I would expect these agencies to produce "evidence" that denigrates his position, and I would not at first glance accept it.
I don't see how this information would have that effect. If you already dislike Snowden for what he's done, this simply provides confirmation that he was a "bad guy". If you applaud Snowden for what he's done, I don't see how this would reverse your opinion. Even if you're on the fence, I don't see how this could possibly get you to jump down to the "dislike" side.
This information would seem to put the NSA's contracting process and/or Booz Allen Hamilton's hiring process in much more of a bad light than it would (further) denigrate Snowden.
They've tried 41 times [huffingtonpost.com] already. Attaching it to this "must-pass" spending bill was attempt 42.
So what's your point. If you can't do something properly you should do whatever it takes instead?
I honestly don't know how you got that from just the two sentences and link I posted. I thought that pointing how many times they've tried and failed made the ridiculousness of the situation self-evident. The colloquial definition of "insanity", as another poster said more explicitly, and all that.
I've heard several reports today of people receiving direct messages from apparently compromised accounts. The direct message apparently contains a link to a website asking the potential victim to confirm their password.
The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.'
I'm very much a "fan" of science and, for all intents and purposes, an atheist, but I dislike this selling point quite a bit. I dislike it for the same reason I dislike "everyone can look at the code" as a selling point for open source software: while technically true, it's essentially worthless.
Only a relative few people are actually going to peruse an application's source code or attempt to replicate a scientific experiment. Everyone else just accepts the non-maliciousness of the software or the truthfulness of the information based on faith, trust, or any number of other reasons. (It can actually be worse in the case of science, because there are scientific experiments that not everyone can replicate on their own. For example, how can I, as an individual, replicate the experiment that led to the tentative confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson?)
1. Why is everyone so upset that evidence about Martin's background that Zimmerman couldn't have known was kept out of court? It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand and therefore shouldn't be considered. But I might be missing something about why the victim's background is relevant in any case where the murder isn't premeditated.
I didn't actually watch the trial, and I'm not a lawyer or overly versed in law in any way, but... I don't believe that would be the reason for keeping someone's background out of the trial. Knowing a person's background could bias the jury in one direction or another when they should be focusing on the facts directly related to the event.
For example, if Martin had a past history of overly violent reactions to confrontation, the only purpose in giving the jury that information is to plant in their mind the thought that Martin very likely had an overly violent reaction to Zimmerman's pursuit, and that Zimmerman was entirely justified in shooting Martin. That could potentially overshadow the evidence, which may not show any indication of violent reaction on Martin's part in this particular event.
Apple DID post those things in the notice. They followed (as near as I can tell, though IANAL) the precise letter of the law. [...] You can stop reading after the court-appointed 'apology' and not read any of the rest of the propaganda.
That's like if someone read a court-ordered statement and then rhetorically asked "but what does this judge know" at the end of it. Sure, the first part fulfills the court order, but the last part is obvious contempt. I'm surprised anyone could see it any other way.
Now, I doubt that anyone would be fooled that Apple was sincere in their "apology" if they hadn't added all of that extra stuff, but that doesn't mean it's OK to slap the judge(s) across the face.
Do I not understand how search engine choice works? To me Google is not forcing users to use their search functions like MSFT was doing by forcing PC OEMs to push out Windows, right?
That was just one part of the case against Microsoft. Another part was Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. Many felt that Microsoft abused their dominance in the OS market to dominate the internet browser market. A number of people feel that Google is doing essentially the same thing, using their dominance in the search market to push their other services onto their users.
If we take a look at general websites with search functionality, don't they return internal results at the top and external results at the bottom because users of a particular site are likely to be interested in content pushed out by the same site their on more than external?
I don't think that applies here, in my opinion. I doubt you'd find many people that go to google.com to find information about Google Inc, the company. What the they tend to do is go to google.com to use the Google Search to look up that information. So google.com is not really Google Inc's business website as much as it is the website for their largest service.
[...] as microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference.
There are two things wrong with this:
1) What if the default is a true indicator of a particular user's preference? You're guilty of ignoring user preferences. As I recall, Google was recently slapped by the FTC to the tune of US$22.5 million for doing essentially this to Safari users.
