Exactly. you could rewrite that sentence any number of other ways:
"We insert the internet in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
"We insert phones in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
"We insert pencil and paper in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
Facebook is just another communications medium and doesn't have to be the privacy blackhole that it is. When you post your personal information you're doing it because you want to share with your friends and family, and the fact that Facebook then turns around and sells it to advertisers is entirely on them.
I'm not giving the people who use Facebook a pass here, at some point a person has to take responsibility for their own actions, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social networking.
Is having sex with someone while they're sleeping rape under English law? My uninformed understanding is that the other person must be incapacitated in some way, whether chemically incapacitated, or by some disability or some such. It may be gauche to come on to someone while they're asleep, but unless you have some reason to know that they won't wake up or respond then it isn't rape.
Though you wouldn't usually jump right into intercourse without a bit of, you know, groping. Anticipation is important yo. Foreplay.
It's not like there's a technical solution on the laser pointer end, and as long as pilots use windows there isn't one on the plane end.
What? You can just use windows that filter the appropriate frequencies. Lasers are already regulated, you'd just have to add a tidbit that says laser pointers can only be sold at these specific frequencies. It wouldn't effect legal use - it's not like you really need a rainbow of colors just to point at things.
It's a unique, traceable, watermark printed on every page that comes out of your printer, whether you want it to or not. If you can't see how that compromises your privacy, then I'm not sure what we're talking about.
Is this still necessary? They've already acknowledged that people don't like the beta and stated that they won't make it mandatory in a few months as they had planned. The goals of the boycott seem to have already been met, it doesn't look like there's a good reason to go through with it at this point or to continue with these posts (barring further news on the matter).
I'd add: patents are definitely big news for nerds - we get endless stories about how tech patents are holding back innovation. So why can't we have patent reform? This story, fervent lobbying by drug companies relating to international generics, is the reason.
Drug companies have pushed very hard to make sure that the United States insists that all patents be treated equal in every international trade agreement that they sign. People sometimes erroneously believe that this has something to do with software patents, it doesn't. This is all about charging big money for drugs in developing countries, software patents just come along for the ride. The drug companies don't care about software patents, of course, but they can't have language in the agreement that specifies drugs - if they did that then there would be protests in those countries, people are dying over this after all. So instead they get blanket agreements that apply to all patents.
You think I should be more selective? That I should only oppose section 215? I think there's much more that's wrong with the Patriot Act than just that little bit.
If buying Slashdot is really on the table then the cheapest way to do it would seem to be to wait until the beta goes through and the value drops to nothing.
Of course, the danger is that some other company would swoop in in the mean time...
You've confused me. How have you refuted what I said? Republicans passed the bill. The only reason they're against it now is because they believe that they can pin it on Obama. These are true things. What you seem to be pointing out now, what is also true, is that Democrats passed it too. So what?
If you want to turn this into partisan dick wagging, I'll point out that the largest number of opponents of the bill and it's extensions, both in quantity and proportionally, have been Democrats. The most recent extension in the house was 196 Y - 31 N for Republicans in the house and 54 Y - 122 N for Democrats, in the Senate the majority of both parties supported it but the no votes were 19 D and 4 R. However, overall the bill has gotten support from both parties.
Hm. It's possible that you are upset over my use of the words "the ones." I'll grant that my statement would have been better made if I had said, "The Republicans were the ones in power when Patriot Act was passed in the first place." My intent was to emphasize that Republicans were firmly behind the bill when it was passed, and have been firmly behind it since then, not to imply exclusivity.
I don't understand how you can read that quote and see only that. They did redactions, they did leave in a lot of names. Both things. You do redactions to protect the innocent, you leave names in to call out the guilty. Both things are important and they did both things.
They try to discriminate and the quote is saying that they weren't successful in all cases. Then it says that it was not due to merely their oversight, but that of the United States military as well. Maybe he explains what he means by this later on.
This part has nothing to do with the eventual leak of the unredacted documents.
Your first quote says that Assange did want to redact, and in fact did redact 1/5 of the documents released. It's well known that he was initially in favor of full transparency (no redaction) but was convinced by his media partners that this was a bad plan. This does not mean that they forced him, it's possible for people to change their minds about things when presented with new information or convincing arguments.
