they give up. Give them anything and they'll stop looking. From there it's just the whistleblowers that are left
Fixed to reflect new data.
There are at least two confirmed idiots working for the NSA [1], it's not that much of a stretch to think there's more where they came from.
I'm sure the reverse engineering effort will be under way shortly, filling up kiddy pron hangouts with lists of phrases to throw at the bots to verify that it's a bot. Compared to actual hackers, kiddy wankers seem to be alot more concious about their own security.
Technically, they're trying to prosecute people living out their socially unacceptable sexuality. Though, instead of wasting resources doing that, why not just market the damn thing to lonely pedophiles instead, they can chat up 14 year old digital girls, and our kids won't have to be bothered by it, win-win.
I'll assume that you take issue with my original questions and perceive the assumptions they make to be incorrect then.
No. I'm calling you out on your use of derogatory statements to bemoan the quality of discussions, specifically the parts that employ derogatory statements, or stereotypes if you will. That is bigotry. I'm not disagreeing with you on the point you so hamfistedly tried to make, but your implementation of it.
Maybe it is to jingoistic "patriots" like yourself.
Fuck you, you simple minded, filthy slut. There, balance restored.
If you're really that thin-skinned, you should get off the Internet
That works both ways, and since you're the one who started the whine thread, this will apply to you specifically, in this context. It's much easier to have a discussion when you preemptively rule out everyone who does not agree with you, but that doesn't add any value now does it?
But since you decided to start a thread, specifically to ask questions framed with sweeping statements about the mindset of everyone on Slashdot (we're nearing the 3 million UID mark), you are in fact trolling. A proper solution would have been to offer counter arguments to those individual posts that you seem to take offense to. For now, you're just a bigot calling everyone else a bigot. Big whoop - that has never been seen before.
No that's true, but that also assumes that cavemen would be the intended audience.
Sorry about the abstract only link, I got them mixed up.
I'm not disputing the fact that someone with a gun can aim and kill someone else with a gun, but whether or not it makes a difference to A) the mass murderer, B) the people already killed. You're very focused on statistics, and response times, but the topic of the discussion (at least the part I replied to) was whether the threat of death would be a show stopper for a mass murderer. The "research" you linked to shows clearly that that is not the case, I then went ahead and produced a link to a paper that describes the motivations of a subset of those killers, also very clearly stating that the threat of death is not a deterrent. So I guess in a sense we're on the same page on that one.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that research performed by law enforcement is no less biased than research performed by actual researchers. Remember, in the States, the decision makers of law enforcement are elected officials, and have a vested interest in making reality fit with their agenda, or at least fit enough that another term can be secured.
You seem to be under the impression that mass murderers in general are some kind of magic being that cannot be understood, and the only solution to the problem they pose is to arm a significant portion of the population, in order to kill the murderers once their spree begins, or shortly thereafter. You're also under the assumption that mass murderers choose their venue based on the availability of guns there, which is clearly not the case. Also, I would like to strongly object to your premise, that killing a would-be mass murderer before they hit the magic threshold of 4 people dead, is any kind of a solution. Again, statistics don't mean shit to the 3 other people who are already dead.
I can understand the line of thought though, because to solve a problem it is generally viewed as bad if the status quo cannot be maintained, in this case the right to own a gun, and the added license to carry it concealed. So of course in the minds of gun owners it becomes a problem of trying to maintain that right and avoid being killed by someone else with a gun. The obvious (and false) conclusion is then to arm enough people so that the chance that you are shot before the killer is, is minimized. As I pointed out previously, that does not solve the problem, and to reiterate what the problem is: you have a society that produces mass murderers at a ratio far exceeding what is to be expected if you ignore gun control policy (it is expected if you don't ignore it, but that is a conclusion that is too hard to swallow, and tons of papers on the subject have been produced to try and discredit that, or FUD it up enough to make the point blurry).
As I said earlier in a reply, bending statistics does not bend reality, only our perception of it. And that is the danger of it, especially in this case.
Ok, I have to call FUD on that.
The choice of venue is closely related to the motivation of the perp (well, d'uh right?), but that does not imply a causative link between choice of venue and whether or not the venue has stricter than normal gun control. In fact, if that was the case you would expect to see a lot more mass shootings in Europe than in the States, simply based on the much stricter weapon control policies in the former.
On the topic of motivation, just for you to have some actual research to look into, and to support my claim in the previous reply. The “Pseudocommando” Mass Murderer - from the abstract (emphasis mine):
The pseudocommando is a type of mass murderer who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, and comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons. He has no escape planned and expects to be killed during the incident. Research suggests that the pseudocommando is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment, flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated. He views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback.
That is not to say that all mass shootings are motivated by forms of mental illness, far from it actually, but it does suggest that toting guns around won't actually solve any problems. The debate needs to separate belief from facts, because both sides are doing themselves and society a disservice by finding facts to support a given predetermined conclusion and rather than actually solving the problem.
Completely off topic note: why does the wiki entry for iPhone 5 show up fifth in Google's results, when the search term was "mass shootings ratio outside us". That both confuses and enlightens me greatly.
its a christian ceremony
The fuck it is, and a few milliseconds of research would have told you as much, but I guess that is implied in the "last time I checked", which would be, never?
a source from the top of the hit list on Google, that you would have found had your bother to search
While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.