"A Brazilian state judge ordered the suspension of Facebook Inc.’s WhatsApp throughout Brazil for 48 hours early Thursday, disrupting the lives of tens of millions of Brazilians who use the messaging service." http://www.wsj.com/articles/br...
I would guess that tens of millions of Brazilians are going to have something to say about this the next time they vote.
Which is roughly equivalent to us saying "Christianity is coming and your sons will eat pork". Not a nice thing to say either way but not hate speech either.
They didn't want to be surrounded by solar farms? Why not? That still doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense.
Some people like or at least don't mind being surrounded by buildings, so they live in a city. Some people prefer to be surrounded by green scenery, or mountains or the ocean...so they live near these places.
For anyone who wants to live somewhere nice, having a view of solar panels...never mind being effectively surrounded by them, would suck.
Wind power production has MORE than lived up to the hype. It's the single fastest growing power source by a WIDE margin precisely because it's been so phenomenally successful and the turbines trump is opposed to are some of the most productive in the world (coastal turbines in Scotland and the north sea are under wind damn near 100% of the time). Turbines are so cost effective up there (even with the cost of sinking foundation into deep water) because the wind never stops blowing and it blows with enough force that the turbines are almost always at maximum spin efficiency.
Coastal wind power is so effective that Denmark gets nearly 60% of their power from it and Scotland could EASILY be an exporter of power to the rest of the UK if they fully built out their wind resources.
Subject says it all. Editors, this is literally your job. Don't give equal time to obvious lunatics.
Posting a link to an opposing viewpoint shows that the topic is contentious, not debunked. If it's contentious it's not eliminated from discussion.
On top of that, the linked contentious viewpoint is a "Slate editorial assistant", the website being Slate this makes sense...however her level of knowledge is perhaps not sufficient to immediately 'debunk' a report by Carnegie Mellon people who, at the very least, actually educated in the subject matter.
It seems to me that tracking who visits such sites would yield more useful information to be followed up on.
From TFA: "Consider Ali Amin, (blah blah blah)...convicted of the crime of material support of terrorism and sentenced to 11 years in prison."
Poor Ali Amin. TFA makes it out loke Ali Amin is not to blame for becoming radicalized. That if he hadn't visited IS websites, etc, that he'd be a fine, upstanding young man contributing to society.
Well fuck Ali Amin. He made his choices and for the choices he made he should rot in prison for the rest of his life - not just 11 years.
Track the visitors to the sites. Use such visits to justify warrants and use the existing legal framework to monitor them, track their contacts, intercept them on their way to do whatever helps the enemy and lock them up forever.
What's next? A crime to look at websites that say things that the government doesn't want people reading?
An emailed bomb threat from overseas evacuates the entire school district of one of the biggest cities in the United States. When did Americans become such cowards?
Corporate douchebags never learn from history. They think that/they/ are special and are going to be able to pull it off, speculating that nobody will catch on and that their product is/so special/ that it can't be changed out for something else, that their company, and their company alone, is the sole innovator in the market.
It's a blinkered thought process only that sociopaths would find attractive. You know, the Carly Fiorina types.
Meanwhile this brain-dead transparent effort to boost stock price only does the opposite.
-- BMO
You mean like VHS and Blu-Ray?
Sometimes there is a proprietary standard that is 'good enough' and one way or another ends up being accepted by the masses.
So why didn't totally bar arbitration altogether in its service agreement? In small print, "You cannot sue us, anytime, anywhere over anything. Period. No exceptions. Don't even dream of trying to contact a lawyer."
The company wants arbitration instead of class action suits because arbitration tends to work better for the companies than getting hit by the actual law.
Users tend to sign away their right to legal protection by agreeing to arbitration in terms of use etc., giving the company the ability to screw over large numbers of people while risking only individual lawsuits and not class action suits that would actually have some effect on the company's bottom line.
IMHO such use of arbitration should be generally illegal.
Ok so we all know the drill about how totally fucking ludicrous copyright is getting. So instead of continually bitching and moaning, who are the candidates pushing for reform that we can all go out and support them?
Democracy works by action, not all sitting around moaning. I need a hero....
