Read the declaration of independence. It says that people have an obligation to throw off the yoke of bad government. So no, that is not cognitive dissonance, that is doing what the founders asked of us.
Believing that the gubmint is coming for your guns, while buying guns, and no laws is sight to do so, might be. There are lots of examples from those people, but what you wrote is not one.
Thanks to chimerism or mosaicism we know people can have different DNA in different places. This animal could have polar bear DNA in the fur and differences elsewhere.
This sample of a bit of fur from one animal does not represent all yeti so we know almost nothing more than we did before this find.
Not really. The accepted way to track live data is installing a device that copies relevant data, which was requested of lavabit. A rogue employee would have a hard time sneaking that in, making it much easier for legitimate eavesdropping. That negates the whole argument for live capture. For static capture, encryption per person has always been more attractive than using sitewide keys, but leaving the user in charge of the keys is the only option for security minded users. Lavabit objected to the live capture because it would expose everyone, which exceeded the bounds of the order, and a judge complained that the service was poorly engineered if it could not accommodate. This appears to argue that it is poorly designed if it can accommodate. I would have to argue that allowing law enforcement legally requested access to isolated data in a way that is not overly broad is not unreasonable. Designing it to be difficult to tap without raising red flags is not impossible. The only question then is whether the preparation for warrant access degrades service for the normal user, Luke Skype and facetime recently. If so, sorry but we have a business to tun.
No, having two dominant parties choke out third parties ate the only reason we have a shitty two party system.
You sound ignorant and haven't given me any incentive to vote third party on the little you did offer. I'm going to need a little more.
Neither party will give a crap about 10% independent vote if the top 2 are less than 10% apart, which is guaranteed, because those are antiestablishment votes they could not win, and they will look at poaching more votes by pandering selectively to the 2 party lock in vote.
I have studied this since Nader and have not found a reason to do more than try to stop the bigger idiot from winning. Seriously, put some thought into it and try again.
I'm gonna need you to pipe that shit down and shut the fuck up for a number of months. And I mean that with all due respect. The next presidential election cycle, preceded by the interim congressional, will either demonstrate or refute your point. Then you can say I told you so. While not surprising, this is real new info here, and we haven't had time for the old bums to make promises and the new bums to make fancy speeches. The interim cycle will set the tone for the presidential cycle, and it could be a yawner or a shitstorm. So if you can't run for American office, just clap your yap because even if no one else has done anything, the people can't do a lot till 2015, which means no new laws til 2017.
While I agree, I also think this bit is quite important. The people who can't pay attention now will soon be the people who have little or nothing to lose.
That is the most dangerous demographic a country can have, because fuck your laws. Wealth will never be held in the swarm of poverty which is the inevitable result of current policy. And Grover norquist is hoping he will be long dead before that happens.
That is conventional wisdom, but I find a few things wrong with that.
First, the news isn't covered thoroughly in the mainstream media. The 2 minute bit in the evening news doesn't really stand out because it's technical and abstract. There is not enough time to get into the details, to explain to people what all of this means.
Second, most people are in favor of this. Good they think, they are doing what they can to stop stuff like that thing that happened in Kenya. It won't happen here because they are doing what they do.
The actions are abstract and invisible, but so is the coverage and detail. And no matter how much you try to explain, it will just bounce off unless your audience has a techy bent.
Getting an email sounds like no big deal. But how would someone react to checking out on any site, and then finding out the product isn't shipping? How about when hundreds of thousands complain about the same thing? Finally, how about when a government agency says you bought something you are required to buy, then says sorry no you didn't?
That would have directly impacted lots of people who don't have the luxury of posting stupid ideas on tech sites.
Even if we take the 635M number, you would have insurance for a single year. People would get checkups and tests and prescriptions and surgeries, then abandon insurance if possible, aka the problem that is being solved here. If it is cheaper to pay the fine and stay on other or no insurance, people will.
Not sure you thought what would happen after someone implements your ill conceived plan, because disaster would ensue.
