Is it just me, or does this seem fairly petty and petulant?
No, it is not just you. I wanted to say the same thing: petty. "Petulant" is an SAT-word and didn't come to my mind, but now that I've looked up the meaning, I agree, it is that too.
For example, Soviet Union has, thankfully, been dead for almost 30 years now, but the top-level domain (.su) continues to exist with plenty of sites under it.
Ah, so our times are exclusive and special, and the problem of new technology making older jobs obsolete is uniquely difficult in 2018, is that your position?
Do you realize, how many horse grooms lost their jobs, when automobiles replaced horse-driven conveyances just a hundred years ago? Do you suppose, all of those people retrained as mechanics or some such — for all the vastly different skills required by the two professions?
Should we have banned automobiles so that the old professions could remain profitable?
what will happen when the volume of jobs goes down in comparison to the size of the human population.
There are lots of things we, the billions of humans, could do, but aren't doing because somebody still needs to do the routine.
But if you are worried about the "uniquely high" number of people affected, look up Luddites — there was time, when more British soldiers were needed to suppress them, than were engaged in fighting Napoleon!
work together with everyone to protect the working class
Where the fuck were you, when washing machines killed off laundromat workers' jobs? When the white-collar profession of computer was killed off by the soulless machines you now use for playing games and watching porn? When movie and sound-recording obsoleted live-performances? Where was your concern for the "working class" then, you 21-st century Luddite?
Suppose for a second, some wonder pill is invented, which prevents all disease in humans. Will you be seriously considering the need to "protect the doctors" (and nurses, and other hospital staff), threatened by everybody just taking it and never falling ill again? Will you begrudge the pill's inventor his billions of dollars?
Well, except for the part of humanity that used to be able to support themselves and their families by doing the routine work that needed doing. They're fucked.
Yeah, and the people who did laundry by hand before the invention of washing machines and the pre-telephone messengers, and the white-collar computers before, ahem, computers, got "fucked" by those earlier inventions.
Do you believe that the US government is required to provide internet service to everyone in the US?
Whatever I believe is not quite relevant. My question is about the Progressive Humanity... They believe (or believed in 2009), Internet access is a Human Right and welcomed Finland's declaration to the effect.
So, now they either have to protest Assange being deprived of this right without due process or admit, that it is not any more of a right, than the ability to buy cheese.
I think you are confusing that he's LIVED in a residence inside an Ecuadorian government facility with that he OWNS a private residence inside an Ecuadorian government.
The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. Unless you are going to claim, that ownership of one's dwelling is required to exercise that right I cited. Be careful with your answer, because such a requirement would disqualify about 30% of Finns, for example.
No Mr. Assange is an asshole
How interesting. Do assholes lose their human rights — without due process? And when did he become an asshole in your opinion? Was it before or after he exposed certain presidential candidate in bad light?
Remember he made a previous agreement with Ecuador concerning his usage of their Internet
No such agreement is even necessary, if Internet access really were a human right. Is it?..
What we know, says Tyson, is that automation has taken away many routine jobs.
That's a good thing. A very good thing. Nobody — no human — likes doing a routine job. We do them because we need the money, but if a machine can do it instead, humanity wins.
We know from the past that the jobs that require low skills are more likely to be automated
Think of it as the revenge of the nerds upon the jocks. If you preferred gym to a Math class, you should be paid less the rest of your life, and have fewer children so that humanity could continue evolving.
We could go international (until they improve the algorithms).
"We" could, but this approach would require both the insulted and the insulting to know the same terms of abuse, which the medium they are using does not recognize. That's a long shot. It will also be caught up by the censoring programs much quicker as their makers seek to market to users in different countries and so have to recognize swear words in multiple languages. In fact, they probably already do.
No, what I proposed is using the existing and well-known terms, but evading censors by mixing character-sets. Yours spellchecker will be confused too...
The Hungarians are a special case.
I may not know Magyars as well as a certain sapper Vodichka used to, but yes, I have heard of them being a special case in many ways...
You can't, actually, do that on/., which rejects Cyrillic characters outright. But on most sites and with most applications you can replace the characters common between Latin and Cyrillic with those from the latter in the offensive words, and it will defeat today's filters. Of course, the censors will wise up to the technique eventually, but for now it works...
Not even your target will see it, screaming internally at his inability to call you "an asshole" in response, while enraged over your ability to use the terms like that with impunity.
