Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
There is evil...and there is reality. Choosing the lesser of two evils is what reality gives us the way that elections are structured in the US.
The question is, does the employer have the right to invade the employee's privacy for any reason.
When that employee has chosen to take them to court and the information they request could be extremely relevant to their defence then yes, that employer does have a right to the information. It is the company being sued here and whether they behaved well or not they have a right to the information they need to defend themselves. If she did not want to reveal this information then she should not have sued them or, in fact, but it on a public website like Facebook.
The company had already fired her and should be able to defend their decision with whatever it was that they based their decision on.
As they did not previously have access to the facebook account they should not require it to defend the decision that they already made without it.
Not being able to do so does not justify allowing them to rummage through their employee's private life looking for justification for what they've already done.
Someone tipped them off that she wasn't caring for her sister and was using it like a vacation. To what extent we don't know. An argument of 'I was smart and there's no way you could have known what I was up to, so you can't have fired me for that' is exceptionally child like.idea.
The argument of "You have no right to invade my privacy" is not a childlike idea.
The importance here isn't whether this particular individual has actually taken care of her sister or gone on vacation. The question is, does the employer have the right to invade the employee's privacy for any reason.
"Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."
You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.
If it was just I and one or two friends, that might be a real possibility.
Thousands or tens of thousands all across the country?
Might present a problem. Narrows their choice of reactions down to just a few, all of them bad from their POV.
Besides, lots of people were jailed and even killed during the civil rights marches and protests in the 1960s. Why would this civil rights movement be any different?
How much does one actually value freedom if one is unwilling to take any risks to gain or preserve it?
You know, that whole "Freedom is not free" thing.
I'm not about to throw my (or someone else's) life away for nothing, but I would risk death to preserve freedom. My father did in WW2. His father did in WW1. When it comes right down to it, people willing to put their lives, their fortunes, and their honor on the line is the ONLY thing that keeps people free.
Strat
I'm not saying otherwise.
What I am saying is that if you or others intend to do as you advise then they should be prepared for the probable consequences of being thrown into a gitmo hole with no rights and quite probably not heard from again for a very long time, to say the least.
You should not let a missing explanation bother you. You will never get an explanation for any moderation. When you moderate a comment and then submit a comment on the same post, the system undoes your moderation. However, Slashdot's moderation is slightly less ham fisted than most. The system lets you pick a single word that lets the commenter know why his comment is moderated the way it is.
Your previous comment was moderated "Offtopic." Kudos to the moderator that did it. From the original post,
My question is, what is the proper wording for such a request?
You haven't answered his simple question. You haven't done it twice. In two tries.
I have mod points and I was about to give your second comment the same moderation, but I won't be able to do it now because of this explanation. Enjoy it, but expect another moderator to give you "Offtopic" on your second comment, too.
I appreciate your reply, thank you.
However, the question being posed is hardly the only aspect of the conversation taking place and, as the overall discussion centered around the actual sending of the public key rather than the wording of the question of how to ask for a public key (which frankly seems a bit of a week question to be posted as the subject of a slashdot topic), I do not feel that my comments were off topic.
"Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."
You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.
We're obviously not going to agree on this so no point going round and round but I'd strongly suggest you ask a lawyer before you take your own advice.
"So it's not a problem with sex [...] The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers [...] A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem."
You are right and the poster I answered to is the wrong one: of course it IS a problem with sex, and that's why the obvious solution -if there were no problem with sex as he claimed, can't and won't be implemented.
Yes but if there were no problem with gravity then we would be able to fly. And for Americans you might as well wish this as we're quite screwed up about sex (pun unintentional).
That's all great and everything, but people coming and going in public spaces, in plain view, is not "Classified" or "Top Secret" information. At least outside some psychopathic, Kim Jong Il/Un style regime.
Strat
It's certainly going to be considered at least 'confidential'.
You propose spying on the spying agencies of a national power - and this is espionage.
...if they change the Doctor to a woman, the ratings will be big for an episode or two, but then since the whole premise of the show had been upended, ratings will crash and it'll get cancelled.
The show is not based on the character being male. You could take out the male character and put a female character and nothing substantial at all would change.
