Only because the term "tin foil hat" when used to express contempt for those who contort reality is actually and properly an "aluminum foil hat" (or aluminium if you insist), I call you a hypocrite. There is enough even in the sacred arstechnica version of this story to warrant liberal paranoia. Why not save the tin-card for a better occasion, like one where someone is denying a tangible and verified reality and not just making a simple mistake?
That confuses me slightly. I have vague recollections of using my computer while away from home. And if laptops are actually becoming more popular than desktops, I fear I may become more confused. Naive as I am though, I'd probably even say that laptops are already more popular than desktops, and 'mobility' seems to be one their most marketable features. Now if I changed my MAC address before connecting to another random ISP, how would they identify me? Maybe you are like me in assuming ISPs like Verizon have been logging MACs? Unlikely, I know. So please explain.
PS: My sarcasm is immediately null upon any sincere reply. It's just that your comment seemed to warrant a teaspoon or so of it. I have indeed been threatened with 'multiple assholes' here on slashdot, and one is enough for me, and presumably for anyone else too. You may consider me benign.
A fair point, no doubt; but the word "deny" in Microsoft-context carries pretty strong connotations of incredulity. I think the title simply serves as a sort of aperitif, which worked well enough for me. In other words, Microsoft can deny whatever it wants and (knock on wood) people will still proceed to think.
But goddamn enforce it! Law can be a great thing if it's used correctly, or if it's used at all. We have scores of freedoms we take for granted, because if we engaged in them we'd get kicked in the face or put in a cell. To limit freedoms by making things impossible is a road that ends short of breath and in a collective straitjacket. Auchtung!
In Kansas, the hosts are autotrophs and damned well expect others to be too. If guests want to engage in unnecessary self-munificence, they can pay for it on their own.
Great way to win support from half the world's population while they have a potentially massive war brewing on their doorstep -- not to mention the pretty direct effects of self-imposing a handicap onto their own society in a time of need. What ever are they thinking? Hopefully it's been exaggerated.
Wow, cool reply! And thank you for the info. I'll not be unhappy at all if you are right. Concerns remain though, if not here then elsewhere. I do believe we have established a Police State, which is going to keep growing. Would love to be wrong though.
The banks are pretty generous with your information and I am not yet convinced who's the bigger bogeyman -- the people or the gub. With the way things are going, it might be a good idea to have someone else other than gub peering in, if not just to have a witness. And hey, if it's traceable by everyone, then it'll be just like eBay. Wait, a second...
If it was not proposed, please explain why the Judge would have ruled against it? Or the document revisited maybe: .... that involuntary administration of such drugs is necessary to advance the government's interests because less drastic measures will not suffice, and that administration of such drugs is in defendant's best medical interest in light of her over-all medical condition.
If looked at through a high school mentality, I imagine you have a point. But I never went to either highschool or middle school -- although I do have a couple university years behind me and I still keep trying.
Your comment irritates me for several reasons. I'll try to explain:
As an examination of current government criteria befitting the terms "terrorism" and "extremism" will show (feel free to follow some of the links in the article), a growing and arguably dubious array of views are steadily being appended to them. Chomsky, who happens to be generally opposed to war -- at least the "for profit" variety presently popular -- by the the very rhetoric of the departments, bureaus and agencies redefining these terms, at best lingers on the edge. According to my readings of his work, and citing the government itself, he indeed falls into the category of "Conspiracy Theorist".
See: [Economic section.]
I struggle to imagine Noam getting along and agreeing with such government sponsored agencies as Haliburton, BlackWater (Academi) or Serco. I also struggle to imagine Noam going along with the military's pretense for wars like Iraq, which have brought about thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties. If I am correct, this would effectively make him "anti-war" in the eyes of an incorrigible administration.
So when I suggest someone like Noam Chomsky when speaking too freely might be perceived as a threat, I say so only in accordance with official theory.
Perhaps somewhere along the roads of our writing careers we might meet and you can impart more elaborate lessons in journalism. Until then, thanks for what you've given so far.
Since when did warnings become time machines? And I do actually dare you to cite the rate of successful predictions on their part. Hint: Use numbers and try not to lie. And I also recommend pepper-spraying yourself the next time you're sitting down not bothering anyone; it should help you understand your question. Hint2: Occupy [guess].
Maybe my writing could use some improvements, but so could some of the arguments around here. Since history covers myriad subjects, I expect it is a large enough realm of study to make room for a polymath. There are enough subjects in this world to prohibit even a polymath from being an expert in history. I have in fact, never read anything holding that all polymaths are necessarily outstanding history buffs. And I am certainly not making any claims for myself; I simply chose a less than perfect term to describe the difficulties of knowing everything that has passed.
"....It's not exactly surprising that he was done for counterfeiting."