2) Ignoring default preferences creates up a terrible precedent.
Personally, I think enabling Do Not Track is one of those "sane defaults" that everybody loves to suggest major developers start implementing. But, since it's Microsoft, somehow there's something fundamentally wrong with it.
You can argue that Do Not Track itself is a useless feature that will have no effect, but then, for you, there's really no difference in it being on or off, so what's the problem?
People from Western Europe, UK, USA, Canada et al seem to have become very sensitive to what they call "gruesome" images. But at the same time they watch Saw VII or whatever. Yeah, I know one's "the real deal" and the other is "fake stuff" [...]
I'd guess the real difference is less "reality vs. fiction" and more "people make a choice to watch Saw VII" (hopefully) knowing that they're going to see something gruesome. They'd probably willingly watch real carnage if they could get over the social stigma. The BuzzFeed "likes", to me, says that there are people out there who already have.
Actually, it easily could have been that. People are arrested for violating the terms of their parole when those terms involve "Do not contact Person X" and they click a Facebook Like button.
If you are told not to get on the internet, and you post a chihuahua youtube video, you could very easily end up before a Judge. And if you give said Judge a false name, you could wind up in Jail.
I knew a person who was arrested because he did something as non-offensive as missing a meeting with his parole officer. They don't like that sort of thing.
There's no chance that the Muslim world will see this as anything but censorship. First of all, let's be clear -- they are right when they see it that way. That's what it is. He would have never come to the attention of anyone had the state not been embarrassed by this.
Holy shit, what? Arresting a person who created a free speech issue that brought attention to his parole violations is not censorship. You can't let obvious crimes go unpunished simply because the perpetrator happened to create a rights issue separate from his crime. That's insane.
I agree with you about the apparent double standard, but...
[...] and talk about how you can still have great game experiences with a less powerful console?
Everything I've read about the Wii U indicates that it will be on par with the current generation of consoles. It's not a more powerful console than the PS3. It's not a next generation system. It's a current generation system... 5 years late... and potentially double the cost of its direct competition.
I don't have much to add to what Chris Burke said, but...
You can't force people to do things with words [...]
Oh, you most certainly can. I wouldn't called it "force", though, but with knowledge of the person or group, or situation, one can most certainly illicit an expected reaction. How can you possibly be held blameless for the role you had in directing events?
[...] ultimately it is their choice alone if they will do it or not and they alone should answer for the consequences.
So what your saying is that the next time someone insults Christianity such as putting a crucifix in jar of urine (Piss Christ) or anything else of that nature, they should bring about the Crusaders again and kill in the name of God!?
You've got the order of that entirely incorrect. What I believe jvillain is saying is that, "if insulting Christianity was known to motivate a large number of Christians to violence and murder, then anyone purposefully insulting Christianity should also be held responsible for resulting criminal activity."
Antagonizing an individual does not necessarily make one blameless for the resulting violence committed against you. There's the famous case of Buzz Aldrin punching conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel. Mr. Sibrel tried to get Mr. Aldrin arrested for assault, but the action was denied because it was plainly obvious that Mr. Sibrel had instigated the confrontation. A punch to the face and murder are on entirely different levels, so the comparison isn't be exact, of course.
While "they need a thicker skin" make be a relatively valid opinion, I think "don't be an asshole" is far and away more important.
Slashdot Mirror
I would expect these agencies to produce "evidence" that denigrates his position, and I would not at first glance accept it.
I don't see how this information would have that effect. If you already dislike Snowden for what he's done, this simply provides confirmation that he was a "bad guy". If you applaud Snowden for what he's done, I don't see how this would reverse your opinion. Even if you're on the fence, I don't see how this could possibly get you to jump down to the "dislike" side.
This information would seem to put the NSA's contracting process and/or Booz Allen Hamilton's hiring process in much more of a bad light than it would (further) denigrate Snowden.
...and they have no skin in the game.
Do you take exception to paying for upkeep on public roads that you don't travel on, too?
So what's your point. If you can't do something properly you should do whatever it takes instead?