That being said, if the vast majority of those watching the show are gay and in love with the doctor then maybe taking the male doctor away would have an impact.
Could you paste your post a few more times to make sure everyone see's it?
Look, the character is male. He should remain male unless there is a convincing reason to make him female. Because it would be interesting is not reason enough, not when there are are still many interesting stories to tell with him as a male.
What difference does it make if the character is male or female? "The transition from one actor to another is written into the plot of the show as regeneration, a life process of Time Lords through which the character of the Doctor takes on a new body and, to some extent, new personality, which occurs when sustaining injury which would be fatal to most other species." (wikipedia)
They will never get elected because all the powers that be fear and hate them.
They will never get elected because, with the possible exception of this issue, most of their positions are considered lunatic fringe. It has nothing to do with fear or hate and everything to do with them simply being unacceptable candidates.
Show me someone whose social and corporate positions are reasonably to Obama's, but with a more reasoned position on domestic spying, the TSA, etc. and I'll show you a candidate I'd vote for. Instead, you're showing me someone whose social positions seem to be reasonably close to Walt Disney's, and whose corporate positions are reasonably close to John D. Rockefeller's.
Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business? He built that! Now, if he's been a multi-trillion dollar bank, the government would leave him alone, hell, he'd be telling the government what to do.
This is just another example of "might makes right, we're a bully, and we're going to push the world around, usa #1 F-yeah!"
We are living in a police state; there's no doubt about that at this point.
The answer is to turn the tables on them, "flip the script", as it were.
Set up rotating surveillance teams at NSA, DHS, CIA, TSA, and FISA facilities. If one person/group is caught recording video, etc have another person/team standing by to take their place when theyâ(TM)re ordered to move on. Create and build up lists of personnel and dossiers on those seen coming & going.
Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well. Record addresses, vehicle make/model/year and license plate number(s), etc. Correlate against public information and databases, DMV/court records, property records, tax and political contribution records, etc etc.
Create a website to host and share this data publicly, and host it somewhere like Ecuador or Hong Kong that will tell the US government to go pound sand.
Put THEM and their activities, travel, and associations in the spotlight for a change. Cockroaches and similar vermin hate bright light.
It seems that the US government has chosen to fight terrorism not by addressing the root causes and the people actually at fault, but by simply becoming the biggest terrorists of them all and driving out the competition.
The US government is far and away a much larger threat, by orders of magnitude, to the citizens of the US (and the rest of the world as well) than all the terrorist groups, foreign & domestic, combined.
Strat
"Espionage or spying involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
"So it's not a problem with sex, it's a problem with soliciting prostitutes - not exactly nature's perfect specimens of health."
The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers and have their health controlled.
A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem. The US government is not going to (openly) pay for sex for their cannon fodder.
But in China, 72.1% of the country's computers relied on the soon-to-retire operating system last month, or nearly three out of every four systems."
This is Slashdot. I think we can do the math on that one.
I came for this. I do wonder, though, for how much of the general population does "72.1%" go in one ear and out the other, but "three out of every four" sticks.
It will be interesting to see how they will handle this. When I visited China, computer security didn't seem to be one of the top priorities among the computer users, so the majority of the population might just not care much about updates. If it starts breaking down completely, and Windows 7 or 8 isn't as easy to pirate, perhaps we'll see a Chinese mass migration to Linux.
I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese government to make their own Windows patches. They could probably perform a MITM on the windows update servers and feed their own patches if a lot of unpatched Windows machines leads to an increased influx of CIA-sponsored viruses to China.
âoeGovernment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.â -- Ronald Reagan
All of this depends on the government's ability to find the bitcoins, and then provide some kind of evidence that it was exchanged for something. If I transfer funds from my checking to savings accounts, that isn't taxed because no goods or services were exchanged.
The government can try to regulate it, but it'll be as successful as the IRS demanding people pay taxes on their purchases of marijuana. Now yes, they'll pass a law anyway, and yes they'll spend an exorbinant amount of money to prove they can enforce it and then make an example out of a few people in highly-publicized cases, but they won't change things substantially.
