Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.
What they need to do is give Trump and Clinton slightly different briefings... still accurate, but formulated that in the event that one or the other of them leaks it (not just on Twitter), it's easier to trace back to which one of the two leaked the information. They've caught spies before that way.
Or he was just saying shit to stay in the news cycle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for Trump. But he has a pathological need for attention. So, he says all kinds of stupid shit to get attention, and then gets more attention by saying it was a joke, or you "obviously" misunderstood him.
So, yeah, not something you want in a President. Not that Hillary Clinton is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but I'm not up for giving the launch codes to a temperamental man-baby.
There's part of me that wonders if Getty had some automated process sending out these notices, or if there actually was someone signing off on them. If it's the latter, do they just send out so many of these claims that they didn't realize they were sending a legal threat to the owner of the pictures?
Of course, there's another part of me wondering if this wasn't Joe the Intern's last little "Fuck you" before putting in his two week's notice at Getty.
Yeah, shipping people of a particular religion around in boxcars doesn't have any sort of bad history at all.
Seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you? Okay, I'm an atheist, so I have no use for any religion, but why the screaming hell do people think that demonizing an entire religion for the acts of a few of them is a good thing? What is it going to accomplish?
This is what groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda want. They want us to fear every Muslim. They want us to marginalize Muslim youth because it makes it easier for those terrorist groups to recruit them.
Well, it's in the dictionary, so yeah, it would appear to be a word.
And there is a functional difference between "we can't serve you more bread, you ate it all" and file storage. Restaurants do, you know, close. Most aren't open 24 hours. Okay, sure, things like IHOP, but even they say "All you can eat pancakes" instead of "unlimited pancakes".
And that's the difference there, isn't it? I have never seen a restaurant offer "unlimited" anything. (Not sure if "bottomless fries" counts...) More often, with buffets, it's "All you can eat", so there is a top limit. Or "free refills" on drinks.
But "unlimited" specifically means without limit. Microsoft could have avoided a lot of trouble by defining a limit. But they didn't want to. They should have known better, considering how long they've been in business, and some of their previous decisions.
This will only go anywhere if there is no money to be made by one or more major corporations by selling surveillance equipment. If there is money to be made, you can fully expect that the appropriate Congressmen will be bribed.... excuse me, a contribution will be made to their re-election committees, and any legislation will get dropped or neutered (or actively made into the opposite of what it claims to be).
There were plenty of people upset about it, but it wasn't the event that caused Gamergate (or anything like it) to form. People got upset, and then they moved on.
Now maybe that was because social media was still taking off them (at least compared to now). Twitter had been around for about a year at that point, Facebook had been allowing anyone to create an account for about a year as well.
But of all the things to cause Gamergate to coalesce, it was really a relatively minor thing, blown way out of proportion, with a fair amount of misdirection and outright lying.
I should say, I feel I'm not making my statement clear.
No, I do not expect Gamergate to retroactively be upset about something. But it is rather telling that of all the things that could have set off this "it's about ethics in gaming journalism", it was a relatively small event that did so. Could it have just been the final straw? Sure. It's possible. It's just not very likely.
And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)
Actually, no, I don't believe Gamergate has a time machine.
My statement is that Gamergate is not about ethics in gaming journalism. If it was, they would have been much more vocal about it for years prior to the incident(s) that instigated it.
There may have been complaints (anywhere from minor to major) about a particular gaming site, or magazine, or whatever, but Gamergate as an organization (as loosely organized as it is), did not exist prior to approximately August 2014.
Actually, if you look at various court cases involving the rich and powerful, usually "Great Money" means Zero Responsibility. Clearly, it's not always the case, but it's amazing (sarcasm intended) how often the rich get a slap on the wrist.
Gamergate pretending to be about ethics in gaming journalism to begin with was a laugh considering some of the things that apparently slipped by them before they began manufacturing their own outrage.
Every time I see someone post something along the lines of what you describe as "chemical hysteria", it makes me think of that blithering idiot 'The Food babe'.
Quickest way to get kicked out of consideration for jury duty is to mention jury nullification. Of course, you might also get a contempt of court charge....
Yeah, but is there a gene for "does stupid/reckless/dangerous shit"? I mean, you could have the most careful, conscientious driver whose kid drives like a maniac. Or is into bungie-jumping or those wingsuits.
When the Orlando shooting happened, the right-wing talking heads were real quick to pull "OMG ALL MUSLIMS" (or variations on said theme), and they're not saying much of anything about this one.