Keeping in mind that the word 'reform' can be abused by those looking to extend copyright indefinitely as well.
No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).
So any picture up on facebook of me in my living room would fall under this which means that the headline isn't far off, if at all.
Groups like ISIS are now using their own encryption apps so there is nothing that can be done by any US tech companies prevent that. What would the point of making everything less secure be.
Sounds like you're arguing that women have already surpassed men in technology, and if so then why do they need special safe spaces?
No Joe, my point was more personal. I am 'arguing' that there are women that have surpassed you, specifically, and that, as such, you, specifically, should not be so ready to criticize women as being generally incapable of amazing innovation.
So what have you, specifically, innovated in technology that you are so ready to denigrate others?
There is a degree of understanding for why a security company might not want to use your VPN solution; if they have to monitor a lot of customers' cameras then they'd have to have a lot of different VPN clients running that might cause problems when the networks overlap private IP addresses.
Configure your firewall to allow their IP address range to port-translate to the NVR's IP and port(s). ACL-off your security VLAN from your user VLAN(s), and vice-versa, and allow only the correct ports through from your user network(s) to the NVR.
Keeping in mind that whatever you're streaming to them is in the clear for anyone who can capture the packets (though the risk is no doubt low of that actually happening unless your daughter is super hot).
" We can do this together...the "gorberment" can't do anything about it..." Other than legislate that we have to have back doors in our open source code/firmware/etc., with stiff penalties for those who do not.
"What you do with your computer or in your home - isn't government business no matter what the cause is. If you don't have the freedom to think freely, voice your opinions at will - then you don't have any freedoms at all."
You are conflating three different things.
1) "What you do with your computer or in your home - isn't government business no matter what the cause is." If you use the computer, or any other tool in your home to break the law (ie black hatting / child pornography / planning terrorist acts / tax evasion / money laundering (the last two being the real reasons they probably do 90% of what they do)), then you are making it the government's business and they have a legal framework in place to get into your home and collect evidence against you.
2) Freedom of thought. You can think what you want, agreed, and no one can stop you - this has nothing to do with point 1
3) Freedom of speech - you can say what you want in the US, this is certainly protected - this also has nothing to do with point 1
I'm all for personal rights and freedoms but should one choose to cross certain lines, one chooses to give up one's right to such rights and freedoms.
We want it solved and eradicated, not just make the reasonable precautions and live with the residual risk.
Agreed - however, it's important to not give up our freedoms for the sake of increased perceived security - which is what the governments are trying to accomplish using fear as a justification.
I'm willing to live with the threat of terrorism, such as it is, more than I'm willing to give up my human rights.
Corporations are constructs of the state. The exist only because the power supports their existence. All power is derived by those exerting it. Not all power is good, not all power is bad.
However, without a defined and meaningful limitation of power, tyranny will always creep into power.
Corporations are constructs of capitalism, given recognition and power by states. Reading the rest of what you wrote I'm not sure how you propose to define and limit the power of the corporations or the rich and super-rich without....society (the word society of course being very closely related to the word socialism).
Socialism is a power structure that depends on the state to support it. Taxation required and the forced confiscation of earnings of the workers needed to keep it functioning is the same power tyrants use. There is no difference. Socialism is a form of Statism.
States of every type are power structures that collect taxes and all forms of states are applicable to the same claims that you make for socialism. You cannot have a state without collecting taxes. The difference being that in socialism at least some of that money comes back to the people of the state.
Your view that Socialism has no attachment to a state is simply incorrect, as it requires a state to tax the workers (forcibly take) in order to give to those that it chooses to support. Unless you can name a Socialist system that doesn't contain confiscatory taxation policy, your point is simply wrong.
Again this applies to all forms of state and is not only applicable to socialism.
People opposing Liberty are almost (if not) always statists, because they fear it.
Or because we prefer a balance between liberty and the benefits that one has from society. I do not believe it realistic to believe that you could have a society of total liberty and be assured of keeping that liberty for any length of time as other societies will come and impose themselves on yours.
Just so you know, I don't believe the government has any right to the earnings of the workers, especially via taxation. The fact that we have become accustomed to it speaks loudly to how far we've fallen in the last 120 years. My view is that ALL taxes are regressive, and I have tons of examples as evidence.