I don't follow how the quote about the password is supposed to show anything. Neither Wikileaks nor the Guardian wanted the password to get out, but it did thanks to sloppy handling of security measures. The quote seems to be trying to shift blame for the sloppy security from the Guardian to Wikileaks, but regardless of who was at fault the fact that the documents were released was unintentional.
The final bit: "Assange always wanted to release the unredacted cables because in his mind anyone who cooperated with the US deserves to die." is just slanderous bullshit, and the quote that you give as "evidence" to support it is just an attack editorial by someone who clearly hates Assange.
Seeing this comment with a +5 is the most asinine thing I've seen the mods do on Slashdot. First, as others have pointed out, Gandhi never received a prize. Second, the idea that giving an award to Gore was not only undeserved but one of the two most asinine things the committee has ever done, for turning global warming into a public issue, as it very much needs to be, is head-in-ass denielism.
Third, the only way those two could be the two most asinine decisions you'd ever heard of is if you've never heard of any others. Here's one.
The attack on the teacher's unions isn't that confusing: certain political organizations have decided to demonize unions and they're one of the few groups of unions left that are still fairly effective. Conveniently, they're also publicly funded so painting them as wasteful and inefficient also furthers sentiment against government programs in general.
I said average. Not everyone drives around in a big 22 mpg car, that's true. For some people it's worse.
Your comment about pollution only applies if you ignore the largest pollutant, carbon dioxide, which is dependent on how much fuel you burn. Fuel efficiency is directly related to how polluting your vehicle is.
Your comment about fuel taxes is just... craziness. The United States could be charging fuel taxes and using the money to maintain roads and other car-related infrastructure. This would not only tie the tax to the activity that it supports, it would hold people accountable for the extra damage that they do when they use the roads more often. It would additionally hold people accountable for the inefficient vehicles that they choose to drive, and perhaps partially pay for the damage from the resulting pollution. Instead the money all comes from general funds. Clearly, that's much better./sarcasm
Besides the discussion is around pollution and a small car or scooter or motorcycle is not necessarily less polluting than a big car.
Yes, the conversation is about polluting. And yes, a scooter or motorcycle is almost certainly less polluting than a big car. That was my point. The biggest, least fuel efficient 500cc scooters get about 50 mpg.
Calling out Europeans for riding scooters, compared to an average of 22 mpg for American cars and 18 mpg for SUVs, is foolish.
... What? It's true that two stroke engines are less efficient, but that inefficiency is nothing compared to what you get when you're hauling around a two-ton car.
Makes a big difference for those in power, for the little guys it's just a matter of who's getting to fuck them over.
Everyday life is significantly different for people in the EU than it is for people in Russia. Really I should have to say this, it should be self-evident from the article: you can see the difference happening in the Ukraine as it becomes more Russianized.
It's worse than that, at least where I used to live. Theaters in an area will conspire together to make ensure that they're all showing different movies - theater one will show movies A, B, and C, while theater two, ostensibly a competitor, will show movies D, E, and F. You may have the option to avoid AMC and still go to the movies, but not necessarily to the movie that you want to see.
Disclaimer: I get this information from an old friend of mine who used to be a projectionist. I don't know whether it's the theaters that conspire together, or the movie studios who make this happen.
I care if the government is collecting information on me because the government can put me in prison.
You should care if _anyone_ is collecting information on you. It's trivially simple for a private company to sue you into ruin, and they can have you arrested just as easily as the NSA can.
Rather than complain about Google's size, I'd love it if they would branch out into at least one more category - online auctions. They're the only company that I can think of that could seriously challenge Ebay, and Ebay needs challenging. Even from a privacy perspective, Google auctions would be superior: recall that Ebay publicly handed over all information on their users without a warrant and declared that any company which didn't do so was unpatriotic.
The point he was making was that traffic accidents would cover everything that you need to worry about. A rare but well publicized event with some thugs robbing a person in a car just isn't important.
Actually, for some reason I read that as changing your opinion of Obama. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense now. I think I'm done commenting for today.
I'm confused. You're saying that your opinion of Obama was already as high as it could possibly be? So this change that reduces the intrusion of government into your daily habits hasn't effected your opinion because it was already maxed?
Or are you recognizing that Obama didn't have anything to do with this?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. you could rewrite that sentence any number of other ways:
"We insert the internet in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
"We insert phones in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
"We insert pencil and paper in the middle of all our communications, when there's no bloody reason to..."
