When the fundamental laws of a country enumerate your right to live anywhere within and move freely about the country, driving, by extension, should become a right. I have the right to live in a rural location where there's no public transportation, if I so choose. Without being able to drive, I am forced to remain within bicycling distance of my home or in an urban setting, against my will; my mobility rights are effectively nullfiied and meaningless. Just another clever way that laws are manipulatively crafted to cancel out our fundemental freedoms.
Yes, when convicted of certain offenses, specific rights can be suspended or revoked, but that is supposed to be reserved for the most heinous of crimes commited by the most unrehabitable of people. Making a simple mistake or having the misfortune of crossing paths with an asshole cop should not be justification to abridge the fundamental right of mobility.
I'm continually amazed at how Slashdotters defend liberty with impressive ferocity except where the subject involves driving. Then all bets are off and we join the masses who cower in fear of the boogeyman, clamoring for corporate and government action. Obviously, very few Slashdotters are car enthusiasts.
Da fuck are you smoking and can I have some? Because, damn, that must be some strong shit.
The NSA already crossed that line into treason by violating the most fundamental and sacred legal document in the land. Is it treason to expose treason? Only when they have changed the definition of treason to be any actions or speech against what they're doing, which, as evidenced in the past several weeks, is, "whatever the fuck we want."
Before the Internet, information was whatever was decided the they'd would give to the public to appease us. It was all carefully planned, controlled and manipulated to advance their agenda. Now, we're able to seek out and share information for ourselves at speeds never before possible.
The will of the people is quite demonstrably dissemination. It's not that they ever gave two shits about the will of the public, but they're no longer able to manipulate the flow of information to make it look like they do.
It certainly appears you are correct, speaking in a legal context. Privacy laws may exist, but those to whom it should apply obviously care fuck-all about them because the consequences for violating them are equally fuck-all.
But there are still steps we can take to enforce our own privacy. Encrypt your storage mediums, setup your own communication services like XMPP, install HTTPS Everywhere...
What we really need is a way to obfuscate communications metadata. Something that floods the lines with a continual stream, making random hops and terminating points. We need to make the haystack to massive to dig through. In other words, everyone should be using Tor, all the time. It might actually become usable if that were the case
But a societal one. Just like the industrial revolution put a lot of manual labourers out of work, the digital revolution will do the same to the vast majority of low-and-no-skill labourers.
The moralistic notion that necessities, and even some small luxuries, need to be earned is starting to become antiquated. We need to begin seriously considering things like basic income if we are to transition without a whole lot of bloodshed. Good luck convincing the X%.
Not that I mean to downplay Snowden's actions, because I consider him a goddamn hero, but a system administrator executing commands as a specific user isn't exactly brilliant beyond what any competent admin with a reasonable amount of foresight would do.
Snowden isn't some mastermind, he's just rational. Running commands as a different user when you know you need to cover your tracks is rational. Getting the fuck outta dodge before the shit hits the fan is rational. To a society of mostly irrational morons, rational looks like genius.
What this *does* demonstrate the continual technological ineptitude and lack of critical thought in government and mainstream media to the point of comedy.
I originally wasn't going to post this because I thought it would sound too preachy, but, based on some other responses here, I think it could be appropriate.
There is a digital civil war coming as we transition out of the industrial age and into the digital revolution. Giving the next generation a solid fundamental understanding of digital technology is critical to ensuring the future belongs to them. They should learn that computers exist to serve the user and that any attempt to subvert this is oppressive and tyrannical: DRM, encryption that hides the keys from you, locked bootloaders, aggressive warranty voiding policies that presume user user liability, etc.
How this translates into fun IT fair stuff... programming is a good start. Web programming languages give a pretty good bang for the buck for instant results a long you've setup the server environment before-hand. Although, really, if you've got a Linux box setup, getting Apache and PHP running can be done in a single apt-get command and 10 minutes of configuring.
That said, any interpreted programming language with a nicely readable syntax is probably a good choice.
How would taking apart old laptops or cheap knock-off tablets not be relevant? Maybe compare and contrast PC-style systems and SOCs to demonstrate the sliding scale between compactness, capability and performance. See if you can find a way to contrast the generally crippled suckiness of mobile platforms with the endless capabily and vast software ecosystem of a real desktop system. Show them why all their base shouldn't belong to Apple and Google.
