That can happen in any blood test, any saliva swab, any stool sample, any fingernail clipping... and it's easier to control/destroy physical material than it is to control/destroy bits on a computer. Currently running a DNA sequence costs a few thousand dollars a pop, so they aren't going to sneak one in when you aren't looking.
Yeah, but that makes the assumption that personal vehicles are the only way to get around. In Europe, for instance, people use public transport most of the time. That is much safer, and just as valid a way of reducing driving fatalities, but deaths/mile doesn't take it into account. Deaths/100k people, on the other hand, tells you that if you live as an average person in the country, this is your chance of being killed that way.
Except they aren't genetic markers. They are biomarkers. Molecules found in the blood, not data found by sequencing somebody's DNA. They cross-referenced some of it in stage 2 of 5 with some previous studies about genetics, but that is as close as it gets. Chances are that 99.95% of people have the DNA to code these biomarkers anyway, but it only gets accessed when you are seriously depressed. No genetic link here, no eugenics link.
The idea is they do a blood test when you check into a psych ward to see if you are a suicide risk, just like checking your cholesterol to see if you are a heart-attack risk. They don't sequence your DNA and profile you on it.
Eugenics (\yü-je-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.
It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.
This technique has nothing to do with eugenics. If anything, it is about preventing 'unfit' people from killing themselves, completely opposite to the usual eugenics rhetoric. Is there some aspect of eugenics that I missed which you were referring to?
I've done that, and all I've seen is that you think current diagnoses are terribly unreliable. I don't see how you are against some way of improving the system.
They are finding chemical markers in the blood which are present when people are depressed etc and which predispose them to suicide. This isn't a genetic measurement so your eugenics argument is BS, it is to do with the chemical composition of the blood resulting from conditions experienced by the person.
You clearly understand nothing of the involved biology and are doing the same thing that the armchair engineers were with the hyperloop, or like an illiterate person pointing out that if you read a book it might cause your brain to melt if they arrange the letters the wrong way.
If we could find a molecular basis for them we wouldn't have to rely on diagnosis criteria like "shows signs of anger when confronted" which can be horribly misinterpreted.
The answer to poor science is not less science, the answer is more, better science so we can fix the problem. Science is self-correcting like that.
The speed that new links are coming online at the moment is pretty crazy. Our international bandwidth is set to increase by 3x - 10x by the end of next year.
I suspect that soon the local backbone will be our bottleneck. It can already be an issue with ADSL ports being full or exchanges being saturated in certain areas.
First they came for the whistleblowers, But I was not a whistleblower. Then they came for the journalists, But I was not a journalist. Then they came for the lawyers, But I was not a lawyer. Then they came for me, And there was nobody left to defend me in court, write about my case or provide facts as to what had been done against all of us.
I live in South Africa. Our main bottleneck is international bandwidth, and you can buy local-only bandwidth for quite a bit less. This is wired (ADSL), and some of the cell providers are actually competitive charging only about twice as much for mobile bandwidth.
You can also buy 'uncapped', but that costs ~$30/month for consumer grade 1Mbps, and they throttle you if you are in the top 10% of users. True 'business grade' uncapped, which has lower contention ratios and doesn't get throttled is over $100/month for 1Mbps.
I'm excluding line rental in these prices, which is typically ~$20/month for 1Mbps, ~$40 for 5Mbps.
Yeah, Netflix isn't that popular here. It's actually cheaper to rent a movie than to download it, even from pirate bay.
The browser side problem is that the ISP blocks you from visiting any site other than their own once you hit your cap. This is something which affects only a small percentage of users at any time, and since the ISP don't ever cap themselves they never would have experienced it. So no, it shouldn't have been happening in the first place, and wouldn't have if they were hosting the scripts themselves.
You seem to have a "Let's put ourselves in a precarious situation with tons of unnecessary features and then catch the errors" attitude. What I'm advocating is doing defensive *architecture*, not just coding, by hosting your scripts on the same machine as your main site, so that if your html is available you know your scripts are available too. Sure, you can add error handling as well to catch loading problems, timeouts etc. just as you would in another system. But by controlling the system you have more control over the dependencies of your code. You can even strip out the stuff you aren't using and actually make the user experience *better*.