Counterfeiting might be fair enough. From what I remember though, he was accused of terrorism. I know it's the new pidgin Swiss Army Knife of fascism, but to me, gross usurpation of our language is far more terrifying than dubiously minted coinage. His coins were measurably different from any official currency, and none could be used in any conventional machines. I wonder how the value of Bernard's silver would compare to something like the actual value of derivatives. But that kind of wondering could get a lot folks minted as terrorists.
That's a pretty butch question. In my current state, I'd have trouble answering it with any chance of respectful reception. What I can say immediately, is how the bloody hell is the current system going to hold? I also don't believe bitcoin has reached maturity yet. Like a beaten and resented prodigy, it's growth has been hindered by various factors. Maybe the way it would work under such circumstances is a matter of additional innovation, adaptation, or redesign. I hope it never comes to that, but if it does, it would be nice to see things get the hell out of its way with anything but positive input. I am sure some fellow slashers will do a brilliant job taking this in 360 degrees, and far beyond what I am capable of.
Some very talented folks I once had the pleasure of meeting just went out of business. They had formed Bitcoin Harbor, an exchange for buying and selling items strictly in bitcoins. I suspect the undue lack of popularity for bitcoin is to blame, but there has been some pretty fierce efforts against bitcoin which might also influence the stagnation of what I consider a great system. One example of government hostility against alternative currencies I think is no better illustrated than in the case of Bernard von NotHaus.
Some fear the forced introduction to a "cashless society", and maybe I do as well. However, If such is the unavoidable future, I'd rather it be in bitcoin. It's peculiar the vehement government defense of what might reasonably be considered amongst the most unstable and fantastical currencies in the world, in contrast to their hostility toward arguably less deformed competitors. When speculation suggests bitcoin may be more worthy of confidence than the euro, I pay at least one ear of heed. But when Alan Grayson asks Lord Ben where $500,000,000,000 went and he can't reply, I reach for my Adult Depend Undergarment.
I recently started selling on Ebay. Having previously used the account mostly for purchases, I never really worried much about feedback. When I began paying more attention to it, I realized that all my purchases were visible to others. This immediately pissed me off. My purchases were nothing unusual, but anyone could peruse them at will, potentially connecting them to my actual identity.
I called Ebay Support and complained. They informed me that I could make my purchases semi-private, but it would disable my ability to sell. So, I could not make my purchases private while keeping my sales transparent. They recommended I start a new account used only for purchases, with a user-ID non-descriptive of my actual identity. I continued to complain and argue (yes, futilely) and said I was nearly inspired to start a blog on this disturbing policy and also that a class-action lawsuit seemed a real prospect.
Most Ebay users never consider when registering that their purchases will be totally open for anyone to see. Because of this, the names they create are often related to their real identity. I began researching a bit and quickly found instances where items like sex-toys were openly displayed in user's public purchasing history. In another instance a user had complained that their kids were able to anticipate Christmas gifts because they had known their parents Ebay ID.
The complaints are many and not limited to privacy, but that is primarily what has concerned me. Ebay/Paypal is a shitty company. They are directly misleading with listing-fees too. When I complained about this, they said it was all in the user-agreement. My response was to ask what operating system the rep was using, which was Microsoft. I then asked if she had read the entire Windows user-agreement, to which she predictably answered "No". I reminded her that she was using it despite this admitted fact. I am not always intelligent, but I think I am adequately enough to see a listing-fee before agreeing to it. But I've definitely had a few surprises and unexpected fees along the way.
Anyway, I am not surprised about this news. I wish their were viable alternatives, but it looks like shitty service is the future. It would take more than a tremendous effort to get such companies to reconsider their abusive policies. Seems all we can do now is give them a class-action FUCK YOU!
I lucked out with all these replies; I thought they'd be a lot more vicious. However -- and I fully understand your point -- between responsive LEDs, sound, and maybe even a very subtle vibration-response, I have confidence that it could work, but not so much that it will. One of the comments (Misagon) in this thread mentioned a company (FingerWorks) and their method (TouchStream) which although acquired by aPpLE, was working on something similar.
Slashdot Mirror
Only because the term "tin foil hat" when used to express contempt for those who contort reality is actually and properly an "aluminum foil hat" (or aluminium if you insist), I call you a hypocrite. There is enough even in the sacred arstechnica version of this story to warrant liberal paranoia. Why not save the tin-card for a better occasion, like one where someone is denying a tangible and verified reality and not just making a simple mistake?
That confuses me slightly. I have vague recollections of using my computer while away from home. And if laptops are actually becoming more popular than desktops, I fear I may become more confused. Naive as I am though, I'd probably even say that laptops are already more popular than desktops, and 'mobility' seems to be one their most marketable features. Now if I changed my MAC address before connecting to another random ISP, how would they identify me? Maybe you are like me in assuming ISPs like Verizon have been logging MACs? Unlikely, I know. So please explain.