It is standard boilerplate, with the HIPAA violation commented out. No part of this is either illegal, or a story. This is the definition of a non story, and your willingness to believe anything bad about Obama specifically or government in general let you swallow this horseshit whole. Please think before spewing more nonsense. And moderators, there is no +1 fits my preconceived notions". You have an obligation to minimally fact check.
You're cute. I bet you clap for tinkerbelle every time. The point is that by the time everyone cares, it will be way past reasonably defensible. And, given the 90% of people who will roll over and support anything that fights terrorism (pew study), we have a long way to go before that.
It's not defeatism to admit that there is not a sufficient corps of people with the type of pathos needed to make a difference. Nor to admit it is a large ship to turn around.
The moment https is everywhere because that's how you do it, that is the far side of the boomerang, and you are only halfway there.
Often it is not the immigrant who assimilates; it is their child. This is the strength of the resistance. Worse, ignorance conquered gives way only to incomprehension. This is the breeding ground for apathy, until security is a way of life. Why add the s if it works without it? Same reason you let the cripple take her time down the stairs. That's just what normal people do. Leaving off the s has to be like swearing in church, where someone will say that's just not right.
Reading too much into it. The snarky and cynical have to constantly bring everything back to the story that confirms their pessimism. Why let it be Oracles fault and blame incompetence when you can say Oracle was forced, and have malice to rail against? Every news story suffers from confirmation bias as the unknown details filled in now point to the suspected source. Fluoride fingerprints your teeth so the fluoroscope at the airport knows what city you visited, because NSA. Contrails disrupt communication so your cell tower loses the race and a spook tower gets the first packet in, because NSA. I always wondered how the major polytheists got started, and now it is obvious. One story at a time, confirming prejudice, without a pause to consider the details.
That, and karma whoring. But mostly the other one.
Hopefully that was a real question. People are funny when they think their insight grants the clarity to see connections which never existed, and the echo chamber of a thousand similarly deluded souls is a great comfort.
Free speech, censorship, and being able to sell something in someone else's store are not the same.
If an author feels censored, they can self publish or distribute freely. If they want a third party to help, they subject themselves to how that party wishes to be seen, and hamstring themselves by wanting to participate.
Walmart won't sell your book? Not censorship. PayPal won't process your payment? Not censorship.
I repeat, sciam was not the place for this given the alternative blog, which was in fact "in public". Readers who choose to follow the person can get the scoop, while those who prefer impersonal, objective science can read science.
Did you mention this in a news post or interview mentioning your organization? Guessing no, because you would have been fired. That's the difference between the two blogs.
Discussing openly and discussing on your employers news feed are wildly different.
You mischaracterized the disagreement. In reality, both sides believed themselves scientifically correct. That is the whole point of this, which seems to be further mischaracterized as forcing immunization on the unwilling.
It is no more than a legal disagreement, in which the court took the side of 10 year old science. Which could be found incorrect tomorrow, although it seems solid today. If you lead off with "think of this as" you have to get the basics right.
You can't consider the children at all. This is one parent against the other, period.
When parents disagree, society normally abstains. Until it becomes a court case, then society has to take care of itself.
This is not, morally or ethically, about brainwashing. It is the legal system taking conventional wisdom at the time a case is raised. Same as it always was, for better or worse.
Show me mathematically how my vote will not be a spoiler and I might vote third party. Otherwise I have to shore up this dam with my fingers. Third party was 1% last election, how does it get the other 32% ?
They normally don't sit on the money. Typically it goes into traditional investments, which are money drains. Some goes to venture capital, which benefits the economy. Some is a measure of worth based on their holdings of a company in which they hold majority share.
The last means they are determining how employee futures go. Which was a good thing until the short term profit scene hit.
So there are some fat cats sitting on money or making bad decisions, and many controlling or supporting business well. You know history but not economics, and would make a terrible millionaire. 75%, C-
30% for 3 of 7 days sounds good to me. If you want to go on numbers alone that is fair. You forgot to bring in the cost of a trip to the store, so I'll leave you that opening. Why can visa and MasterCard float this?, you asked?
