Seconded. I am a happy ScudCloud user too — there is no "native" Slack app for FreeBSD. It is resource intensive too, but not so bad — using 1.7Gb for one account.
Which reminds me, I really should add the port I created...
Some people being assholes doesn't make the rest rioters.
Yep. This is why only a couple of hundred are being prosecuted (with even fewer to be convicted) out of thousands.
Or do you mean to say that all 200 broke windows and damaged vehicles?
Being part of a conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself a crime... The few assholes actually breaking windows can be prosecuted for that already. It is to substantiate the conspiracy charge is why the prosecutors needed to crack the phones — the very subject of TFA.
The reason to ban nuclear weapons is the dangers they pose to places and times far away from and long after the battle. Lasers are as ecologically clean as a weapon can be. They are also precise, unlike nukes. Why should they be banned?
Because the law can't regulate human memory. That would be crazy.
You are right! That would be crazy. I argue, it is just as crazy to regulate business memories.
There is no "right to be forgotten" — not a fundamental human right anyway, contrary to the implications of the term chosen by the proponents of the regulation to propagandize it.
Also because in the EU it is common for businesses to be held to different standards,
The right to be forgotten applies to businesses storing and using personal data. It doesn't apply to you.
Why the distinction? If this right really is so fundamental as fans claim it to be, why should not it apply to other individuals?
And where do you draw the line between a business and "me"? What if I profited somehow from our interaction? Does that mean, you have a right — a fundamental human right — to be forgotten by me? To wipe out my memory of you, that is?
Companies like Google have respected it, courts have enforced it.
We comply with the laws for fear of prosecution and the courts enforce them because they are laws. Neither is an indication, the particular law is sensible or reflects some fundamental right.
What is this "right to be forgotten"? I don't think, it exists — or ever existed — nor should exists. My memories, what I have seen, heard, and otherwise experienced are mine, however and wherever I recorded it.
Suppose, technology allowed (wait, it already does!) to carefully erase human memories — would it suddenly become your right to demand, for example, your ex submits to wiping out his memories of your time together?
Would it be Ok for employers to wipe out the memories employees may have associated with the employment upon its termination?
There is no such "right", we all better stop pretending it exists.
Your definition of what is allowed to be compulsory charity [...]
I do not define anything as such. "Compulsory charity" is a self-contradicting term (like "space helicopter", "meatless steak", or "homosexual marriage") — I use it for mockery.
just as arbitrary
No, not arbitrary at all — in particular because they are decidedly not charity. Generally, only that is allowed to be compulsory, without which the entire polity (country, state, city) can not survive. Defense from foreign invaders qualifies, prosecution of local criminals does too. But feeding the homeless, for example, does not — if they all die today because no one found it in their hearts to feed them, the city will not be any worse off than the day before.
Isn't $1 to help the intended goal better than no help?
No. Because it is compulsory, which violates my freedom. If that poor kid stole or robbed me of $1, you would've agreed, however reluctantly, that he should not have. But, for some bizarre reason, when the government does it — takes $10 at gunpoint to give the kid $1 — it is Ok and "the price of civilization".
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
— James Madison
It is my money. If you believe, you need it more than I do, you can ask — politely — for my help. But you can not just come and take it — such confiscations are only permissible to finance defence from foreign enemies and domestic criminals.
Because it's not going to be built by some non government entity
If there aren't enough people to pay for it voluntarily, then it does not need to be built at all. Simple, eh?
if the people of Havana overthrew their government that would not be [an invasion].
How is the Cuban people's hypothetical uprising relevant to whether or not American action is an invasion or not?
If Cuba was overthrown by anti US rebels that were busy murdering US citizens the US would reinforce Guantanamo.
If that were to happen, the US would've evacuated the endangered citizens. If an invasion were necessary to conduct such an evacuation, they would've invaded. They would not have annexed the country, however — certainly not with a hasty fake referendum. For example, Puerto Rico conducts a referendum every 10 years on whether to remain an American protectorate, to become fully independent, or to join the US as the 51st state...
There was no invasion, it did not happen.
Foreign troops, that weren't in a country before, went in there to take over the country's infrastructure, government buildings, and military installations. Khm, if only we had a term that describes such an action... Oh wait, I know! English has a word for this: "invasion".
If Russia left they would be out of work and overrun by Svoboda Nazis.
Dude, you are too embarrassing even for a Russian... You can not — not in the same post, anyway — deny the very fact of invasion and explain, how it protected people.
There was no fake referendum
A referendum on loyalty to the occupying power is meaningless — unless you also accept 100% of North Koreans adoring Kim and 100% of Iraqis electing Hussein. Moreover, the "referendum" took place mid-March, whereas the invasion began at the end of February. Even if we were, contrary to all precedent, grant the populace the power to decide to switch countries and accepted the "referendum" as genuine, Russia's action was still an invasion because it took place before this "expression of popular will".