You can say it, but it simply is not true. Fascism (and Socialism) need surveillance to survive, but other governing regimes can benefit from it too — just as they all benefit from roads and electricity.
When the assumption is bullshit, the conclusions are inevitably tainted...
Civilian guns earning or protecting liberty is a myth. It could be argued that guns in civilian hands actually contribute to the rise of fascism.
The protocol has several advantages over its previous version -- TLS 1.2. The biggest feature is that TLS 1.3 ditches older encryption and hashing algorithms
If removing older options is the biggest new feature, then there is not much to speak of, is there?
And it took these people how long to come to this important milestone?
The decision comes after four years of discussions and 28 protocol drafts
Tar and feathers... Either for those involved, or for those, who described their work for Slashdot...
Oh, well, if Snopes finds a fault in Republicans, while white-washing Democrats, that's a real shocker... Every word must be true.
information was gathered from users and given to a third party
Bullshit — every campaign involves a multitude of "parties", who share the information. Each of those qualifies as "a third" party...
University of Cambridge psychologist Aleksandr Kogan created a personality quiz which users could download in an app called “thisisyourdigitallife.” Kogan presented the app as a tool that would be used for academic research
And he did. And then offered results of his research to a political campaign — is it really so unheard of, that results of an academic research are shared with others?
We did not build any complex (certainly not the so-called psychographic) models of facebook users using their facebook data
This may speak to Obama campaign not using the data at their disposal to its full potential. But they certainly had full access to it.
Most of the models we built were using the publicly available “voter file”
Most....
We only contacted the people who had given us access and permission to get their own email address. We did not get any contact information for their friend
That contradicts the Time's article I cited — and I'm inclined to believe Time on this, because it was written in 2012, before the topic became contentious and various partisans started making spins...
Is there something fundamentally different about 5G that they can't deploy on all the existing towers?
Yes, there is. The higher frequency (15GHz!!) affords higher bandwidth, but requires many more towers because of the shorter range:
As far as frequency, the 5G test network used a 15 GHz frequency band, which is higher and shorter range than current 3G/4G cellular frequencies that top out at around 2.6 GHz, i.e. 2600 MHz LTE Band 7. The choice of short-range would make deployments of this technology suitable for densely populated urban areas, where many base stations could be deployed to offer super-fast speeds over a small area.
I'd also wager, that tracking your device's location will also become more precise...
because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. [...] More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts, asking their friends to register to vote, give money, vote or look at a video designed to change their mind.
a community organizing tool, which is pretty much the opposite of stealing data in order to engage in psychological warfare.
The only difference is in the spin — one's "community organizing" is another's "psychological warfare". From the same source:
A geek squad in Chicago created models from vast data sets to find the best approaches for each potential voter.
In other words, having the misfortune of being a "friend" with an Obama-fan, allowed this "geek squad" to "steal" your data — and subjected you to the same "psychological warfare".
No, it was not particularly wrong back then. And it is not wrong now either.
It probably does, indeed. But that hypothetical truck, that the GP claimed to be unstoppable with "puny" weapons, would shake you even worse unless you blow it up in time...
BS. The distinctions Obama's bootlickers are trying to make in that article are without difference. There is nothing illegal or even unethical about Obama campaign's use of Facebook data, but neither is there anything wrong with CA's use of it. Can we use your FB-data for research? Yeah, sure. Ok, thank you...
Your article outright lies too. For example, its claim that
Notice that this was an invitation that came directly from the Obama campaign, which the volunteer could either chose to accept or reject.
That’s because the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists. In an instant, the campaign had a way to see the hidden young voters.
See? Just by having the gross misfortune of being known to an Obama-backer, made you appear on Obama's radar, without your permission.
And it worked:
More than 600,000 supporters followed through with more than 5 million contacts.
Again, it was not wrong then — but it also is not wrong now, however scandalized the hypocrites may pretend to be.
following the misuse of user data by Cambridge Analytica
The same "misuse" occurred in 2012, when it was hailed as Obama's genius and "mastery of Big Data". I don't understand, why anyone would use Facebook — and allow them to sell one's data — but to be suddenly scandalized by Cambridge Analytica's use of it is just blatant hypocrisy.
Thus making "the Constitution" not a valid argument.
What? That does not follow at all... If you pass a new Amendment to the Constitution, that invalidates the Second, various laws limiting/banning gun-ownership will become constitutional.