Adding unnecessary features leads to massive JS bloat with huge dependencies that cause browsers to lag and need top-end hardware just to run a spinner because of all the checks and precautions. Simple code == less chance of bugs getting in, lower bandwidth costs, easier maintenance and extendibility, and better cross-platform consistency.
My personal preference is doing everything server side and just serving html/css. I also prefer sites that do this. I understand that not everybody's use case fits this model though, so if you really have to, stick some JS in there. Just don't make the JS a prerequisite to be able to render your page.
If they want to host their own version, great. I'm all for that, nice and decentralised, and it will work without any fancy rules. But then they should only use their own version. The issues will come in when they try to do a fancy fall-back, which will require even more client-side code to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
And then you have the issue of the fallback copy needing to be the same version, and needs to get security fixes, and next thing you know, whoops, people have figured out a way to reduce their bandwidth consumption by hitting your backup servers. Seriously, the internet is designed to be distributed. Putting central points of failure in is a failure.
Ms Cooper said the situation must be "investigated and clarified urgently", adding: "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse."
So, it's the public perception that's an issue here, not the misuse of powers. Interesting Ms Cooper, interesting. Do you have anything else to add?
I had an issue where my ISP's homepage used google scripts, so when I was capped (yes, that happens here, we pay ~$2/GB) their page wouldn't load completely and I couldn't top up my account, even though they allowed requests to their page while capped.
Slashdot Mirror
That can happen in any blood test, any saliva swab, any stool sample, any fingernail clipping... and it's easier to control/destroy physical material than it is to control/destroy bits on a computer. Currently running a DNA sequence costs a few thousand dollars a pop, so they aren't going to sneak one in when you aren't looking.
Yeah, but that makes the assumption that personal vehicles are the only way to get around. In Europe, for instance, people use public transport most of the time. That is much safer, and just as valid a way of reducing driving fatalities, but deaths/mile doesn't take it into account. Deaths/100k people, on the other hand, tells you that if you live as an average person in the country, this is your chance of being killed that way.
Except they aren't genetic markers. They are biomarkers. Molecules found in the blood, not data found by sequencing somebody's DNA. They cross-referenced some of it in stage 2 of 5 with some previous studies about genetics, but that is as close as it gets. Chances are that 99.95% of people have the DNA to code these biomarkers anyway, but it only gets accessed when you are seriously depressed. No genetic link here, no eugenics link.
The idea is they do a blood test when you check into a psych ward to see if you are a suicide risk, just like checking your cholesterol to see if you are a heart-attack risk. They don't sequence your DNA and profile you on it.
Cellphones ARE deadly after all! /s
I think they're referring to visible light, not radio, IR, UV or X-Ray.
From wikipedia:
Eugenics (\yü-je-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.
It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.
This technique has nothing to do with eugenics. If anything, it is about preventing 'unfit' people from killing themselves, completely opposite to the usual eugenics rhetoric. Is there some aspect of eugenics that I missed which you were referring to?
I've done that, and all I've seen is that you think current diagnoses are terribly unreliable. I don't see how you are against some way of improving the system.
They are finding chemical markers in the blood which are present when people are depressed etc and which predispose them to suicide. This isn't a genetic measurement so your eugenics argument is BS, it is to do with the chemical composition of the blood resulting from conditions experienced by the person.
You clearly understand nothing of the involved biology and are doing the same thing that the armchair engineers were with the hyperloop, or like an illiterate person pointing out that if you read a book it might cause your brain to melt if they arrange the letters the wrong way.
Careless reporter my ass. It was the editor of The Guardian, and he published the key in his autobiography.
This. Smaller government = socially liberal and fiscally conservative. The Tea Party only got half of that.
Then why are you against using molecular markers? They allow us to avoid the stupid diagnosis criteria I was referring to.