Because they get money on idiots paying interest, while the government does not. That's pretty fucking obvious. Gov does not get to balance unpaid debt by bilking retards. It gets to soak everyone it deems can pay, retard or not.
And, legislators wrote the rules, rather than legislators. Any more dumb questions?
Did you just pull random speculation out of your ass? If the system works, the card gets used. Most people on the registers are not going to know about any backup system. Want to use your card? swipe it first. Doesn't work? swipe it. I need to know what the problem is so I can ask my manager.
Manager comes over. What happens when you swipe it?
Now, if you're talking about friend of the cashier, that would raise lots of red flags to have piles of swipes work, followed by a single transaction by the friend. It would work once.
What happens after the data is reconciled for manual backups? If you exceed your limit or the card is not authorized for you, some accounting will find you.
Xerox asked retailers to revert to a manual system, meaning customers could spend up to $50 until the system was restored.
That sounds like a reasonable compromise, once everyone is aware the system actually is down.
Smith said that typically when the cards aren't working retailers can call a backup phone number to find out how much money customers have available in their account. But that information also was unavailable because of the outage, so customers weren't able to use their cards.
That addresses this for most cases, so you don't get fraud.
cashier Eliza Shook said dozens of customers at Corner Grocery had to put back groceries when the cards failed Saturday because they couldn't afford to pay for the food.
Sounds like they didn't just let people buy whatever they wanted, because the plan b was down. Now, why did you waste our time posting horseshit?
Really? No such thing as Connection: Keep-Alive? Every request opens a brand new connection?
Fuck me, I didn't know that.
Now, a poorly designed server that actually does not allow keep-alive, that would be something to complain about. But the web design expert did not address that. If someone has an actual test of this, then we have something to talk about.
Verbose mode on, if I may, to illustrate why it's crap.
[T]he piece that keeps me shaking my head and wondering is a question he asks but doesnâ(TM)t answer:
That's because he clearly said the meetings and committees are intended to answer that question. If it had been answered already, we wouldn't need the W3C working groups to find an answer.
the W3Câ(TM)s new focus on digital rights management (DRM).
New since dinosaurs walked the earth? This has been kicked around for long enough that if you think it's new, or a focus, you need to get your brain checked.
âoeuniversal in that it can contain anythingâ, rather than being universal in that its content can be read by anyone.
Heavy stuff. Does the web already contain DRM, and users who watch movies at home? My coworker on Netflix says yes. The rest of us? We're not paying big content so big content doesn't care about the rest of us. They are still going to put DRM out there, and as Tim said and you didn't read, you can't stop DRM from existing just by not talking about it.
What are you objecting to exactly? Your personal philosophy being violated? Lots of people have no problem phrasing it that way, instead of pulling horseshit arguments out of the air. I'm sure the argument seems good to you, but you already agree with you. And you need to convince people who disagree, are on the fence, don't care, or actively seek out flaws in an argument to decide which argument is stronger.
What are we users â" and what is the W3C â" getting from building the risk of programmers being jailed into the core infrastructure of the Web?... Does that make it a good idea for the W3C to offer its name, its facilities, its intellectual property agreements, and its umbrella from antitrust prosecution to such a project? Why not leave the companies to pursue their own directions, and take on the risk of legal action themselves?
I'm going with goofy loon, and can't be arsed to see what Simon means here, because it has been random word salad to this point.
Iâ(TM)m left, however, with Berners-Leeâ(TM)s failure to answer his own question,
because the W3C is going to answer that you stupid fuck
and his strange expectation that users can âoeaskâ for something in return and hope to see it.
So the answer doesn't matter, despite the first half of your rant centering on that? If we can't expect anything, then why does the question that isn't asked matter at all? This is the part of the screed where any cognitive processing has completely broken down. A half-formed argument morphs into a different and competing argument, and Simon believes he has a point. This is the red flag for any argument - internal inconsistency.