How do you propose to have the benefits of society without taxes to pay for them?
Simply put, the rich and powerful will always be able to avoid taxes where the middle class cannot. Ultimately, the rich can move, pay people to avoid taxes, and otherwise simply not consume their wealth in support of the State.
Which is why education should be free, along with life cost support, to those students who work hard enough to justify the societal (yes socialism pokes it's head up here) costs of educating them to strengthen the society and make it possible for the poor to break out of the cyclical existence they can only know when education is not free. With an educated society, change can be made to eventually remove the loopholes the rich and powerful use to avoid paying their own debt to society (there it is again).
I also don't believe in equality of outcome. Not everyone has equal ability. Giving trophies to everyone just devalues the trophies. There is only one Wimbledon Trophy, only one Heisman. It is what makes those valuable. It is also not possible for everyone to win one. Equal outcome is tyranny. Giving a Heisman to everyone negates its value.
Agreed
I do believe in equal opportunity. Everyone should have a chance to win the Heisman, or Wimbledon, but those that work hard, have excellent athletic abilities and the willpower to achieve should be rewarded.
See previous comment about free education. There is no possibility for equal opportunity without societal (oops I did it again)
Slashdot Mirror
"A Brazilian state judge ordered the suspension of Facebook Inc.’s WhatsApp throughout Brazil for 48 hours early Thursday, disrupting the lives of tens of millions of Brazilians who use the messaging service."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/br...
I would guess that tens of millions of Brazilians are going to have something to say about this the next time they vote.
We can build nuclear submarines. Presumably we could build nuclear power reactors that live underwater from the get-go.
Do the same rules apply?
German Muslim: 'Islam Is Coming And Your Daughters Will Wear The Hijab'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Which is roughly equivalent to us saying "Christianity is coming and your sons will eat pork". Not a nice thing to say either way but not hate speech either.
They didn't want to be surrounded by solar farms? Why not? That still doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense.
Some people like or at least don't mind being surrounded by buildings, so they live in a city. Some people prefer to be surrounded by green scenery, or mountains or the ocean...so they live near these places.
For anyone who wants to live somewhere nice, having a view of solar panels...never mind being effectively surrounded by them, would suck.
Giant windmills constantly turning just makes scenery more awesome.
Probably even moreso where marijuana has been made legal
A massive endowment, most likely.
Yep that's usually enough to get you in the back door
Wind power production has MORE than lived up to the hype. It's the single fastest growing power source by a WIDE margin precisely because it's been so phenomenally successful and the turbines trump is opposed to are some of the most productive in the world (coastal turbines in Scotland and the north sea are under wind damn near 100% of the time). Turbines are so cost effective up there (even with the cost of sinking foundation into deep water) because the wind never stops blowing and it blows with enough force that the turbines are almost always at maximum spin efficiency.
Coastal wind power is so effective that Denmark gets nearly 60% of their power from it and Scotland could EASILY be an exporter of power to the rest of the UK if they fully built out their wind resources.
More in fact:
Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Kind of like when wine sales are down, a scientific report is released about health benefits of occasional glass of wine.
Since the recent terrorist attacks I have eaten rather a lot more pork than I usually do.
Subject says it all. Editors, this is literally your job. Don't give equal time to obvious lunatics.
Posting a link to an opposing viewpoint shows that the topic is contentious, not debunked. If it's contentious it's not eliminated from discussion.
On top of that, the linked contentious viewpoint is a "Slate editorial assistant", the website being Slate this makes sense...however her level of knowledge is perhaps not sufficient to immediately 'debunk' a report by Carnegie Mellon people who, at the very least, actually educated in the subject matter.
It seems to me that tracking who visits such sites would yield more useful information to be followed up on.
From TFA:
"Consider Ali Amin, (blah blah blah)...convicted of the crime of material support of terrorism and sentenced to 11 years in prison."
Poor Ali Amin. TFA makes it out loke Ali Amin is not to blame for becoming radicalized. That if he hadn't visited IS websites, etc, that he'd be a fine, upstanding young man contributing to society.