I honestly don't know how you got that from just the two sentences and link I posted. I thought that pointing how many times they've tried and failed made the ridiculousness of the situation self-evident. The colloquial definition of "insanity", as another poster said more explicitly, and all that.
If congress want to repeal Obamacare then they could, and should, try and pass a bill doing so...
They've tried 41 times already. Attaching it to this "must-pass" spending bill was attempt 42.
I've heard several reports today of people receiving direct messages from apparently compromised accounts. The direct message apparently contains a link to a website asking the potential victim to confirm their password.
The beauty of science is that you don't have to believe in it, in the sense of 'to believe' meaning 'to accept on someone else's authority.'
I'm very much a "fan" of science and, for all intents and purposes, an atheist, but I dislike this selling point quite a bit. I dislike it for the same reason I dislike "everyone can look at the code" as a selling point for open source software: while technically true, it's essentially worthless.
Only a relative few people are actually going to peruse an application's source code or attempt to replicate a scientific experiment. Everyone else just accepts the non-maliciousness of the software or the truthfulness of the information based on faith, trust, or any number of other reasons. (It can actually be worse in the case of science, because there are scientific experiments that not everyone can replicate on their own. For example, how can I, as an individual, replicate the experiment that led to the tentative confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson?)
1. Why is everyone so upset that evidence about Martin's background that Zimmerman couldn't have known was kept out of court? It seems like since he couldn't have known, it didn't affect the situation at hand and therefore shouldn't be considered. But I might be missing something about why the victim's background is relevant in any case where the murder isn't premeditated.
I didn't actually watch the trial, and I'm not a lawyer or overly versed in law in any way, but... I don't believe that would be the reason for keeping someone's background out of the trial. Knowing a person's background could bias the jury in one direction or another when they should be focusing on the facts directly related to the event.
For example, if Martin had a past history of overly violent reactions to confrontation, the only purpose in giving the jury that information is to plant in their mind the thought that Martin very likely had an overly violent reaction to Zimmerman's pursuit, and that Zimmerman was entirely justified in shooting Martin. That could potentially overshadow the evidence, which may not show any indication of violent reaction on Martin's part in this particular event.
...is starting to either redefine "evil" or "don't"... Haven't figured out which yet...
The definition of "evil" has always been relative. For example, I'm sure Mr. Inhofe sees nothing evil at all about what Google did for him.
Don't be naive. Short of installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt, we can hardly get any less involved in what's going on there.
Somehow I don't think "installing Obama as the ruler of Egypt" is the absolute least involved the U.S. could get.
You didn't mention that thay hacked their website in real time, during a live radio interview. Now, that's an achievement.
First Posted: 02/25/11 07:15 AM ET | Updated: 05/25/11 07:35 PM
Apple DID post those things in the notice. They followed (as near as I can tell, though IANAL) the precise letter of the law. [...] You can stop reading after the court-appointed 'apology' and not read any of the rest of the propaganda.
That's like if someone read a court-ordered statement and then rhetorically asked "but what does this judge know" at the end of it. Sure, the first part fulfills the court order, but the last part is obvious contempt. I'm surprised anyone could see it any other way.
Now, I doubt that anyone would be fooled that Apple was sincere in their "apology" if they hadn't added all of that extra stuff, but that doesn't mean it's OK to slap the judge(s) across the face.
Do I not understand how search engine choice works? To me Google is not forcing users to use their search functions like MSFT was doing by forcing PC OEMs to push out Windows, right?
That was just one part of the case against Microsoft. Another part was Microsoft's bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. Many felt that Microsoft abused their dominance in the OS market to dominate the internet browser market. A number of people feel that Google is doing essentially the same thing, using their dominance in the search market to push their other services onto their users.
If we take a look at general websites with search functionality, don't they return internal results at the top and external results at the bottom because users of a particular site are likely to be interested in content pushed out by the same site their on more than external?
I don't think that applies here, in my opinion. I doubt you'd find many people that go to google.com to find information about Google Inc, the company. What the they tend to do is go to google.com to use the Google Search to look up that information. So google.com is not really Google Inc's business website as much as it is the website for their largest service.
They're calling it quits? Or did you mean the "latest" version of Firefox?
This is Firefox 16 v1.0. The first bugfix release will be Firefox 16 v2.0.