If we could find a molecular basis for them we wouldn't have to rely on diagnosis criteria like "shows signs of anger when confronted" which can be horribly misinterpreted.
The answer to poor science is not less science, the answer is more, better science so we can fix the problem. Science is self-correcting like that.
The speed that new links are coming online at the moment is pretty crazy. Our international bandwidth is set to increase by 3x - 10x by the end of next year.
I suspect that soon the local backbone will be our bottleneck. It can already be an issue with ADSL ports being full or exchanges being saturated in certain areas.
First they came for the whistleblowers,
But I was not a whistleblower.
Then they came for the journalists,
But I was not a journalist.
Then they came for the lawyers,
But I was not a lawyer.
Then they came for me,
And there was nobody left to defend me in court, write about my case or provide facts as to what had been done against all of us.
It's also accurate, from what I've seen.
I live in South Africa. Our main bottleneck is international bandwidth, and you can buy local-only bandwidth for quite a bit less. This is wired (ADSL), and some of the cell providers are actually competitive charging only about twice as much for mobile bandwidth.
You can also buy 'uncapped', but that costs ~$30/month for consumer grade 1Mbps, and they throttle you if you are in the top 10% of users. True 'business grade' uncapped, which has lower contention ratios and doesn't get throttled is over $100/month for 1Mbps.
I'm excluding line rental in these prices, which is typically ~$20/month for 1Mbps, ~$40 for 5Mbps.
Yeah, Netflix isn't that popular here. It's actually cheaper to rent a movie than to download it, even from pirate bay.
The browser side problem is that the ISP blocks you from visiting any site other than their own once you hit your cap. This is something which affects only a small percentage of users at any time, and since the ISP don't ever cap themselves they never would have experienced it. So no, it shouldn't have been happening in the first place, and wouldn't have if they were hosting the scripts themselves.
You seem to have a "Let's put ourselves in a precarious situation with tons of unnecessary features and then catch the errors" attitude. What I'm advocating is doing defensive *architecture*, not just coding, by hosting your scripts on the same machine as your main site, so that if your html is available you know your scripts are available too. Sure, you can add error handling as well to catch loading problems, timeouts etc. just as you would in another system. But by controlling the system you have more control over the dependencies of your code. You can even strip out the stuff you aren't using and actually make the user experience *better*.
Adding unnecessary features leads to massive JS bloat with huge dependencies that cause browsers to lag and need top-end hardware just to run a spinner because of all the checks and precautions. Simple code == less chance of bugs getting in, lower bandwidth costs, easier maintenance and extendibility, and better cross-platform consistency.
My personal preference is doing everything server side and just serving html/css. I also prefer sites that do this. I understand that not everybody's use case fits this model though, so if you really have to, stick some JS in there. Just don't make the JS a prerequisite to be able to render your page.
If they want to host their own version, great. I'm all for that, nice and decentralised, and it will work without any fancy rules. But then they should only use their own version. The issues will come in when they try to do a fancy fall-back, which will require even more client-side code to fix a problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
And then you have the issue of the fallback copy needing to be the same version, and needs to get security fixes, and next thing you know, whoops, people have figured out a way to reduce their bandwidth consumption by hitting your backup servers. Seriously, the internet is designed to be distributed. Putting central points of failure in is a failure.
Even better:
Ms Cooper said the situation must be "investigated and clarified urgently", adding: "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse."
So, it's the public perception that's an issue here, not the misuse of powers. Interesting Ms Cooper, interesting. Do you have anything else to add?
Yes, but relying on external scripts explodes your number of edge cases.
Yup... see here.
I had an issue where my ISP's homepage used google scripts, so when I was capped (yes, that happens here, we pay ~$2/GB) their page wouldn't load completely and I couldn't top up my account, even though they allowed requests to their page while capped.
Yep, and he's also due to marry Greenwald in November. So you're right, and GP is right.
Well, to be pedantic, GHCQ would fall under $FOUR_LETTER_AGENCY, and in more ways than one.
Yep. Better to use a heat pump.