Because radical Muslims killing other Muslims breaks that stereotype of "All Muslims are bad, mmmkay?" I mean, clearly, the fact that these terrorists are targeting people of the same religion... we can't spread that around, it might make people think that "holy shit, it's actually not about religion."
With the end of the "Free update", does this mean the end of the festering nag screen of "Don't you want to update to Windows 10?" as well as any chance of it "accidentally" updating to Windows 10?
Technically, it's off topic, but still a point of concern. You noticed that when the Orlando shooting happened, the talking heads were on it immediately.
But radical Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Not a peep.
Yeah, you can pretty much bet that outside of someone completely incompetent setting up their network security (which is always a possibility), it came down to "Secure implementation costs $X. Less secure implementation costs $LESS_THAN_X." and some exec or bean-counter said "Go with $LESS_THAN_X".
Once upon a time (a decade ago), there was a medical study done at/near the local university for some sort of drug trial. Maybe you got the placebo, maybe you got the drug, right? Run on a treadmill or use an exercise bike for so many minutes, they run some tests, and take some scans (including brain scans). And they were going to pay some cash, plus you got a copy of the brain scans.
If I had met the qualifications (I was outside the age range they were looking for), I would have done it just for the brain scans.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked. (Maybe I shouldn't have touched the mains.)
Shocked, I tell you, that corporations would try and bypass federal law to avoid losing money. SHOCKED.
I mean, we all know corporations are all sweetness and light, concerned first and foremost with providing quality products to consumers, and not with squeezing every nickel and dime out of them, sending them to mandatory "third party" arbitration that favors them, and generally treating customers as disposable whenever possible.
Boy, I'm glad I don't live in a world like that, where corporations routinely bribe public officials and get away with it, because it's called "lobbying".
Yes, but if you had keys to the car, and so did your brother, and your sister, and your dad, and the guy down the street, it becomes less likely that YOU were the driver of the car during the bank robbery.
What's going on with this case is similar. The judge is saying that the IP address doesn't prove who was "driving".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I have to figure that a lot of people are worried that Trump can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to classified information. Mind you, if he does deliberately spout classified information, it can only hurt his campaign in the long run, because it shows that he shouldn't have been allowed that information in the first place.
What they need to do is give Trump and Clinton slightly different briefings... still accurate, but formulated that in the event that one or the other of them leaks it (not just on Twitter), it's easier to trace back to which one of the two leaked the information. They've caught spies before that way.
Or he was just saying shit to stay in the news cycle. Don't get me wrong, I'm not apologizing for Trump. But he has a pathological need for attention. So, he says all kinds of stupid shit to get attention, and then gets more attention by saying it was a joke, or you "obviously" misunderstood him.
So, yeah, not something you want in a President. Not that Hillary Clinton is perfect by any stretch of the imagination, mind you, but I'm not up for giving the launch codes to a temperamental man-baby.
There's part of me that wonders if Getty had some automated process sending out these notices, or if there actually was someone signing off on them. If it's the latter, do they just send out so many of these claims that they didn't realize they were sending a legal threat to the owner of the pictures?
Of course, there's another part of me wondering if this wasn't Joe the Intern's last little "Fuck you" before putting in his two week's notice at Getty.
That does explain the nasty looks I get because I stick to the posted speed limit.
Yeah, shipping people of a particular religion around in boxcars doesn't have any sort of bad history at all.
Seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you? Okay, I'm an atheist, so I have no use for any religion, but why the screaming hell do people think that demonizing an entire religion for the acts of a few of them is a good thing? What is it going to accomplish?
This is what groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda want. They want us to fear every Muslim. They want us to marginalize Muslim youth because it makes it easier for those terrorist groups to recruit them.
Nah, they want a small government. Just small enough to fit inside your reproductive organs to make sure you're not doing anything EEEEEVIL.
Well, it's in the dictionary, so yeah, it would appear to be a word.
And there is a functional difference between "we can't serve you more bread, you ate it all" and file storage. Restaurants do, you know, close. Most aren't open 24 hours. Okay, sure, things like IHOP, but even they say "All you can eat pancakes" instead of "unlimited pancakes".
And that's the difference there, isn't it? I have never seen a restaurant offer "unlimited" anything. (Not sure if "bottomless fries" counts...) More often, with buffets, it's "All you can eat", so there is a top limit. Or "free refills" on drinks.
But "unlimited" specifically means without limit. Microsoft could have avoided a lot of trouble by defining a limit. But they didn't want to. They should have known better, considering how long they've been in business, and some of their previous decisions.