Well fuck Ali Amin. He made his choices and for the choices he made he should rot in prison for the rest of his life - not just 11 years.
Track the visitors to the sites. Use such visits to justify warrants and use the existing legal framework to monitor them, track their contacts, intercept them on their way to do whatever helps the enemy and lock them up forever.
What's next? A crime to look at websites that say things that the government doesn't want people reading?
An emailed bomb threat from overseas evacuates the entire school district of one of the biggest cities in the United States. When did Americans become such cowards?
Posted by an AC..ah the irony..
In Soviet Russia, government needs a way to work around Carly Fiona!
In Soviet Russia, Carly Fiona gives YOU the reach around!
To stop ISP's from cheating have Netflix host the speed test.
Which netflix will then throttle until the ISP pays for premium bandwdith
Corporate douchebags never learn from history. They think that /they/ are special and are going to be able to pull it off, speculating that nobody will catch on and that their product is /so special/ that it can't be changed out for something else, that their company, and their company alone, is the sole innovator in the market.
It's a blinkered thought process only that sociopaths would find attractive. You know, the Carly Fiorina types.
Meanwhile this brain-dead transparent effort to boost stock price only does the opposite.
--
BMO
You mean like VHS and Blu-Ray?
Sometimes there is a proprietary standard that is 'good enough' and one way or another ends up being accepted by the masses.
So why didn't totally bar arbitration altogether in its service agreement? In small print, "You cannot sue us, anytime, anywhere over anything. Period. No exceptions. Don't even dream of trying to contact a lawyer."
The company wants arbitration instead of class action suits because arbitration tends to work better for the companies than getting hit by the actual law.
Users tend to sign away their right to legal protection by agreeing to arbitration in terms of use etc., giving the company the ability to screw over large numbers of people while risking only individual lawsuits and not class action suits that would actually have some effect on the company's bottom line.
IMHO such use of arbitration should be generally illegal.
No, it wouldn't.
You said " You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property."
So why wouldn't it?
Ok so we all know the drill about how totally fucking ludicrous copyright is getting. So instead of continually bitching and moaning, who are the candidates pushing for reform that we can all go out and support them?
Democracy works by action, not all sitting around moaning. I need a hero....
Keeping in mind that the word 'reform' can be abused by those looking to extend copyright indefinitely as well.
No, you won't need a license to "photograph stuff you already own". You may need a license if you want to publish photographs of someone else's intellectual property.
It's still stupid, but you don't need to try to make the headline scarier than the truth. It doesn't help and it only upsets the children (see other comments).
So any picture up on facebook of me in my living room would fall under this which means that the headline isn't far off, if at all.
Groups like ISIS are now using their own encryption apps so there is nothing that can be done by any US tech companies prevent that. What would the point of making everything less secure be.
Even worse groups like IS often use no encryption whatsoever and the law still can't stop them.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/...
Sounds like you're arguing that women have already surpassed men in technology, and if so then why do they need special safe spaces?
No Joe, my point was more personal. I am 'arguing' that there are women that have surpassed you, specifically, and that, as such, you, specifically, should not be so ready to criticize women as being generally incapable of amazing innovation.
So what have you, specifically, innovated in technology that you are so ready to denigrate others?
There is a degree of understanding for why a security company might not want to use your VPN solution; if they have to monitor a lot of customers' cameras then they'd have to have a lot of different VPN clients running that might cause problems when the networks overlap private IP addresses.
Configure your firewall to allow their IP address range to port-translate to the NVR's IP and port(s). ACL-off your security VLAN from your user VLAN(s), and vice-versa, and allow only the correct ports through from your user network(s) to the NVR.
Keeping in mind that whatever you're streaming to them is in the clear for anyone who can capture the packets (though the risk is no doubt low of that actually happening unless your daughter is super hot).
" We can do this together...the "gorberment" can't do anything about it..."
Other than legislate that we have to have back doors in our open source code/firmware/etc., with stiff penalties for those who do not.
"What you do with your computer or in your home - isn't government business no matter what the cause is. If you don't have the freedom to think freely, voice your opinions at will - then you don't have any freedoms at all."
You are conflating three different things.