But until you pass such a new Amendment, the Second one remains in effect and the citizenry have a right (not a privilege!) to keep and bear arms — and any laws limiting the keeping and the bearing are themselves illegal.
but by arming everyone you have also armed the bad guys
First of all, no one seeks to "arm everyone" — as in "hand out weapons to everyone like Universal Basic Income". Simply allow people to carry, what they procure (or already own) themselves. Second, real "bad guys" (pro criminals) are already armed — regardless of whether it is legal or not — just witness Chicago, where guns are so illegal, a museum had to remove a historical rifle from the exposition, but people are shot regularly anyway.
And lastly, even when all are armed, the defending party has an advantage against assailants. A homeowner, for example, defending his house against 5 bandits has a chance, if he is armed — even if they are as well. He has no chance without a weapon, even when the attackers have none either.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it is not just you. I wanted to say the same thing: petty. "Petulant" is an SAT-word and didn't come to my mind, but now that I've looked up the meaning, I agree, it is that too.
For example, Soviet Union has, thankfully, been dead for almost 30 years now, but the top-level domain (.su) continues to exist with plenty of sites under it.
Ah, so our times are exclusive and special, and the problem of new technology making older jobs obsolete is uniquely difficult in 2018, is that your position?
Do you realize, how many horse grooms lost their jobs, when automobiles replaced horse-driven conveyances just a hundred years ago? Do you suppose, all of those people retrained as mechanics or some such — for all the vastly different skills required by the two professions?
Should we have banned automobiles so that the old professions could remain profitable?
There are lots of things we, the billions of humans, could do, but aren't doing because somebody still needs to do the routine.
But if you are worried about the "uniquely high" number of people affected, look up Luddites — there was time, when more British soldiers were needed to suppress them, than were engaged in fighting Napoleon!
Where the fuck were you, when washing machines killed off laundromat workers' jobs? When the white-collar profession of computer was killed off by the soulless machines you now use for playing games and watching porn? When movie and sound-recording obsoleted live-performances? Where was your concern for the "working class" then, you 21-st century Luddite?
Suppose for a second, some wonder pill is invented, which prevents all disease in humans. Will you be seriously considering the need to "protect the doctors" (and nurses, and other hospital staff), threatened by everybody just taking it and never falling ill again? Will you begrudge the pill's inventor his billions of dollars?
Yeah, and the people who did laundry by hand before the invention of washing machines and the pre-telephone messengers, and the white-collar computers before, ahem, computers, got "fucked" by those earlier inventions.
Whatever I believe is not quite relevant. My question is about the Progressive Humanity... They believe (or believed in 2009), Internet access is a Human Right and welcomed Finland's declaration to the effect.
So, now they either have to protest Assange being deprived of this right without due process or admit, that it is not any more of a right, than the ability to buy cheese.
The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. Unless you are going to claim, that ownership of one's dwelling is required to exercise that right I cited. Be careful with your answer, because such a requirement would disqualify about 30% of Finns, for example.
How interesting. Do assholes lose their human rights — without due process? And when did he become an asshole in your opinion? Was it before or after he exposed certain presidential candidate in bad light?
No such agreement is even necessary, if Internet access really were a human right. Is it?..
That's a good thing. A very good thing. Nobody — no human — likes doing a routine job. We do them because we need the money, but if a machine can do it instead, humanity wins.
Think of it as the revenge of the nerds upon the jocks. If you preferred gym to a Math class, you should be paid less the rest of your life, and have fewer children so that humanity could continue evolving.
He's had a private home inside Equador's government facility for years! The distinction you listed is without difference.
If, as Progressive Humanity claims, Internet access is a human right, no one can be deprived of it without due process.
So, why is Mr. Assange losing his — without the said Progressive Humanity protesting?..
But, but, Internet access — fast Internet access — is a human right in better countries...
Why has Julian lost his — with nary a protest?
"We" could, but this approach would require both the insulted and the insulting to know the same terms of abuse, which the medium they are using does not recognize. That's a long shot. It will also be caught up by the censoring programs much quicker as their makers seek to market to users in different countries and so have to recognize swear words in multiple languages. In fact, they probably already do.
No, what I proposed is using the existing and well-known terms, but evading censors by mixing character-sets. Yours spellchecker will be confused too...
I may not know Magyars as well as a certain sapper Vodichka used to, but yes, I have heard of them being a special case in many ways...
Yes, something like that. Except Cyrillic characters would be a better replacement — tails and umlauts at all.