But do remember this conversation, when polite German-speaking blonds without insignia organize theirs in Königsberg and (just as polite) Asian-looking men — in Kurills. Oh, and Tahanrog would, no doubt, elect to return to Ukraine, when polite guys from the Right Sector take it over.
Why would you think that Russian troops would be needed to invade a Russian population?
Troops don't invade populations. "English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!" Troops invade countries. In 2014 Russian troops invaded Ukraine. That was the beginning of the end of Russia as we knew it. Good riddance. After centuries of Orda-induced hiatus, Kyiv is once again rising as the center of Eastern European Slavs. Brush up on your Ukrainian, you'll need it.
Do you know of any major US naval bases that do not have troops?
So, if the American troops stationed in Guantanamo occupied Havana, you would not call it "invasion"? Not even if 10K more troops arrived to Guantanamo for the purpose the week before? What would you call it, and what would the practical difference be?
That does not make an invasion
Actually, it does. But that was not all, because in addition to those troops, Putin has ordered — as he proudly admits in the cited interview — for thousands more of elite forces to move into Crimea. To occupy the airports, government buildings, major intersections, etc. An act of war, an invasion followed by occupation.
the people of Crimea declared their independence
The fake referendum took place weeks after the invasion occurred and the occupation was complete.
Always a difficult issue, annexing territory with approval of the population.
Not difficult at all. First of all, how do you even know, there was an actual "approval of the population"? Residents of an occupied territory "voting" in support of the occupying power — is that really that convincing to you?
But even if a respectable proportion did sincerely want Russia to come over and "protect them". Imagine Mexico "reinforcing" Southern California and Arizona... Why? To protect the Spanish speaking people from the imminent threat of "Nazis" — like Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio... And claim "historical ownership" of the lands going back to Santa Anna.
Will you really have any difficulty deciding, whether it was an "invasion" and seek a different term? What if they promptly organize a referendum on whether to join Mexico — will you accept its results?
we can still talk to them and respect them on the international stage
No, we can't. Russia delenda est. The country — since long before Lenin — is a constant threat to liberty and peace world-wide with nothing especially valuable to justify it... There is definitely nothing to "respect" them for — not even their lousy weaponry.
It may happen... Or they may ask the judge to lower the requirement because of the special circumstances of the case — and look for the already-divorced among the victims...
Why did Americans turn into McCarthyist, bedwetting cowards
It is not cowardice to fight your enemy, quite the opposite.
Now, if we ignored Russia's aggressions — such as because they have nukes, or because we don't want to interfere with what they do to their immediate neighbors — now that would've been cowardice. Yes...
Propaganda works by citing a Russian invasion of Crimea that never happened
During 2014, maybe, it was excusable to believe this lie.
But when, a year later, Russian TV broadcast an entire movie celebrating the invasion — and Putin's direct involvement in it — the excuse vanished. In particular, during the interview, that is part of the film, Putin says:
I ordered Minister of Defense, why hide, under the guise of reinforcing our military installations in Crimea, to transfer forces of GRU there, marines, and paratroopers. [...] Our advantage was that I was personally involved. Not because I did everything right, but because the country's top people are involved, things are easier for the operators on the ground".
The cat's been out of the bag since March 2015. Your continuing to lie about it does not help Russia — it just exposes you as an asshole.
Lie to people often enough and they eventually believe it.
Yep, this is generally true. But it will not help you here.
And to claim yours, judging by the usual verbiage of such settlement agreements, the victims would have to list, when they opened an account, what their username was, how much they paid and other details... And it will, probably, all become part of the official record somewhere — not just buried in a database dump on "Dark Web".
No one expects anyone other than the lawyers to get paid. But that may be good enough — because the point here was not to compensate the victims, but to punish the wrong-doers. Whether $11mln is a lot or not depends on what the company brought in before it all broke apart due to the data-breach.
An educated guess. Point remains, there is a gaping omission in TFA... So gaping, so obviously contrary to the journalistic rules and traditions, that it can only be deliberate. A lie by omission.
By your logic when reporting on the Holocaust, journalism must present the Nazis in a favorable light.
You didn't finish reading the page I linked to... But you did trip over Godwin's Law.
Balance and fairness are classic buzzwords of journalism ethics: In objective journalism, stories must be balanced in the sense of attempting to present all sides of a story. Fairness means that a journalist should strive for accuracy and truth in reporting, and not slant a story so a reader draws the reporter’s desired conclusion.
And you know this how?
"I keep my eyes open when I go about the world."
You claim not to be a journalist yet you know exactly what work was done and not done.
Weird, is not it? I wish, journalists knew as much about some other profession — any other profession — as I know about theirs...
Nope. Because I said: "probably" — mine was explicitly a "guestimate", which no reasonable person could possible (mis)construe as an assertion of fact.
