No, "The Emperor's New Clothes" is not "a political story about a system of lies and a whistle-blower". It is a story about yes-men and making people afraid to tell the truth lead to bad decisions by leaders.
Seriously, he worked for the NSA, one agency in one country. How the fuck would he know who the worst offenders of international and domestic surveillance are? There are hundreds of countries with multiple spy agencies. He had access to some of the information about one and maybe some information about a few more. And, he thinks this qualifies him to make judgments about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT, including Russia, China, and North Korea? Really?
Lack of information about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of a country doesn't mean that country doesn't have an extensive and intrusive surveillance apparatus. It just means Snowden doesn't have information about that country. He literally doesn't have enough information to make that claim.
Snowden is quoted as saying that the U.S. government 'continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense
Dissent is refusing to follow orders. Defection is to run to the enemy. What Snowden did was treason. He was given a position of trust and access to sensitive information because he swore allegiance to his country and to protect his country's secrets. Snowden betrayed the trust placed in him by his country, which is the definition of treason.
Treason: 1.betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country
What Snowden did was not "political speech", it was copying secret documents and then gave them to members of a second country while in a third country. Yet, his job was to safeguard those same documents. By copying them and distributing them, he violated his word and promise to his employer and his country. And, releasing classified documents is a crime. The reason he doesn't have a defense is because he admitted to the crime.
Upper management is on their crackberries for a reason other than "OMG!!! BOOOORRRing!" and it is also a power thing. They are upper management. Their time is more valuable than yours. Your time however is at their pleasure. Be rude to them and they can and will fire you.
What exactly do they know? Do you know what they found? They are not alerting the website. They are warning the users of Twitter. That is all they need to do. It is the responsibility of the site to investigate, not Twitter.
The ad network is displaying as a part of the site marked as unsafe. Marking the ad network unsafe doesn't protect anyone who might go to a site serving the ads.
Choose any article on a controversial subject that has an obvious spin and a guardian editor. Take out biased language from an anonymous or new account. Watch.
And, have it reverted 1 minute later when the admin who watches the page notices you made an edit because it removed the biased and loaded language that the admin likes because it reflects the admin's personal bias.
Seriously. Look at Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. People are freely sharing information about themselves than the NSA is collecting. People like you are running around getting upset over some phone numbers while most people are posting pictures of themselves stupid drunk, committing crimes, and telling offensive jokes in public forums, not to mention publicly demonstrating how stupid they actually are.
Why aren't people upset? Because what the NSA is doing doesn't even begin to compare to what people are doing on their own.
Sort of. The problem is that the collection hasn't been ruled illegal in any cases directly challenging it. The government could still turn around and say that the collection of his data was incidental to the actual target of the investigation and that investigation was legal. I have a feeling that this may be just an opening move by both parties.
He is not claiming the evidence is wrong, which is a refutation. He is claiming the evidence was collected illegally, which would allow the court to exclude the evidence. The government is claiming that he doesn't have standing to claim the collection was illegal, only the company the data was collected from can do so because the data doesn't belong to him but rather to the company.
Well, trolio shithead, the poster's analogy is stupid and inaccurate. You are, in fact, making my point for me in the first part of your post.
But, here, let me educate you. Many companies make cars with ignition systems that have keys that can only be gotten from the manufacturer or companies licensed to make said keys. One can't simply go to the local hardware store and have a new key made.
What Apple is doing is not uncommon in other industries and misrepresenting the situation with a blatantly false analogy proves exactly nothing.
His analogy would be appropriate if Apple somehow made the iPhone incompatible with common 60 Hz, 110V wall current requiring instead special Apple current.
Apparently, your point was to demonstrate your ignorance, be a troll, and throw out some flaimbait. Congratulations on being so blatant about it.
BTW, it is stupid for people to be upset about this when the law bans them from unlocking their phones without the carriers permission. What is worse, paying extra for a cable or possibly having to pay hundreds of dollars for a whole new phone?
People buying over-priced cell phones that are locked to a carrier so if they decide to change carriers they may or may not be able to use their over-priced cell phones are now going to have to pay for over-priced cables.
Why is anyone surprised by this? Why does anyone other than those who own knockoff cables give a damn?
Sure, if you want to lie about it. The switch didn't fail. The switch worked perfectly. The switch was there to prevent detonation and it prevented detonation.
Your way of looking at it is just a straight out lie.
Plausible? The OP isn't a university professor nor a coder. He is neither qualified nor capable of giving a course on window manager design.
Then, as other has noted, the issue of the output of such a course.
And, what is described is not window manager design but window manager maintenance. IceWM has already been designed, this is just porting it to a newer version of Linux. How happy would you be if you paid for a course on window manager design thinking you would be able to design window managers at the end only to learn that you will only have one example that is already designed and you are supposed to do some maintenance programming? No discussion of how to actually design a window manager in a window manager course would result in charges of fraud and/or a high dropout rate.
And, who is going to offer the course, the OP who doesn't know how to code in the first place? Would you pay for course in Window Manager Design from someone who doesn't know how to design or code a window manager?
Thus, any time you need to plug a device such as a smartphones into a USB port to charge itâ"let's say at a public charging kiosk or a coworker's computer
Unless one is standing right there, what is to prevent someone from removing the "condom", plugging the bare cable in, slurping all one's data off, then putting the "condom"?
Slashdot Mirror
No, "The Emperor's New Clothes" is not "a political story about a system of lies and a whistle-blower". It is a story about yes-men and making people afraid to tell the truth lead to bad decisions by leaders.
Seriously, he worked for the NSA, one agency in one country. How the fuck would he know who the worst offenders of international and domestic surveillance are? There are hundreds of countries with multiple spy agencies. He had access to some of the information about one and maybe some information about a few more. And, he thinks this qualifies him to make judgments about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of EVERY OTHER COUNTRY HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT, including Russia, China, and North Korea? Really?