Facebook is just another communications medium and doesn't have to be the privacy blackhole that it is. When you post your personal information you're doing it because you want to share with your friends and family, and the fact that Facebook then turns around and sells it to advertisers is entirely on them.
I'm not giving the people who use Facebook a pass here, at some point a person has to take responsibility for their own actions, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social networking.
Is having sex with someone while they're sleeping rape under English law? My uninformed understanding is that the other person must be incapacitated in some way, whether chemically incapacitated, or by some disability or some such. It may be gauche to come on to someone while they're asleep, but unless you have some reason to know that they won't wake up or respond then it isn't rape.
Though you wouldn't usually jump right into intercourse without a bit of, you know, groping. Anticipation is important yo. Foreplay.
It's not like there's a technical solution on the laser pointer end, and as long as pilots use windows there isn't one on the plane end.
What? You can just use windows that filter the appropriate frequencies. Lasers are already regulated, you'd just have to add a tidbit that says laser pointers can only be sold at these specific frequencies. It wouldn't effect legal use - it's not like you really need a rainbow of colors just to point at things.
It's a unique, traceable, watermark printed on every page that comes out of your printer, whether you want it to or not. If you can't see how that compromises your privacy, then I'm not sure what we're talking about.
Is this still necessary? They've already acknowledged that people don't like the beta and stated that they won't make it mandatory in a few months as they had planned. The goals of the boycott seem to have already been met, it doesn't look like there's a good reason to go through with it at this point or to continue with these posts (barring further news on the matter).
I'd add: patents are definitely big news for nerds - we get endless stories about how tech patents are holding back innovation. So why can't we have patent reform? This story, fervent lobbying by drug companies relating to international generics, is the reason.
Drug companies have pushed very hard to make sure that the United States insists that all patents be treated equal in every international trade agreement that they sign. People sometimes erroneously believe that this has something to do with software patents, it doesn't. This is all about charging big money for drugs in developing countries, software patents just come along for the ride. The drug companies don't care about software patents, of course, but they can't have language in the agreement that specifies drugs - if they did that then there would be protests in those countries, people are dying over this after all. So instead they get blanket agreements that apply to all patents.
You think I should be more selective? That I should only oppose section 215? I think there's much more that's wrong with the Patriot Act than just that little bit.
If buying Slashdot is really on the table then the cheapest way to do it would seem to be to wait until the beta goes through and the value drops to nothing.
Of course, the danger is that some other company would swoop in in the mean time...
You've confused me. How have you refuted what I said? Republicans passed the bill. The only reason they're against it now is because they believe that they can pin it on Obama. These are true things. What you seem to be pointing out now, what is also true, is that Democrats passed it too. So what?
If you want to turn this into partisan dick wagging, I'll point out that the largest number of opponents of the bill and it's extensions, both in quantity and proportionally, have been Democrats. The most recent extension in the house was 196 Y - 31 N for Republicans in the house and 54 Y - 122 N for Democrats, in the Senate the majority of both parties supported it but the no votes were 19 D and 4 R. However, overall the bill has gotten support from both parties.
Hm. It's possible that you are upset over my use of the words "the ones." I'll grant that my statement would have been better made if I had said, "The Republicans were the ones in power when Patriot Act was passed in the first place." My intent was to emphasize that Republicans were firmly behind the bill when it was passed, and have been firmly behind it since then, not to imply exclusivity.
The Republicans are the ones who passed the Patriot Act in the first place. They're only against this because they think they can pin it on Obama.
I don't understand how you can read that quote and see only that. They did redactions, they did leave in a lot of names. Both things. You do redactions to protect the innocent, you leave names in to call out the guilty. Both things are important and they did both things.
They try to discriminate and the quote is saying that they weren't successful in all cases. Then it says that it was not due to merely their oversight, but that of the United States military as well. Maybe he explains what he means by this later on.
This part has nothing to do with the eventual leak of the unredacted documents.
Your first quote says that Assange did want to redact, and in fact did redact 1/5 of the documents released. It's well known that he was initially in favor of full transparency (no redaction) but was convinced by his media partners that this was a bad plan. This does not mean that they forced him, it's possible for people to change their minds about things when presented with new information or convincing arguments.