You first.
I'm decidedly not a journalist. Slashdot editors and TFA's author(s) pretend to be. Why is an article citing an amount spent by one side not cite an spent by the opponents? At best, that's because the authors are simply lazy.
At worst, that's because the other side spent a comparable (or even much greater) amount and citing both will diminish the propaganda impact of the piece. See also "lie of omission".
So 3 ISPs and 200+ other companies together spent $572 million over 10 years. That's less than $300k per company per year.
And we still do not know, how much the fans of the draconian measure have spent to advance it — yesterday's hysterics, probably, cost something like $100mln just for one day...
But we do not know such details, because researching and reporting such information would be journalism...
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded. I am a happy ScudCloud user too — there is no "native" Slack app for FreeBSD. It is resource intensive too, but not so bad — using 1.7Gb for one account.
Which reminds me, I really should add the port I created...
Citation needed. Badly...
Yep. This is why only a couple of hundred are being prosecuted (with even fewer to be convicted) out of thousands.
Being part of a conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself a crime... The few assholes actually breaking windows can be prosecuted for that already. It is to substantiate the conspiracy charge is why the prosecutors needed to crack the phones — the very subject of TFA.
"Saving" is good, "hoarding" is bad. The choice of words implies the author's desire to confiscate all or part of the monies...
To all those coveting other people's dabloons: they are not yours!.
The reason to ban nuclear weapons is the dangers they pose to places and times far away from and long after the battle. Lasers are as ecologically clean as a weapon can be. They are also precise, unlike nukes. Why should they be banned?
This is lit. Makes the enemy lit up. Literally.
There is no pretense, that this somehow guards some fundamental human right.
Not reporting is one thing. Mandatory amnesia is another.
You are right! That would be crazy. I argue, it is just as crazy to regulate business memories.
There is no "right to be forgotten" — not a fundamental human right anyway, contrary to the implications of the term chosen by the proponents of the regulation to propagandize it.
Because you are ultimately less free over there.
Why the distinction? If this right really is so fundamental as fans claim it to be, why should not it apply to other individuals?
And where do you draw the line between a business and "me"? What if I profited somehow from our interaction? Does that mean, you have a right — a fundamental human right — to be forgotten by me? To wipe out my memory of you, that is?
We comply with the laws for fear of prosecution and the courts enforce them because they are laws. Neither is an indication, the particular law is sensible or reflects some fundamental right.
What is this "right to be forgotten"? I don't think, it exists — or ever existed — nor should exists. My memories, what I have seen, heard, and otherwise experienced are mine, however and wherever I recorded it.
Suppose, technology allowed (wait, it already does!) to carefully erase human memories — would it suddenly become your right to demand, for example, your ex submits to wiping out his memories of your time together?
Would it be Ok for employers to wipe out the memories employees may have associated with the employment upon its termination?
There is no such "right", we all better stop pretending it exists.
I do not define anything as such. "Compulsory charity" is a self-contradicting term (like "space helicopter", "meatless steak", or "homosexual marriage") — I use it for mockery.
No, not arbitrary at all — in particular because they are decidedly not charity. Generally, only that is allowed to be compulsory, without which the entire polity (country, state, city) can not survive. Defense from foreign invaders qualifies, prosecution of local criminals does too. But feeding the homeless, for example, does not — if they all die today because no one found it in their hearts to feed them, the city will not be any worse off than the day before.
No. Because it is compulsory, which violates my freedom. If that poor kid stole or robbed me of $1, you would've agreed, however reluctantly, that he should not have. But, for some bizarre reason, when the government does it — takes $10 at gunpoint to give the kid $1 — it is Ok and "the price of civilization".
It is my money. If you believe, you need it more than I do, you can ask — politely — for my help. But you can not just come and take it — such confiscations are only permissible to finance defence from foreign enemies and domestic criminals.
If there aren't enough people to pay for it voluntarily, then it does not need to be built at all. Simple, eh?
How is the Cuban people's hypothetical uprising relevant to whether or not American action is an invasion or not?
If that were to happen, the US would've evacuated the endangered citizens. If an invasion were necessary to conduct such an evacuation, they would've invaded. They would not have annexed the country, however — certainly not with a hasty fake referendum. For example, Puerto Rico conducts a referendum every 10 years on whether to remain an American protectorate, to become fully independent, or to join the US as the 51st state...
Foreign troops, that weren't in a country before, went in there to take over the country's infrastructure, government buildings, and military installations. Khm, if only we had a term that describes such an action... Oh wait, I know! English has a word for this: "invasion".
Dude, you are too embarrassing even for a Russian... You can not — not in the same post, anyway — deny the very fact of invasion and explain, how it protected people.