You can't, actually, do that on /., which rejects Cyrillic characters outright. But on most sites and with most applications you can replace the characters common between Latin and Cyrillic with those from the latter in the offensive words, and it will defeat today's filters. Of course, the censors will wise up to the technique eventually, but for now it works...
Not even your target will see it, screaming internally at his inability to call you "an asshole" in response, while enraged over your ability to use the terms like that with impunity.
You can say it, but it simply is not true. Fascism (and Socialism) need surveillance to survive, but other governing regimes can benefit from it too — just as they all benefit from roads and electricity.
When the assumption is bullshit, the conclusions are inevitably tainted...
Yep. Just as I said. Bullshit.
If removing older options is the biggest new feature, then there is not much to speak of, is there?
And it took these people how long to come to this important milestone?
Tar and feathers... Either for those involved, or for those, who described their work for Slashdot...
The Internet? The entire public space — off and online — is like that. In a reasonably free society, at least. And always has been...
WTF? Even if there ever was, there is no such requirement today. Mine has letters — and, wow, not all of them even from the Latin alphabet...
Another falsehood...
Half of Slashdot will now go out of their way to buy Huawei — just to spite Ajit Pai.
Oh, well, if Snopes finds a fault in Republicans, while white-washing Democrats, that's a real shocker... Every word must be true.
Bullshit — every campaign involves a multitude of "parties", who share the information. Each of those qualifies as "a third" party...
And he did. And then offered results of his research to a political campaign — is it really so unheard of, that results of an academic research are shared with others?
This may speak to Obama campaign not using the data at their disposal to its full potential. But they certainly had full access to it.
Most....
That contradicts the Time's article I cited — and I'm inclined to believe Time on this, because it was written in 2012, before the topic became contentious and various partisans started making spins...
Yes, there is. The higher frequency (15GHz!!) affords higher bandwidth, but requires many more towers because of the shorter range:
I'd also wager, that tracking your device's location will also become more precise...
Oh, yes, he did:
The only difference is in the spin — one's "community organizing" is another's "psychological warfare". From the same source:
In other words, having the misfortune of being a "friend" with an Obama-fan, allowed this "geek squad" to "steal" your data — and subjected you to the same "psychological warfare".
No, it was not particularly wrong back then. And it is not wrong now either.
It probably does, indeed. But that hypothetical truck, that the GP claimed to be unstoppable with "puny" weapons, would shake you even worse unless you blow it up in time...
BS. The distinctions Obama's bootlickers are trying to make in that article are without difference. There is nothing illegal or even unethical about Obama campaign's use of Facebook data, but neither is there anything wrong with CA's use of it. Can we use your FB-data for research? Yeah, sure. Ok, thank you...
Your article outright lies too. For example, its claim that
is contradicted by the perfectly non-controversial 2012 description of Obama campaign's approach:
See? Just by having the gross misfortune of being known to an Obama-backer, made you appear on Obama's radar, without your permission.
And it worked:
Again, it was not wrong then — but it also is not wrong now, however scandalized the hypocrites may pretend to be.
The same "misuse" occurred in 2012, when it was hailed as Obama's genius and "mastery of Big Data". I don't understand, why anyone would use Facebook — and allow them to sell one's data — but to be suddenly scandalized by Cambridge Analytica's use of it is just blatant hypocrisy.
What? That does not follow at all... If you pass a new Amendment to the Constitution, that invalidates the Second, various laws limiting/banning gun-ownership will become constitutional.
But until you pass such a new Amendment, the Second one remains in effect and the citizenry have a right (not a privilege!) to keep and bear arms — and any laws limiting the keeping and the bearing are themselves illegal.
First of all, no one seeks to "arm everyone" — as in "hand out weapons to everyone like Universal Basic Income". Simply allow people to carry, what they procure (or already own) themselves. Second, real "bad guys" (pro criminals) are already armed — regardless of whether it is legal or not — just witness Chicago, where guns are so illegal, a museum had to remove a historical rifle from the exposition, but people are shot regularly anyway.
Third, in many situations the bad guys aren't actually armed — because weapon-ownership requires some level of planning and forethought. Rioting mob is dangerous even when not armed — but an armed defender can put an end to the outrage even without actually shooting anyone.
And lastly, even when all are armed, the defending party has an advantage against assailants. A homeowner, for example, defending his house against 5 bandits has a chance, if he is armed — even if they are as well. He has no chance without a weapon, even when the attackers have none either.