1) "What you do with your computer or in your home - isn't government business no matter what the cause is." If you use the computer, or any other tool in your home to break the law (ie black hatting / child pornography / planning terrorist acts / tax evasion / money laundering (the last two being the real reasons they probably do 90% of what they do)), then you are making it the government's business and they have a legal framework in place to get into your home and collect evidence against you.
2) Freedom of thought. You can think what you want, agreed, and no one can stop you - this has nothing to do with point 1
3) Freedom of speech - you can say what you want in the US, this is certainly protected - this also has nothing to do with point 1
I'm all for personal rights and freedoms but should one choose to cross certain lines, one chooses to give up one's right to such rights and freedoms.
We want it solved and eradicated, not just make the reasonable precautions and live with the residual risk.
Agreed - however, it's important to not give up our freedoms for the sake of increased perceived security - which is what the governments are trying to accomplish using fear as a justification.
I'm willing to live with the threat of terrorism, such as it is, more than I'm willing to give up my human rights.
- these thoughts coming to you from Paris, France
So now that women have their own safe space we can expect some amazing innovation to follow. But if we don't, I wonder what the next excuse will be?
Because women have never achieved amazing innovation? http://www.entrepreneur.com/ar...
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...
http://womenshistory.about.com...
If you haven't been as accomplished as these women...I have to ask...what's your bloody excuse?
Corporations are constructs of the state. The exist only because the power supports their existence. All power is derived by those exerting it. Not all power is good, not all power is bad.
However, without a defined and meaningful limitation of power, tyranny will always creep into power.
Corporations are constructs of capitalism, given recognition and power by states. Reading the rest of what you wrote I'm not sure how you propose to define and limit the power of the corporations or the rich and super-rich without....society (the word society of course being very closely related to the word socialism).
Socialism is a power structure that depends on the state to support it. Taxation required and the forced confiscation of earnings of the workers needed to keep it functioning is the same power tyrants use. There is no difference. Socialism is a form of Statism.
States of every type are power structures that collect taxes and all forms of states are applicable to the same claims that you make for socialism. You cannot have a state without collecting taxes. The difference being that in socialism at least some of that money comes back to the people of the state.
Your view that Socialism has no attachment to a state is simply incorrect, as it requires a state to tax the workers (forcibly take) in order to give to those that it chooses to support. Unless you can name a Socialist system that doesn't contain confiscatory taxation policy, your point is simply wrong.
Again this applies to all forms of state and is not only applicable to socialism.
People opposing Liberty are almost (if not) always statists, because they fear it.
Or because we prefer a balance between liberty and the benefits that one has from society. I do not believe it realistic to believe that you could have a society of total liberty and be assured of keeping that liberty for any length of time as other societies will come and impose themselves on yours.
Just so you know, I don't believe the government has any right to the earnings of the workers, especially via taxation. The fact that we have become accustomed to it speaks loudly to how far we've fallen in the last 120 years. My view is that ALL taxes are regressive, and I have tons of examples as evidence.
How do you propose to have the benefits of society without taxes to pay for them?
Simply put, the rich and powerful will always be able to avoid taxes where the middle class cannot. Ultimately, the rich can move, pay people to avoid taxes, and otherwise simply not consume their wealth in support of the State.
Which is why education should be free, along with life cost support, to those students who work hard enough to justify the societal (yes socialism pokes it's head up here) costs of educating them to strengthen the society and make it possible for the poor to break out of the cyclical existence they can only know when education is not free. With an educated society, change can be made to eventually remove the loopholes the rich and powerful use to avoid paying their own debt to society (there it is again).
I also don't believe in equality of outcome. Not everyone has equal ability. Giving trophies to everyone just devalues the trophies. There is only one Wimbledon Trophy, only one Heisman. It is what makes those valuable. It is also not possible for everyone to win one. Equal outcome is tyranny. Giving a Heisman to everyone negates its value.
Agreed
I do believe in equal opportunity. Everyone should have a chance to win the Heisman, or Wimbledon, but those that work hard, have excellent athletic abilities and the willpower to achieve should be rewarded.
See previous comment about free education. There is no possibility for equal opportunity without societal (oops I did it again)