Lack of information about the internal and external surveillance apparatus of a country doesn't mean that country doesn't have an extensive and intrusive surveillance apparatus. It just means Snowden doesn't have information about that country. He literally doesn't have enough information to make that claim.
Snowden is quoted as saying that the U.S. government 'continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense
Dissent is refusing to follow orders. Defection is to run to the enemy. What Snowden did was treason. He was given a position of trust and access to sensitive information because he swore allegiance to his country and to protect his country's secrets. Snowden betrayed the trust placed in him by his country, which is the definition of treason.
Treason: 1.betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country
What Snowden did was not "political speech", it was copying secret documents and then gave them to members of a second country while in a third country. Yet, his job was to safeguard those same documents. By copying them and distributing them, he violated his word and promise to his employer and his country. And, releasing classified documents is a crime. The reason he doesn't have a defense is because he admitted to the crime.
No, it is pretty irrational to conclude that. Specifically, it is paranoid.
Sounds like you got caught looking at porn on your phone at work.
Upper management is on their crackberries for a reason other than "OMG!!! BOOOORRRing!" and it is also a power thing. They are upper management. Their time is more valuable than yours. Your time however is at their pleasure. Be rude to them and they can and will fire you.
What exactly do they know? Do you know what they found? They are not alerting the website. They are warning the users of Twitter. That is all they need to do. It is the responsibility of the site to investigate, not Twitter.
The ad network is displaying as a part of the site marked as unsafe. Marking the ad network unsafe doesn't protect anyone who might go to a site serving the ads.
Choose any article on a controversial subject that has an obvious spin and a guardian editor. Take out biased language from an anonymous or new account. Watch.
Why would they want to take a job working against what they consider to be a valid weapon against others, most especially corporations?
Hahahahah. Like that shit works. That is a good one.
And, have it reverted 1 minute later when the admin who watches the page notices you made an edit because it removed the biased and loaded language that the admin likes because it reflects the admin's personal bias.
Urban legend. Web-based email client UI has always been a bunch of crap. You have been drinking the kool-aid.
FTFY. And, it isn't just email clients, it is all web based UIs.
And now you know why I keep saying we shouldn't be using the web browser as an user interface for everything in the universe.
Seriously. Look at Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, etc. People are freely sharing information about themselves than the NSA is collecting. People like you are running around getting upset over some phone numbers while most people are posting pictures of themselves stupid drunk, committing crimes, and telling offensive jokes in public forums, not to mention publicly demonstrating how stupid they actually are.
Why aren't people upset? Because what the NSA is doing doesn't even begin to compare to what people are doing on their own.
Sort of. The problem is that the collection hasn't been ruled illegal in any cases directly challenging it. The government could still turn around and say that the collection of his data was incidental to the actual target of the investigation and that investigation was legal. I have a feeling that this may be just an opening move by both parties.
He is not claiming the evidence is wrong, which is a refutation. He is claiming the evidence was collected illegally, which would allow the court to exclude the evidence. The government is claiming that he doesn't have standing to claim the collection was illegal, only the company the data was collected from can do so because the data doesn't belong to him but rather to the company.
Well, trolio shithead, the poster's analogy is stupid and inaccurate. You are, in fact, making my point for me in the first part of your post.
But, here, let me educate you. Many companies make cars with ignition systems that have keys that can only be gotten from the manufacturer or companies licensed to make said keys. One can't simply go to the local hardware store and have a new key made.
What Apple is doing is not uncommon in other industries and misrepresenting the situation with a blatantly false analogy proves exactly nothing.
His analogy would be appropriate if Apple somehow made the iPhone incompatible with common 60 Hz, 110V wall current requiring instead special Apple current.
Apparently, your point was to demonstrate your ignorance, be a troll, and throw out some flaimbait. Congratulations on being so blatant about it.
BTW, it is stupid for people to be upset about this when the law bans them from unlocking their phones without the carriers permission. What is worse, paying extra for a cable or possibly having to pay hundreds of dollars for a whole new phone?
People buying over-priced cell phones that are locked to a carrier so if they decide to change carriers they may or may not be able to use their over-priced cell phones are now going to have to pay for over-priced cables.
Why is anyone surprised by this? Why does anyone other than those who own knockoff cables give a damn?
Except Ford doesn't sell gasoline and Texaco doesn't sell cars. Now, if you had something about aftermarket parts you might have had a valid analogy.
Sure, if you want to lie about it. The switch didn't fail. The switch worked perfectly. The switch was there to prevent detonation and it prevented detonation.
Your way of looking at it is just a straight out lie.
Except, the OP has already stated he doesn't have the skill to do as you suggest.
Plausible? The OP isn't a university professor nor a coder. He is neither qualified nor capable of giving a course on window manager design.
Then, as other has noted, the issue of the output of such a course.
And, what is described is not window manager design but window manager maintenance. IceWM has already been designed, this is just porting it to a newer version of Linux. How happy would you be if you paid for a course on window manager design thinking you would be able to design window managers at the end only to learn that you will only have one example that is already designed and you are supposed to do some maintenance programming? No discussion of how to actually design a window manager in a window manager course would result in charges of fraud and/or a high dropout rate.
And, who is going to offer the course, the OP who doesn't know how to code in the first place? Would you pay for course in Window Manager Design from someone who doesn't know how to design or code a window manager?
Thus, any time you need to plug a device such as a smartphones into a USB port to charge itâ"let's say at a public charging kiosk or a coworker's computer
Unless one is standing right there, what is to prevent someone from removing the "condom", plugging the bare cable in, slurping all one's data off, then putting the "condom"?