This will rapidly evolve into another "war on _________", with innocent people being caught in dragnets while the guilty ones rapidly develop the skills to evade it. It's like big banks -- they were too big to fail, and so they were also too big to jail. The government doesn't take down large organizations, criminal or legal... it goes after the people who are isolated. It goes after the low hanging fruit... and it hopes that scares enough people off to keep them in line.
But business will go on as well as ever... already, people using the Silk Road website within Tor have started switching over to virtual machines that do not store any persistent state information... in the next few weeks, I expect many, if not most, will be. Criminals adapt in a matter of hours or days... law enforcement adapts in a matter of months or years. It's not hard to see who has the upper hand here.
Result being that Tor will be either compromised or blocked by the US and its affiliates.
Just sending a bunch of keywords in email isn't enough - emacs has had a spook function since the 80s so they are kind of used to that stuff by now./ You'll have to act like a crazy-pants terrorist.
To make it really work we need to bring the eternal september to the islamic extremist websites. Everybody go post on those arabic jihadi websites. Uh, does anyone know of any arabic jihadi websites? Or how to read and write arabic?
In certain countries (the one I saw this happen in myself was Morocco), just going to an extremist website URL will end you up in prison as a suspected terrorist.
So for those planning to visit such websites I suggest you check the laws of the country you're in before you do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Either he did or he didn't, there's no in-between. In actuality he lied, and did it intentionally.
How cynical am I that I'm not going to bother going back and seeing which politician you're actually referring to by 'he' ?
I think the surprise is how well the President and Republicans are united on this issue....
Why?
There is only one party...it just has two (or more) names.
Yeah, it must be a big surprise that such a lying politician came from Chicago. No one saw that coming, nosirree.
Excuse me, but he's from Kenya, not Chicago!
Hawaii's in Kenya?
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
There is evil...and there is reality. Choosing the lesser of two evils is what reality gives us the way that elections are structured in the US.
The question is, does the employer have the right to invade the employee's privacy for any reason.
When that employee has chosen to take them to court and the information they request could be extremely relevant to their defence then yes, that employer does have a right to the information. It is the company being sued here and whether they behaved well or not they have a right to the information they need to defend themselves. If she did not want to reveal this information then she should not have sued them or, in fact, but it on a public website like Facebook.
The company had already fired her and should be able to defend their decision with whatever it was that they based their decision on.
As they did not previously have access to the facebook account they should not require it to defend the decision that they already made without it.
Not being able to do so does not justify allowing them to rummage through their employee's private life looking for justification for what they've already done.
Someone tipped them off that she wasn't caring for her sister and was using it like a vacation. To what extent we don't know.
An argument of 'I was smart and there's no way you could have known what I was up to, so you can't have fired me for that' is exceptionally child like.idea.
The argument of "You have no right to invade my privacy" is not a childlike idea.
The importance here isn't whether this particular individual has actually taken care of her sister or gone on vacation. The question is, does the employer have the right to invade the employee's privacy for any reason.
"Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."
You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.
If it was just I and one or two friends, that might be a real possibility.
Thousands or tens of thousands all across the country?
Might present a problem. Narrows their choice of reactions down to just a few, all of them bad from their POV.
Besides, lots of people were jailed and even killed during the civil rights marches and protests in the 1960s. Why would this civil rights movement be any different?
How much does one actually value freedom if one is unwilling to take any risks to gain or preserve it?
You know, that whole "Freedom is not free" thing.
I'm not about to throw my (or someone else's) life away for nothing, but I would risk death to preserve freedom. My father did in WW2. His father did in WW1. When it comes right down to it, people willing to put their lives, their fortunes, and their honor on the line is the ONLY thing that keeps people free.
Strat
I'm not saying otherwise.
What I am saying is that if you or others intend to do as you advise then they should be prepared for the probable consequences of being thrown into a gitmo hole with no rights and quite probably not heard from again for a very long time, to say the least.
You should not let a missing explanation bother you. You will never get an explanation for any moderation. When you moderate a comment and then submit a comment on the same post, the system undoes your moderation. However, Slashdot's moderation is slightly less ham fisted than most. The system lets you pick a single word that lets the commenter know why his comment is moderated the way it is.
Your previous comment was moderated "Offtopic." Kudos to the moderator that did it. From the original post,
My question is, what is the proper wording for such a request?
