I think you overestimate the reach of the feds. Yes they might take down a few domains right now but there comes a tipping point where other countries decide that their own corner of the internet does not belong to the feds. They are unlikely ever to take China or Russia in the foreseeable future, and large parts of Europe are likely to say 'thanks but no thanks, we've got this'.
By going to jail they have probably significantly enhanced their careers. They will come into contact with all kinds of people who may be interested in hiring their services (Cosmo in Sneakers anyone?), and when they come out they will probably find their notoriety makes it easier to get an interview for a security job. If they had not gone to jail they would probably not have such diverse career options.
Not sure if there is evidence to support the assertion that most cheaters and sociopaths end up in jail. We all 'know' (from folk history and common sense) that power corrupts, and the prison guards experiments in the 60s demonstrated quite clearly that perfectly ordinary people, given power, would be willing to torture others. CEOs may have worked hard and may be normal people, but normal people easily convince themselves that exploitation and torture are OK when they have power over others.
Is it really true that thousands of people have been sued, i.e. actually been to court? I can believe that thousands of people have been threatened with extortion to pay a settlement, but that's a bit different.
Our cells are packed with redundant DNA repair subroutines, and suicide subroutines to detect cancer and implode to prevent it spreading, so, like many other things in the environment, tar makes our cells mutate, and normally nothing goes wrong unless mutations happen to knock out all the redundant mechanisms in a bunch of cells at once. As said above, the chances of this happening early on in anyone's life are vanishingly small, unless their DNA is already defective. I wonder how the above poster knew that his schoolmate got cancer from smoking...
I have a different view of this. I think the second example is a more useful construct, as it exposes i, as well as list[i]. I have no problem with people using the first construct if they prefer, but it could be MORE error-prone if it leads you to make assumptions about the value of i. A use-case might be where you want to traverse two array structures in the same loop - you don't know i for sure in the first syntax, so you set up a variable which you increment, but you initialise it to 1 instead of 0, and suddenly your two structures are out of step. At least in the verbose example you can actually see what's going on.
Smoking takes about 50 years to give you cancer, so the answer depends on how long you have already smoked for, how long you think it will take to develop a generic cure that you can afford, and the probability you are comfortable with that they will get to the cure before the cancer gets to you (which could be never - most smokers never get cancer). Also heart disease.
Sharing pictures of yourself drunk with your friends can in no way be considered an efficient use of computing resources, and so the efficiency argument falls completely flat. If people buy a computer, and want to use it to share such pictures, then it is up to them. Similarly, if people want to use said computer to do this privately, using encryption, then who are we to argue that they are not making good use of their own resources? I disagree that sysadmins need access. Complainants should be the ones giving access to evidence to law enforcement, and sysadmins should not be in the picture imo. Complainants would have access to the decryption keys, in order to have something to complain about, so ought to be facilitated in forwarding the unencrypted stream, rather than law enforcement wiretapping the service provider, imo. If law enforcement want to wiretap an individual user, because they have reasonable grounds to believe a crime is being committed, then they should go get a warrant from a judge, and wiretap that user's computer. Why should every innocent conversation that anyone has be subject to warrantless wiretapping and intrusion by nosy and corrupt law enforcement and sysadmins?
I think it may be the other way round, if I have it right - methylation of the promoter region stops the gene being activated. The promoter is the DNA 'upstream' of the gene, usually, where the trasnscription machinery binds to begin reading off the gene and producing messenger RNA. If the promoter is methylated, the DNA doesn't unwind to provide access to the machinery. The researchers found that 'useful' metabolic genes were demethylated (so activated) by exercise and caffeine.
When you say 'very inefficient', how long does it take a decent laptop to encrypt a lores pic for FB? Not long I reckon. Thinking of the children (which is of course always a big concern), policing bullying would be easy enough if the person complaining about bullying were able to submit their unencrypted stream to the site for assessment. I might argue that it is not the place of the website to do this anyway, and it might be better to make it easy for users to submit evidence of possible crimes to the police. I would expect a pub landlord to monitor their premises for illegal activity, but websites are not a pub, they are more like a phone service with intrusive advertising.
I guess they are trying to imply that all domains are national domains. Capital is allowed to act transnationally, but tools available to the people are not.
Sysadmins are not generally allowed to see people's passwords because they are PRIVATE. Somehow we have let FB and the like convince us that there is no such thing as private data.
No this is wrong. Most want is rooted in feelings, and the desire to satisfy them. All marketing does is misdirect people to things that probably won't satisfy those wants, so they will have to spend again and again. Most people want to communicate with each other through a very natural desire for human connection, and don't need marketing to tell them that they want this.
Business models are not the ultimate in sustainability. What makes a service sustainable, ultimately, is whether people want it. If they want it, they will find a way to make it. That's how the internet got made, not by some ad agencies going 'hey, we could make a lot of money here, let's hire some people who know what they are doing'. They jumped on the band wagon later, it wwass already rolling before they arrived, and will carry on rolling because people want to communicate with each other. Computers are cheap and lots of people have one, telecoms are cheap and lots of people have them. The internet is free because the development of the protocols was paid for by taxation (through universities and the military developing the technology). It doesn't need to be owned, supported, or driven by corporations, we already own it.
No this is backwards. The internet is a mechanism for exchanging data and messages between computers. It has been hijacked by advertising agencies for commercial purposes. Darknets will strip out the cancer.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you overestimate the reach of the feds. Yes they might take down a few domains right now but there comes a tipping point where other countries decide that their own corner of the internet does not belong to the feds. They are unlikely ever to take China or Russia in the foreseeable future, and large parts of Europe are likely to say 'thanks but no thanks, we've got this'.