I don't follow how the quote about the password is supposed to show anything. Neither Wikileaks nor the Guardian wanted the password to get out, but it did thanks to sloppy handling of security measures. The quote seems to be trying to shift blame for the sloppy security from the Guardian to Wikileaks, but regardless of who was at fault the fact that the documents were released was unintentional.
The final bit: "Assange always wanted to release the unredacted cables because in his mind anyone who cooperated with the US deserves to die." is just slanderous bullshit, and the quote that you give as "evidence" to support it is just an attack editorial by someone who clearly hates Assange.
Seeing this comment with a +5 is the most asinine thing I've seen the mods do on Slashdot. First, as others have pointed out, Gandhi never received a prize. Second, the idea that giving an award to Gore was not only undeserved but one of the two most asinine things the committee has ever done, for turning global warming into a public issue, as it very much needs to be, is head-in-ass denielism.
Third, the only way those two could be the two most asinine decisions you'd ever heard of is if you've never heard of any others. Here's one.
That doesn't say anything. How is a big engine more tolerable than a small one for driving cross-country?
The attack on the teacher's unions isn't that confusing: certain political organizations have decided to demonize unions and they're one of the few groups of unions left that are still fairly effective. Conveniently, they're also publicly funded so painting them as wasteful and inefficient also furthers sentiment against government programs in general.
I said average. Not everyone drives around in a big 22 mpg car, that's true. For some people it's worse.
/sarcasm
Your comment about pollution only applies if you ignore the largest pollutant, carbon dioxide, which is dependent on how much fuel you burn. Fuel efficiency is directly related to how polluting your vehicle is.
Your comment about fuel taxes is just... craziness. The United States could be charging fuel taxes and using the money to maintain roads and other car-related infrastructure. This would not only tie the tax to the activity that it supports, it would hold people accountable for the extra damage that they do when they use the roads more often. It would additionally hold people accountable for the inefficient vehicles that they choose to drive, and perhaps partially pay for the damage from the resulting pollution. Instead the money all comes from general funds. Clearly, that's much better.
Besides the discussion is around pollution and a small car or scooter or motorcycle is not necessarily less polluting than a big car.
Yes, the conversation is about polluting. And yes, a scooter or motorcycle is almost certainly less polluting than a big car. That was my point. The biggest, least fuel efficient 500cc scooters get about 50 mpg.
Calling out Europeans for riding scooters, compared to an average of 22 mpg for American cars and 18 mpg for SUVs, is foolish.
... What? It's true that two stroke engines are less efficient, but that inefficiency is nothing compared to what you get when you're hauling around a two-ton car.
Makes a big difference for those in power, for the little guys it's just a matter of who's getting to fuck them over.
Everyday life is significantly different for people in the EU than it is for people in Russia. Really I should have to say this, it should be self-evident from the article: you can see the difference happening in the Ukraine as it becomes more Russianized.
It's worse than that, at least where I used to live. Theaters in an area will conspire together to make ensure that they're all showing different movies - theater one will show movies A, B, and C, while theater two, ostensibly a competitor, will show movies D, E, and F. You may have the option to avoid AMC and still go to the movies, but not necessarily to the movie that you want to see.
Disclaimer: I get this information from an old friend of mine who used to be a projectionist. I don't know whether it's the theaters that conspire together, or the movie studios who make this happen.
I care if the government is collecting information on me because the government can put me in prison.
You should care if _anyone_ is collecting information on you. It's trivially simple for a private company to sue you into ruin, and they can have you arrested just as easily as the NSA can.
Rather than complain about Google's size, I'd love it if they would branch out into at least one more category - online auctions. They're the only company that I can think of that could seriously challenge Ebay, and Ebay needs challenging. Even from a privacy perspective, Google auctions would be superior: recall that Ebay publicly handed over all information on their users without a warrant and declared that any company which didn't do so was unpatriotic.
The point he was making was that traffic accidents would cover everything that you need to worry about. A rare but well publicized event with some thugs robbing a person in a car just isn't important.
Actually, for some reason I read that as changing your opinion of Obama. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense now. I think I'm done commenting for today.
I'm confused. You're saying that your opinion of Obama was already as high as it could possibly be? So this change that reduces the intrusion of government into your daily habits hasn't effected your opinion because it was already maxed?
Or are you recognizing that Obama didn't have anything to do with this?