You haven't answered his simple question. You haven't done it twice. In two tries.
I have mod points and I was about to give your second comment the same moderation, but I won't be able to do it now because of this explanation. Enjoy it, but expect another moderator to give you "Offtopic" on your second comment, too.
I appreciate your reply, thank you.
However, the question being posed is hardly the only aspect of the conversation taking place and, as the overall discussion centered around the actual sending of the public key rather than the wording of the question of how to ask for a public key (which frankly seems a bit of a week question to be posted as the subject of a slashdot topic), I do not feel that my comments were off topic.
Anyway, thanks again and all the best -
"The public key may be published without compromising security"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
I had previously written:
Send the public key in a normal open email and confirm the hash by voice.
It's the private key that's sensitive and should be kept secure.
Very annoying to be modded down with no explanation. If you disagree with what I'm posting please reply and explain your position.
"Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well."
You are talking about spying. The government is spying on the citizens yes - but if you do it to them you will be charged with espionage and will be tossed into a dark place with what's left of your rights taken away.
We're obviously not going to agree on this so no point going round and round but I'd strongly suggest you ask a lawyer before you take your own advice.
Send the public key in a normal open email and confirm the hash by voice.
It's the private key that's sensitive and should be kept secure.
"So it's not a problem with sex
[...]
The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers
[...]
A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem."
You are right and the poster I answered to is the wrong one: of course it IS a problem with sex, and that's why the obvious solution -if there were no problem with sex as he claimed, can't and won't be implemented.
Yes but if there were no problem with gravity then we would be able to fly. And for Americans you might as well wish this as we're quite screwed up about sex (pun unintentional).
That's all great and everything, but people coming and going in public spaces, in plain view, is not "Classified" or "Top Secret" information. At least outside some psychopathic, Kim Jong Il/Un style regime.
Strat
It's certainly going to be considered at least 'confidential'.
You propose spying on the spying agencies of a national power - and this is espionage.
...if they change the Doctor to a woman, the ratings will be big for an episode or two, but then since the whole premise of the show had been upended, ratings will crash and it'll get cancelled.
The show is not based on the character being male. You could take out the male character and put a female character and nothing substantial at all would change.
That being said, if the vast majority of those watching the show are gay and in love with the doctor then maybe taking the male doctor away would have an impact.
Could you paste your post a few more times to make sure everyone see's it?
Look, the character is male. He should remain male unless there is a convincing reason to make him female. Because it would be interesting is not reason enough, not when there are are still many interesting stories to tell with him as a male.
What difference does it make if the character is male or female?
"The transition from one actor to another is written into the plot of the show as regeneration, a life process of Time Lords through which the character of the Doctor takes on a new body and, to some extent, new personality, which occurs when sustaining injury which would be fatal to most other species." (wikipedia)
No reason for it to be male specifically.
They will never get elected because, with the possible exception of this issue, most of their positions are considered lunatic fringe. It has nothing to do with fear or hate and everything to do with them simply being unacceptable candidates.
Show me someone whose social and corporate positions are reasonably to Obama's, but with a more reasoned position on domestic spying, the TSA, etc. and I'll show you a candidate I'd vote for. Instead, you're showing me someone whose social positions seem to be reasonably close to Walt Disney's, and whose corporate positions are reasonably close to John D. Rockefeller's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
Why isn't the entire Republican party standing up for this provider, telling government to get out of the way of business? He built that! Now, if he's been a multi-trillion dollar bank, the government would leave him alone, hell, he'd be telling the government what to do.
This is just another example of "might makes right, we're a bully, and we're going to push the world around, usa #1 F-yeah!"
We are living in a police state; there's no doubt about that at this point.
All states are police states.
The answer is to turn the tables on them, "flip the script", as it were.
Set up rotating surveillance teams at NSA, DHS, CIA, TSA, and FISA facilities. If one person/group is caught recording video, etc have another person/team standing by to take their place when theyâ(TM)re ordered to move on. Create and build up lists of personnel and dossiers on those seen coming & going.
Track them to where they live. Note who they associate with and who their family members are and gather intelligence on them as well. Record addresses, vehicle make/model/year and license plate number(s), etc. Correlate against public information and databases, DMV/court records, property records, tax and political contribution records, etc etc.