For the Horde!
[...] as microsoft actions have made DNT not a true indicator of a users preference.
There are two things wrong with this:
1) What if the default is a true indicator of a particular user's preference? You're guilty of ignoring user preferences. As I recall, Google was recently slapped by the FTC to the tune of US$22.5 million for doing essentially this to Safari users.
2) Ignoring default preferences creates up a terrible precedent.
Personally, I think enabling Do Not Track is one of those "sane defaults" that everybody loves to suggest major developers start implementing. But, since it's Microsoft, somehow there's something fundamentally wrong with it.
You can argue that Do Not Track itself is a useless feature that will have no effect, but then, for you, there's really no difference in it being on or off, so what's the problem?
[...] even routine courtesies like saying please and thank-you -- you know, manners.
My courtesies tend to be triggered responses:
"Have a great day and come again."
"Thanks. You, too." [3 seconds later] "Fuck."
Here's the link to page 1 for the extremely laz—editors: [Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.].
At what point would a sane person just call the cops?
He did. Twice.
People from Western Europe, UK, USA, Canada et al seem to have become very sensitive to what they call "gruesome" images. But at the same time they watch Saw VII or whatever. Yeah, I know one's "the real deal" and the other is "fake stuff" [...]
I'd guess the real difference is less "reality vs. fiction" and more "people make a choice to watch Saw VII" (hopefully) knowing that they're going to see something gruesome. They'd probably willingly watch real carnage if they could get over the social stigma. The BuzzFeed "likes", to me, says that there are people out there who already have.
Actually, it easily could have been that. People are arrested for violating the terms of their parole when those terms involve "Do not contact Person X" and they click a Facebook Like button.
If you are told not to get on the internet, and you post a chihuahua youtube video, you could very easily end up before a Judge. And if you give said Judge a false name, you could wind up in Jail.
I knew a person who was arrested because he did something as non-offensive as missing a meeting with his parole officer. They don't like that sort of thing.
There's no chance that the Muslim world will see this as anything but censorship. First of all, let's be clear -- they are right when they see it that way. That's what it is. He would have never come to the attention of anyone had the state not been embarrassed by this.
Holy shit, what? Arresting a person who created a free speech issue that brought attention to his parole violations is not censorship. You can't let obvious crimes go unpunished simply because the perpetrator happened to create a rights issue separate from his crime. That's insane.
How exactly is formatting your own computer to hide evidence of crimes the same as being shot in the head by a lunatic?
Both are crimes?
I'm pretty sure being shot isn't a crime.
I agree with you about the apparent double standard, but...
[...] and talk about how you can still have great game experiences with a less powerful console?
Everything I've read about the Wii U indicates that it will be on par with the current generation of consoles. It's not a more powerful console than the PS3. It's not a next generation system. It's a current generation system... 5 years late... and potentially double the cost of its direct competition.
I don't have much to add to what Chris Burke said, but...
You can't force people to do things with words [...]
Oh, you most certainly can. I wouldn't called it "force", though, but with knowledge of the person or group, or situation, one can most certainly illicit an expected reaction. How can you possibly be held blameless for the role you had in directing events?
[...] ultimately it is their choice alone if they will do it or not and they alone should answer for the consequences.
I disagree completely.
So what your saying is that the next time someone insults Christianity such as putting a crucifix in jar of urine (Piss Christ) or anything else of that nature, they should bring about the Crusaders again and kill in the name of God!?
You've got the order of that entirely incorrect. What I believe jvillain is saying is that, "if insulting Christianity was known to motivate a large number of Christians to violence and murder, then anyone purposefully insulting Christianity should also be held responsible for resulting criminal activity."
Antagonizing an individual does not necessarily make one blameless for the resulting violence committed against you. There's the famous case of Buzz Aldrin punching conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel. Mr. Sibrel tried to get Mr. Aldrin arrested for assault, but the action was denied because it was plainly obvious that Mr. Sibrel had instigated the confrontation. A punch to the face and murder are on entirely different levels, so the comparison isn't be exact, of course.
While "they need a thicker skin" make be a relatively valid opinion, I think "don't be an asshole" is far and away more important.