This will only go anywhere if there is no money to be made by one or more major corporations by selling surveillance equipment. If there is money to be made, you can fully expect that the appropriate Congressmen will be bribed.... excuse me, a contribution will be made to their re-election committees, and any legislation will get dropped or neutered (or actively made into the opposite of what it claims to be).
Yes, and my point still stands.
There were plenty of people upset about it, but it wasn't the event that caused Gamergate (or anything like it) to form. People got upset, and then they moved on.
Now maybe that was because social media was still taking off them (at least compared to now). Twitter had been around for about a year at that point, Facebook had been allowing anyone to create an account for about a year as well.
But of all the things to cause Gamergate to coalesce, it was really a relatively minor thing, blown way out of proportion, with a fair amount of misdirection and outright lying.
I should say, I feel I'm not making my statement clear.
No, I do not expect Gamergate to retroactively be upset about something. But it is rather telling that of all the things that could have set off this "it's about ethics in gaming journalism", it was a relatively small event that did so. Could it have just been the final straw? Sure. It's possible. It's just not very likely.
And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)
Actually, no, I don't believe Gamergate has a time machine.
My statement is that Gamergate is not about ethics in gaming journalism. If it was, they would have been much more vocal about it for years prior to the incident(s) that instigated it.
There may have been complaints (anywhere from minor to major) about a particular gaming site, or magazine, or whatever, but Gamergate as an organization (as loosely organized as it is), did not exist prior to approximately August 2014.
Actually, if you look at various court cases involving the rich and powerful, usually "Great Money" means Zero Responsibility. Clearly, it's not always the case, but it's amazing (sarcasm intended) how often the rich get a slap on the wrist.
Gamergate pretending to be about ethics in gaming journalism to begin with was a laugh considering some of the things that apparently slipped by them before they began manufacturing their own outrage.
Every time I see someone post something along the lines of what you describe as "chemical hysteria", it makes me think of that blithering idiot 'The Food babe'.
Quickest way to get kicked out of consideration for jury duty is to mention jury nullification. Of course, you might also get a contempt of court charge....
Yeah, but is there a gene for "does stupid/reckless/dangerous shit"? I mean, you could have the most careful, conscientious driver whose kid drives like a maniac. Or is into bungie-jumping or those wingsuits.
When the Orlando shooting happened, the right-wing talking heads were real quick to pull "OMG ALL MUSLIMS" (or variations on said theme), and they're not saying much of anything about this one.
Because radical Muslims killing other Muslims breaks that stereotype of "All Muslims are bad, mmmkay?" I mean, clearly, the fact that these terrorists are targeting people of the same religion... we can't spread that around, it might make people think that "holy shit, it's actually not about religion."
With the end of the "Free update", does this mean the end of the festering nag screen of "Don't you want to update to Windows 10?" as well as any chance of it "accidentally" updating to Windows 10?
Technically, it's off topic, but still a point of concern. You noticed that when the Orlando shooting happened, the talking heads were on it immediately.
But radical Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Not a peep.
Yeah, you can pretty much bet that outside of someone completely incompetent setting up their network security (which is always a possibility), it came down to "Secure implementation costs $X. Less secure implementation costs $LESS_THAN_X." and some exec or bean-counter said "Go with $LESS_THAN_X".
Once upon a time (a decade ago), there was a medical study done at/near the local university for some sort of drug trial. Maybe you got the placebo, maybe you got the drug, right? Run on a treadmill or use an exercise bike for so many minutes, they run some tests, and take some scans (including brain scans). And they were going to pay some cash, plus you got a copy of the brain scans.
If I had met the qualifications (I was outside the age range they were looking for), I would have done it just for the brain scans.
Shocked, I tell you, shocked. (Maybe I shouldn't have touched the mains.)
Shocked, I tell you, that corporations would try and bypass federal law to avoid losing money. SHOCKED.
I mean, we all know corporations are all sweetness and light, concerned first and foremost with providing quality products to consumers, and not with squeezing every nickel and dime out of them, sending them to mandatory "third party" arbitration that favors them, and generally treating customers as disposable whenever possible.
Boy, I'm glad I don't live in a world like that, where corporations routinely bribe public officials and get away with it, because it's called "lobbying".
Yes, but if you had keys to the car, and so did your brother, and your sister, and your dad, and the guy down the street, it becomes less likely that YOU were the driver of the car during the bank robbery.
What's going on with this case is similar. The judge is saying that the IP address doesn't prove who was "driving".
When Ukraine gave up it's nuclear stockpile, Russia agreed not to interfere with Ukraine in return. We can see how well that worked out.