Create a website to host and share this data publicly, and host it somewhere like Ecuador or Hong Kong that will tell the US government to go pound sand.
Put THEM and their activities, travel, and associations in the spotlight for a change. Cockroaches and similar vermin hate bright light.
It seems that the US government has chosen to fight terrorism not by addressing the root causes and the people actually at fault, but by simply becoming the biggest terrorists of them all and driving out the competition.
The US government is far and away a much larger threat, by orders of magnitude, to the citizens of the US (and the rest of the world as well) than all the terrorist groups, foreign & domestic, combined.
Strat
"Espionage or spying involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage
"The United States federal government ... applies the death penalty for certain crimes: treason, espionage,...etc"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_the_United_States_federal_government#Capital_offenses
Yes I've heard that people in the US are not aware of what's happening in the rest of the world.
What rest of the world? You mean there's something outside the US?
"So it's not a problem with sex, it's a problem with soliciting prostitutes - not exactly nature's perfect specimens of health."
The solution is obvious then: make the army pay for hookers and have their health controlled.
A technically possible solution that won't work for a political problem. The US government is not going to (openly) pay for sex for their cannon fodder.
But in China, 72.1% of the country's computers relied on the soon-to-retire operating system last month, or nearly three out of every four systems."
This is Slashdot. I think we can do the math on that one.
I came for this. I do wonder, though, for how much of the general population does "72.1%" go in one ear and out the other, but "three out of every four" sticks.
Or the opposite as 72.1% works better for me.
Left / Right brain relevant?
It will be interesting to see how they will handle this. When I visited China, computer security didn't seem to be one of the top priorities among the computer users, so the majority of the population might just not care much about updates. If it starts breaking down completely, and Windows 7 or 8 isn't as easy to pirate, perhaps we'll see a Chinese mass migration to Linux.
I wonder how difficult it would be for the Chinese government to make their own Windows patches. They could probably perform a MITM on the windows update servers and feed their own patches if a lot of unpatched Windows machines leads to an increased influx of CIA-sponsored viruses to China.
The Chinese had their own version of Windows 98 :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/07/19/china_to_build_own_version/
âoeGovernment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.â -- Ronald Reagan
All of this depends on the government's ability to find the bitcoins, and then provide some kind of evidence that it was exchanged for something. If I transfer funds from my checking to savings accounts, that isn't taxed because no goods or services were exchanged.
The government can try to regulate it, but it'll be as successful as the IRS demanding people pay taxes on their purchases of marijuana. Now yes, they'll pass a law anyway, and yes they'll spend an exorbinant amount of money to prove they can enforce it and then make an example out of a few people in highly-publicized cases, but they won't change things substantially.
This will rapidly evolve into another "war on _________", with innocent people being caught in dragnets while the guilty ones rapidly develop the skills to evade it. It's like big banks -- they were too big to fail, and so they were also too big to jail. The government doesn't take down large organizations, criminal or legal... it goes after the people who are isolated. It goes after the low hanging fruit... and it hopes that scares enough people off to keep them in line.
But business will go on as well as ever... already, people using the Silk Road website within Tor have started switching over to virtual machines that do not store any persistent state information... in the next few weeks, I expect many, if not most, will be. Criminals adapt in a matter of hours or days... law enforcement adapts in a matter of months or years. It's not hard to see who has the upper hand here.
Result being that Tor will be either compromised or blocked by the US and its affiliates.
Just sending a bunch of keywords in email isn't enough - emacs has had a spook function since the 80s so they are kind of used to that stuff by now./ You'll have to act like a crazy-pants terrorist.
To make it really work we need to bring the eternal september to the islamic extremist websites. Everybody go post on those arabic jihadi websites. Uh, does anyone know of any arabic jihadi websites? Or how to read and write arabic?
In certain countries (the one I saw this happen in myself was Morocco), just going to an extremist website URL will end you up in prison as a suspected terrorist.
So for those planning to visit such websites I suggest you check the laws of the country you're in before you do so.
A government official advising against a course of action because he fears a terrorist response is proof that terrorism works.
Where do you see that he recommended against a course of action?
This is a government official trying to get more budget than he already has, nothing more.