PS: My sarcasm is immediately null upon any sincere reply. It's just that your comment seemed to warrant a teaspoon or so of it. I have indeed been threatened with 'multiple assholes' here on slashdot, and one is enough for me, and presumably for anyone else too. You may consider me benign.
A fair point, no doubt; but the word "deny" in Microsoft-context carries pretty strong connotations of incredulity. I think the title simply serves as a sort of aperitif, which worked well enough for me. In other words, Microsoft can deny whatever it wants and (knock on wood) people will still proceed to think.
I made a little 'motivational' tribute here
Keep exploring, Mr. Armstrong!
But goddamn enforce it! Law can be a great thing if it's used correctly, or if it's used at all. We have scores of freedoms we take for granted, because if we engaged in them we'd get kicked in the face or put in a cell. To limit freedoms by making things impossible is a road that ends short of breath and in a collective straitjacket. Auchtung!
In Kansas, the hosts are autotrophs and damned well expect others to be too. If guests want to engage in unnecessary self-munificence, they can pay for it on their own.
Great way to win support from half the world's population while they have a potentially massive war brewing on their doorstep -- not to mention the pretty direct effects of self-imposing a handicap onto their own society in a time of need. What ever are they thinking? Hopefully it's been exaggerated.
Wow, cool reply! And thank you for the info. I'll not be unhappy at all if you are right. Concerns remain though, if not here then elsewhere. I do believe we have established a Police State, which is going to keep growing. Would love to be wrong though.
The banks are pretty generous with your information and I am not yet convinced who's the bigger bogeyman -- the people or the gub. With the way things are going, it might be a good idea to have someone else other than gub peering in, if not just to have a witness. And hey, if it's traceable by everyone, then it'll be just like eBay. Wait, a second...
If it was not proposed, please explain why the Judge would have ruled against it? Or the document revisited maybe:
.... that involuntary administration of such drugs is necessary to advance the government's interests because less drastic measures will not suffice, and that administration of such drugs is in defendant's best medical interest in light of her over-all medical condition.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/30/smartphone_spying_app/ -- It sure stinks, but somebody's got to sniff it!
If looked at through a high school mentality, I imagine you have a point. But I never went to either highschool or middle school -- although I do have a couple university years behind me and I still keep trying.
Your comment irritates me for several reasons. I'll try to explain:
As an examination of current government criteria befitting the terms "terrorism" and "extremism" will show (feel free to follow some of the links in the article), a growing and arguably dubious array of views are steadily being appended to them. Chomsky, who happens to be generally opposed to war -- at least the "for profit" variety presently popular -- by the the very rhetoric of the departments, bureaus and agencies redefining these terms, at best lingers on the edge. According to my readings of his work, and citing the government itself, he indeed falls into the category of "Conspiracy Theorist".
See: [Economic section.]
I struggle to imagine Noam getting along and agreeing with such government sponsored agencies as Haliburton, BlackWater (Academi) or Serco. I also struggle to imagine Noam going along with the military's pretense for wars like Iraq, which have brought about thousands upon thousands of civilian casualties. If I am correct, this would effectively make him "anti-war" in the eyes of an incorrigible administration.
So when I suggest someone like Noam Chomsky when speaking too freely might be perceived as a threat, I say so only in accordance with official theory.
Perhaps somewhere along the roads of our writing careers we might meet and you can impart more elaborate lessons in journalism. Until then, thanks for what you've given so far.
Since when did warnings become time machines? And I do actually dare you to cite the rate of successful predictions on their part. Hint: Use numbers and try not to lie. And I also recommend pepper-spraying yourself the next time you're sitting down not bothering anyone; it should help you understand your question. Hint2: Occupy [guess].
Maybe my writing could use some improvements, but so could some of the arguments around here. Since history covers myriad subjects, I expect it is a large enough realm of study to make room for a polymath. There are enough subjects in this world to prohibit even a polymath from being an expert in history. I have in fact, never read anything holding that all polymaths are necessarily outstanding history buffs. And I am certainly not making any claims for myself; I simply chose a less than perfect term to describe the difficulties of knowing everything that has passed.
"....It's not exactly surprising that he was done for counterfeiting."
Counterfeiting might be fair enough. From what I remember though, he was accused of terrorism. I know it's the new pidgin Swiss Army Knife of fascism, but to me, gross usurpation of our language is far more terrifying than dubiously minted coinage. His coins were measurably different from any official currency, and none could be used in any conventional machines. I wonder how the value of Bernard's silver would compare to something like the actual value of derivatives. But that kind of wondering could get a lot folks minted as terrorists.