By going to jail they have probably significantly enhanced their careers. They will come into contact with all kinds of people who may be interested in hiring their services (Cosmo in Sneakers anyone?), and when they come out they will probably find their notoriety makes it easier to get an interview for a security job. If they had not gone to jail they would probably not have such diverse career options.
How can it resist censorship when it is a .org? I thought the US government owned these.
Not sure if there is evidence to support the assertion that most cheaters and sociopaths end up in jail. We all 'know' (from folk history and common sense) that power corrupts, and the prison guards experiments in the 60s demonstrated quite clearly that perfectly ordinary people, given power, would be willing to torture others. CEOs may have worked hard and may be normal people, but normal people easily convince themselves that exploitation and torture are OK when they have power over others.
Actually sued, or just threatened with extortion and 'encouraged' to settle?
Is it really true that thousands of people have been sued, i.e. actually been to court? I can believe that thousands of people have been threatened with extortion to pay a settlement, but that's a bit different.
Can a company sieze your equipment for a non-criminal matter?
Agreed SD is high when you factor in that most smokers don't get cancer.
Our cells are packed with redundant DNA repair subroutines, and suicide subroutines to detect cancer and implode to prevent it spreading, so, like many other things in the environment, tar makes our cells mutate, and normally nothing goes wrong unless mutations happen to knock out all the redundant mechanisms in a bunch of cells at once. As said above, the chances of this happening early on in anyone's life are vanishingly small, unless their DNA is already defective. I wonder how the above poster knew that his schoolmate got cancer from smoking...
They heard you liked cancer so...
I have a different view of this. I think the second example is a more useful construct, as it exposes i, as well as list[i]. I have no problem with people using the first construct if they prefer, but it could be MORE error-prone if it leads you to make assumptions about the value of i. A use-case might be where you want to traverse two array structures in the same loop - you don't know i for sure in the first syntax, so you set up a variable which you increment, but you initialise it to 1 instead of 0, and suddenly your two structures are out of step. At least in the verbose example you can actually see what's going on.
Smoking takes about 50 years to give you cancer, so the answer depends on how long you have already smoked for, how long you think it will take to develop a generic cure that you can afford, and the probability you are comfortable with that they will get to the cure before the cancer gets to you (which could be never - most smokers never get cancer). Also heart disease.
yes
Sharing pictures of yourself drunk with your friends can in no way be considered an efficient use of computing resources, and so the efficiency argument falls completely flat. If people buy a computer, and want to use it to share such pictures, then it is up to them. Similarly, if people want to use said computer to do this privately, using encryption, then who are we to argue that they are not making good use of their own resources? I disagree that sysadmins need access. Complainants should be the ones giving access to evidence to law enforcement, and sysadmins should not be in the picture imo. Complainants would have access to the decryption keys, in order to have something to complain about, so ought to be facilitated in forwarding the unencrypted stream, rather than law enforcement wiretapping the service provider, imo. If law enforcement want to wiretap an individual user, because they have reasonable grounds to believe a crime is being committed, then they should go get a warrant from a judge, and wiretap that user's computer. Why should every innocent conversation that anyone has be subject to warrantless wiretapping and intrusion by nosy and corrupt law enforcement and sysadmins?
mod parent up for logic
I think it may be the other way round, if I have it right - methylation of the promoter region stops the gene being activated. The promoter is the DNA 'upstream' of the gene, usually, where the trasnscription machinery binds to begin reading off the gene and producing messenger RNA. If the promoter is methylated, the DNA doesn't unwind to provide access to the machinery. The researchers found that 'useful' metabolic genes were demethylated (so activated) by exercise and caffeine.
When you say 'very inefficient', how long does it take a decent laptop to encrypt a lores pic for FB? Not long I reckon. Thinking of the children (which is of course always a big concern), policing bullying would be easy enough if the person complaining about bullying were able to submit their unencrypted stream to the site for assessment. I might argue that it is not the place of the website to do this anyway, and it might be better to make it easy for users to submit evidence of possible crimes to the police. I would expect a pub landlord to monitor their premises for illegal activity, but websites are not a pub, they are more like a phone service with intrusive advertising.
I guess they are trying to imply that all domains are national domains. Capital is allowed to act transnationally, but tools available to the people are not.
I highly doubt that only one screener does this, I would bet good money that the figure is about 50%.
Sysadmins are not generally allowed to see people's passwords because they are PRIVATE. Somehow we have let FB and the like convince us that there is no such thing as private data.
No this is wrong. Most want is rooted in feelings, and the desire to satisfy them. All marketing does is misdirect people to things that probably won't satisfy those wants, so they will have to spend again and again. Most people want to communicate with each other through a very natural desire for human connection, and don't need marketing to tell them that they want this.
Business models are not the ultimate in sustainability. What makes a service sustainable, ultimately, is whether people want it. If they want it, they will find a way to make it. That's how the internet got made, not by some ad agencies going 'hey, we could make a lot of money here, let's hire some people who know what they are doing'. They jumped on the band wagon later, it wwass already rolling before they arrived, and will carry on rolling because people want to communicate with each other. Computers are cheap and lots of people have one, telecoms are cheap and lots of people have them. The internet is free because the development of the protocols was paid for by taxation (through universities and the military developing the technology). It doesn't need to be owned, supported, or driven by corporations, we already own it.
No this is backwards. The internet is a mechanism for exchanging data and messages between computers. It has been hijacked by advertising agencies for commercial purposes. Darknets will strip out the cancer.
Everyone bought cocks, got bored and left.
In this article the authors refer to data in the singular. Data are plural, a datum is singular. Otherwise, a nice parsimonious review.