A referendum on loyalty to the occupying power is meaningless — unless you also accept 100% of North Koreans adoring Kim and 100% of Iraqis electing Hussein. Moreover, the "referendum" took place mid-March, whereas the invasion began at the end of February. Even if we were, contrary to all precedent, grant the populace the power to decide to switch countries and accepted the "referendum" as genuine, Russia's action was still an invasion because it took place before this "expression of popular will".
But do remember this conversation, when polite German-speaking blonds without insignia organize theirs in Königsberg and (just as polite) Asian-looking men — in Kurills. Oh, and Tahanrog would, no doubt, elect to return to Ukraine, when polite guys from the Right Sector take it over.
Troops don't invade populations. "English, motherfucker, do you speak it?!" Troops invade countries. In 2014 Russian troops invaded Ukraine. That was the beginning of the end of Russia as we knew it. Good riddance. After centuries of Orda-induced hiatus, Kyiv is once again rising as the center of Eastern European Slavs. Brush up on your Ukrainian, you'll need it.
So, if the American troops stationed in Guantanamo occupied Havana, you would not call it "invasion"? Not even if 10K more troops arrived to Guantanamo for the purpose the week before? What would you call it, and what would the practical difference be?
Actually, it does. But that was not all, because in addition to those troops, Putin has ordered — as he proudly admits in the cited interview — for thousands more of elite forces to move into Crimea. To occupy the airports, government buildings, major intersections, etc. An act of war, an invasion followed by occupation.
The fake referendum took place weeks after the invasion occurred and the occupation was complete.
Not difficult at all. First of all, how do you even know, there was an actual "approval of the population"? Residents of an occupied territory "voting" in support of the occupying power — is that really that convincing to you?
But even if a respectable proportion did sincerely want Russia to come over and "protect them". Imagine Mexico "reinforcing" Southern California and Arizona... Why? To protect the Spanish speaking people from the imminent threat of "Nazis" — like Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio... And claim "historical ownership" of the lands going back to Santa Anna.
Will you really have any difficulty deciding, whether it was an "invasion" and seek a different term? What if they promptly organize a referendum on whether to join Mexico — will you accept its results?
No, we can't. Russia delenda est. The country — since long before Lenin — is a constant threat to liberty and peace world-wide with nothing especially valuable to justify it... There is definitely nothing to "respect" them for — not even their lousy weaponry.
It may happen... Or they may ask the judge to lower the requirement because of the special circumstances of the case — and look for the already-divorced among the victims...
It is not cowardice to fight your enemy, quite the opposite.
Now, if we ignored Russia's aggressions — such as because they have nukes, or because we don't want to interfere with what they do to their immediate neighbors — now that would've been cowardice. Yes...
During 2014, maybe, it was excusable to believe this lie.
But when, a year later, Russian TV broadcast an entire movie celebrating the invasion — and Putin's direct involvement in it — the excuse vanished. In particular, during the interview, that is part of the film, Putin says:
The cat's been out of the bag since March 2015. Your continuing to lie about it does not help Russia — it just exposes you as an asshole.
Yep, this is generally true. But it will not help you here.
And to claim yours, judging by the usual verbiage of such settlement agreements, the victims would have to list, when they opened an account, what their username was, how much they paid and other details... And it will, probably, all become part of the official record somewhere — not just buried in a database dump on "Dark Web".
No one expects anyone other than the lawyers to get paid. But that may be good enough — because the point here was not to compensate the victims, but to punish the wrong-doers. Whether $11mln is a lot or not depends on what the company brought in before it all broke apart due to the data-breach.
Was it a sexual assault?..
Ok, so it was — or is alleged to have been — a sexual assault. Why would anyone call it sexually suggestive instead?
An educated guess. Point remains, there is a gaping omission in TFA... So gaping, so obviously contrary to the journalistic rules and traditions, that it can only be deliberate. A lie by omission.
You didn't finish reading the page I linked to... But you did trip over Godwin's Law.
Remember to logout.
No. You are incorrect. Wrong.
Here is the correct statement: to counter the research someone has done, I pointed out a gaping omission in it.
Uh, I dunno, maybe this part?
"I keep my eyes open when I go about the world."
Weird, is not it? I wish, journalists knew as much about some other profession — any other profession — as I know about theirs...
Nope. Because I said: "probably" — mine was explicitly a "guestimate", which no reasonable person could possible (mis)construe as an assertion of fact.
I'm decidedly not a journalist. Slashdot editors and TFA's author(s) pretend to be. Why is an article citing an amount spent by one side not cite an spent by the opponents? At best, that's because the authors are simply lazy.
At worst, that's because the other side spent a comparable (or even much greater) amount and citing both will diminish the propaganda impact of the piece. See also "lie of omission".
And we still do not know, how much the fans of the draconian measure have spent to advance it — yesterday's hysterics, probably, cost something like $100mln just for one day...
But we do not know such details, because researching and reporting such information would be journalism...
Citation needed.