That's a pretty butch question. In my current state, I'd have trouble answering it with any chance of respectful reception. What I can say immediately, is how the bloody hell is the current system going to hold? I also don't believe bitcoin has reached maturity yet. Like a beaten and resented prodigy, it's growth has been hindered by various factors. Maybe the way it would work under such circumstances is a matter of additional innovation, adaptation, or redesign. I hope it never comes to that, but if it does, it would be nice to see things get the hell out of its way with anything but positive input. I am sure some fellow slashers will do a brilliant job taking this in 360 degrees, and far beyond what I am capable of.
On the subject of goats, [gardens] and chickens, that's another manipulated value, considering that in many locations throughout the US and other nations it's illegal to have them.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/08/woman-jailed-for-vegetable-garden_n_893516.html
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/04/illegal-curbside-garden-flourishes/1728/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/illegal-kitchen-garden_n_1687558.html - CA
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/09/15/cabbagegate-ga-man-fined-5k-for-home-garden/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/10/weird_zoning_laws
http://www.newson6.com/story/18802728/woman-sues-city-of-tulsa-for-cutting-down-her-edible-garden
And so on and so on.
Not when manipulation is involved -- in the face of extreme absurdities pandered as normalities.
Some very talented folks I once had the pleasure of meeting just went out of business. They had formed Bitcoin Harbor, an exchange for buying and selling items strictly in bitcoins. I suspect the undue lack of popularity for bitcoin is to blame, but there has been some pretty fierce efforts against bitcoin which might also influence the stagnation of what I consider a great system. One example of government hostility against alternative currencies I think is no better illustrated than in the case of Bernard von NotHaus.
Some fear the forced introduction to a "cashless society", and maybe I do as well. However, If such is the unavoidable future, I'd rather it be in bitcoin. It's peculiar the vehement government defense of what might reasonably be considered amongst the most unstable and fantastical currencies in the world, in contrast to their hostility toward arguably less deformed competitors. When speculation suggests bitcoin may be more worthy of confidence than the euro, I pay at least one ear of heed. But when Alan Grayson asks Lord Ben where $500,000,000,000 went and he can't reply, I reach for my Adult Depend Undergarment.
Perhaps B.F. Skinner should be prerequisite to artificially induced sentience. You know, separate bedrooms and all.
So if it really, REALLY likes what it sees, will it crash?
What's odd? For me, it's odd to expect mass arrests resulting from lawful, constitutionally protected activities.
Looks they are preparing for either a hurricane or vortex of some serious protest: http://www.abcactionnews.com//dpp/news/region_hillsborough/orient-road-jail-cleared-out-to-handle-rnc-arrests -- They have transferred inmates out of an entire facility in expectation of filling it with protesters. Odd.
Yeah, like I don't recognize the War Flag of the Holy Roman Empire when I see it. Come on..
Fool me wunce, shame on me. Fool me again, and.......how's that go?
I recently started selling on Ebay. Having previously used the account mostly for purchases, I never really worried much about feedback. When I began paying more attention to it, I realized that all my purchases were visible to others. This immediately pissed me off. My purchases were nothing unusual, but anyone could peruse them at will, potentially connecting them to my actual identity.
I called Ebay Support and complained. They informed me that I could make my purchases semi-private, but it would disable my ability to sell. So, I could not make my purchases private while keeping my sales transparent. They recommended I start a new account used only for purchases, with a user-ID non-descriptive of my actual identity. I continued to complain and argue (yes, futilely) and said I was nearly inspired to start a blog on this disturbing policy and also that a class-action lawsuit seemed a real prospect.
Most Ebay users never consider when registering that their purchases will be totally open for anyone to see. Because of this, the names they create are often related to their real identity. I began researching a bit and quickly found instances where items like sex-toys were openly displayed in user's public purchasing history. In another instance a user had complained that their kids were able to anticipate Christmas gifts because they had known their parents Ebay ID.
The complaints are many and not limited to privacy, but that is primarily what has concerned me. Ebay/Paypal is a shitty company. They are directly misleading with listing-fees too. When I complained about this, they said it was all in the user-agreement. My response was to ask what operating system the rep was using, which was Microsoft. I then asked if she had read the entire Windows user-agreement, to which she predictably answered "No". I reminded her that she was using it despite this admitted fact. I am not always intelligent, but I think I am adequately enough to see a listing-fee before agreeing to it. But I've definitely had a few surprises and unexpected fees along the way.
Anyway, I am not surprised about this news. I wish their were viable alternatives, but it looks like shitty service is the future. It would take more than a tremendous effort to get such companies to reconsider their abusive policies. Seems all we can do now is give them a class-action FUCK YOU!
I lucked out with all these replies; I thought they'd be a lot more vicious. However -- and I fully understand your point -- between responsive LEDs, sound, and maybe even a very subtle vibration-response, I have confidence that it could work, but not so much that it will. One of the comments (Misagon) in this thread mentioned a company (FingerWorks) and their method (TouchStream) which although acquired by aPpLE, was working on something similar.