Maybe come up with some sort of creative blockade to mimic DRM that they have to tweak around with the system to bypass.
Just get them interested enough to see that computers should do what they say, when they say. Addict them to that incredible feeling of control over a machine whose only job is to say, "yes, master," and not, "I can't let you do that, Dave."
Whether they deliberately targeted a useful add-on that offered users more freedom or it became "conveniently" non-functional because of an SDK update, the result is still the same.
If you develop an SDK or API, it's your job to ensure that updates won't break existing functionality unless you have a damn good reason to, ie.: you are offering a better alternative that offers the same functionality. To be clear, "better" means faster, higher quality and/or more options, NOT de facto tied to some ad-pushing bullshit.
If your SDK breaks existing third party software, it should never be immediate. You should give plenty of advanced warning and a transition period for developers to update.
Corrupt is as corrupt does. They've already demonstrated a profound moral bankruptcy and a willingness to collectively serve only themselves, this just a matter of scale.
Right, they all spy on each other's citizens then exchange data, which amounts to exactly the same thing. Honoring the letter and shitting on the spirit seems to a trend these days.
And by the NSA's own logic, exchanging data is "two or three degrees of separation," which apparently should make them equally liable. Not that government hypocrisy surprises me in the least.
We'll continue to spend a metric assload of money on anti-terrrererserm instead of improving driver safety and training because "us vs. them" makes a much sexier political selling point than "us vs. some-not-easily-definable-abstract-thing" that's astronomically more likely to be a fatal danger to us.
And, really, that says as much about us as it does about the maligned policy makers we elect.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving is is not a freedom.
When the fundamental laws of a country enumerate your right to live anywhere within and move freely about the country, driving, by extension, should become a right. I have the right to live in a rural location where there's no public transportation, if I so choose. Without being able to drive, I am forced to remain within bicycling distance of my home or in an urban setting, against my will; my mobility rights are effectively nullfiied and meaningless. Just another clever way that laws are manipulatively crafted to cancel out our fundemental freedoms.
Yes, when convicted of certain offenses, specific rights can be suspended or revoked, but that is supposed to be reserved for the most heinous of crimes commited by the most unrehabitable of people. Making a simple mistake or having the misfortune of crossing paths with an asshole cop should not be justification to abridge the fundamental right of mobility.
I'm continually amazed at how Slashdotters defend liberty with impressive ferocity except where the subject involves driving. Then all bets are off and we join the masses who cower in fear of the boogeyman, clamoring for corporate and government action. Obviously, very few Slashdotters are car enthusiasts.
Da fuck are you smoking and can I have some? Because, damn, that must be some strong shit.
The NSA already crossed that line into treason by violating the most fundamental and sacred legal document in the land. Is it treason to expose treason? Only when they have changed the definition of treason to be any actions or speech against what they're doing, which, as evidenced in the past several weeks, is, "whatever the fuck we want."
Money can't buy happiness
Ever notice how people who say this are usually people with a lot of money?
If you're not happy, you're doing it wrong. How about you hand me your bank account and I'll give it a go?
That's what this really is.
Before the Internet, information was whatever was decided the they'd would give to the public to appease us. It was all carefully planned, controlled and manipulated to advance their agenda. Now, we're able to seek out and share information for ourselves at speeds never before possible.
The will of the people is quite demonstrably dissemination. It's not that they ever gave two shits about the will of the public, but they're no longer able to manipulate the flow of information to make it look like they do.
It certainly appears you are correct, speaking in a legal context. Privacy laws may exist, but those to whom it should apply obviously care fuck-all about them because the consequences for violating them are equally fuck-all.
But there are still steps we can take to enforce our own privacy. Encrypt your storage mediums, setup your own communication services like XMPP, install HTTPS Everywhere...
What we really need is a way to obfuscate communications metadata. Something that floods the lines with a continual stream, making random hops and terminating points. We need to make the haystack to massive to dig through. In other words, everyone should be using Tor, all the time. It might actually become usable if that were the case
"Overclocking" is technically a misnomer. It's a sort of tweaking, but it's a bit more than that; we could call it ... twerking!
But a societal one. Just like the industrial revolution put a lot of manual labourers out of work, the digital revolution will do the same to the vast majority of low-and-no-skill labourers.
The moralistic notion that necessities, and even some small luxuries, need to be earned is starting to become antiquated. We need to begin seriously considering things like basic income if we are to transition without a whole lot of bloodshed. Good luck convincing the X%.
Not that I mean to downplay Snowden's actions, because I consider him a goddamn hero, but a system administrator executing commands as a specific user isn't exactly brilliant beyond what any competent admin with a reasonable amount of foresight would do.
Snowden isn't some mastermind, he's just rational. Running commands as a different user when you know you need to cover your tracks is rational. Getting the fuck outta dodge before the shit hits the fan is rational. To a society of mostly irrational morons, rational looks like genius.
What this *does* demonstrate the continual technological ineptitude and lack of critical thought in government and mainstream media to the point of comedy.
I originally wasn't going to post this because I thought it would sound too preachy, but, based on some other responses here, I think it could be appropriate.
There is a digital civil war coming as we transition out of the industrial age and into the digital revolution. Giving the next generation a solid fundamental understanding of digital technology is critical to ensuring the future belongs to them. They should learn that computers exist to serve the user and that any attempt to subvert this is oppressive and tyrannical: DRM, encryption that hides the keys from you, locked bootloaders, aggressive warranty voiding policies that presume user user liability, etc.
How this translates into fun IT fair stuff ... programming is a good start. Web programming languages give a pretty good bang for the buck for instant results a long you've setup the server environment before-hand. Although, really, if you've got a Linux box setup, getting Apache and PHP running can be done in a single apt-get command and 10 minutes of configuring.
That said, any interpreted programming language with a nicely readable syntax is probably a good choice.
How would taking apart old laptops or cheap knock-off tablets not be relevant? Maybe compare and contrast PC-style systems and SOCs to demonstrate the sliding scale between compactness, capability and performance. See if you can find a way to contrast the generally crippled suckiness of mobile platforms with the endless capabily and vast software ecosystem of a real desktop system. Show them why all their base shouldn't belong to Apple and Google.
Maybe come up with some sort of creative blockade to mimic DRM that they have to tweak around with the system to bypass.
Just get them interested enough to see that computers should do what they say, when they say. Addict them to that incredible feeling of control over a machine whose only job is to say, "yes, master," and not, "I can't let you do that, Dave."
I thought it was to get +5 Insightful. Achievement Unlocked!
Link farms in meatspace.
So because your computer's going to follow the law, you're upset?
+5 Rush
Whether they deliberately targeted a useful add-on that offered users more freedom or it became "conveniently" non-functional because of an SDK update, the result is still the same.
If you develop an SDK or API, it's your job to ensure that updates won't break existing functionality unless you have a damn good reason to, ie.: you are offering a better alternative that offers the same functionality. To be clear, "better" means faster, higher quality and/or more options, NOT de facto tied to some ad-pushing bullshit.
If your SDK breaks existing third party software, it should never be immediate. You should give plenty of advanced warning and a transition period for developers to update.
And what do you do when all banks begin using this metric?
Use liberally whenever you're about to post some stupid-ass babbling to Slashdot.
Slashdot Introduces Much-Needed "Beer Goggles" Feature on Submissions Page
The only reason for buying a ChromeCast
Only iPhone users would be dumb enough to (a) keep their keys and phone in the same pocket and (b) not use a screen protector.
Corrupt is as corrupt does. They've already demonstrated a profound moral bankruptcy and a willingness to collectively serve only themselves, this just a matter of scale.
Now the textbook industry can join in on the rent-seeking business model for doing almost nothing.
Right, they all spy on each other's citizens then exchange data, which amounts to exactly the same thing. Honoring the letter and shitting on the spirit seems to a trend these days.
And by the NSA's own logic, exchanging data is "two or three degrees of separation," which apparently should make them equally liable. Not that government hypocrisy surprises me in the least.
Crank the Facebook user base to 7 billion.
We'll continue to spend a metric assload of money on anti-terrrererserm instead of improving driver safety and training because "us vs. them" makes a much sexier political selling point than "us vs. some-not-easily-definable-abstract-thing" that's astronomically more likely to be a fatal danger to us.
And, really, that says as much about us as it does about the maligned policy makers we elect.
I was just thinking... a single set of credentials for every online service, what could possibly go wrong?