Restricted Media Community Group. Itâ(TM)s a place to gather input, but itâ(TM)s a Community Group, and the W3C has no obligation to listen to it
Sooooo, what is your point? The group says something and it gets ignored, and that's a bad thing?
this is yet more reason to pick and choose the useful bits carefully.
Like everyone always did since ever?
What do we get for that DRM? A clear sign that weâ(TM)re not to be trusted.
We aren't to be trusted. We demonstrate that by downloading stuff from torrents all day, every day. We have also shown that a reasonable market that makes it easier to pay and get good quality, useful content will get the dollars. Of nearly anyone, I trust the W3C to come up with a decent proposal that will be ignored at big content's convenience.
Every military person I know did it because they thought it was the right thing to do. I guess we know different people. And how do you explain the people who reenlist? They go to more expensive colleges?
I'm guessing you met your sample during or shortly after college, giving you a sample bias.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the declaration of independence. It says that people have an obligation to throw off the yoke of bad government. So no, that is not cognitive dissonance, that is doing what the founders asked of us.
Believing that the gubmint is coming for your guns, while buying guns, and no laws is sight to do so, might be. There are lots of examples from those people, but what you wrote is not one.
Thanks to chimerism or mosaicism we know people can have different DNA in different places. This animal could have polar bear DNA in the fur and differences elsewhere.
This sample of a bit of fur from one animal does not represent all yeti so we know almost nothing more than we did before this find.
Hot water hurts. Broken elevators can't fall on people. Drug dealers are less painful than hot water.
Or, uncle is a bastard and kick him in the balls for us all.
But I'm going with the first.
Not really. The accepted way to track live data is installing a device that copies relevant data, which was requested of lavabit. A rogue employee would have a hard time sneaking that in, making it much easier for legitimate eavesdropping. That negates the whole argument for live capture.
For static capture, encryption per person has always been more attractive than using sitewide keys, but leaving the user in charge of the keys is the only option for security minded users.
Lavabit objected to the live capture because it would expose everyone, which exceeded the bounds of the order, and a judge complained that the service was poorly engineered if it could not accommodate. This appears to argue that it is poorly designed if it can accommodate.
I would have to argue that allowing law enforcement legally requested access to isolated data in a way that is not overly broad is not unreasonable.
Designing it to be difficult to tap without raising red flags is not impossible.
The only question then is whether the preparation for warrant access degrades service for the normal user, Luke Skype and facetime recently. If so, sorry but we have a business to tun.
No, having two dominant parties choke out third parties ate the only reason we have a shitty two party system.
You sound ignorant and haven't given me any incentive to vote third party on the little you did offer. I'm going to need a little more.
Neither party will give a crap about 10% independent vote if the top 2 are less than 10% apart, which is guaranteed, because those are antiestablishment votes they could not win, and they will look at poaching more votes by pandering selectively to the 2 party lock in vote.
I have studied this since Nader and have not found a reason to do more than try to stop the bigger idiot from winning. Seriously, put some thought into it and try again.
I'm gonna need you to pipe that shit down and shut the fuck up for a number of months. And I mean that with all due respect.
The next presidential election cycle, preceded by the interim congressional, will either demonstrate or refute your point. Then you can say I told you so.
While not surprising, this is real new info here, and we haven't had time for the old bums to make promises and the new bums to make fancy speeches.
The interim cycle will set the tone for the presidential cycle, and it could be a yawner or a shitstorm. So if you can't run for American office, just clap your yap because even if no one else has done anything, the people can't do a lot till 2015, which means no new laws til 2017.
While I agree, I also think this bit is quite important. The people who can't pay attention now will soon be the people who have little or nothing to lose.
That is the most dangerous demographic a country can have, because fuck your laws. Wealth will never be held in the swarm of poverty which is the inevitable result of current policy. And Grover norquist is hoping he will be long dead before that happens.
That is conventional wisdom, but I find a few things wrong with that.
First, the news isn't covered thoroughly in the mainstream media. The 2 minute bit in the evening news doesn't really stand out because it's technical and abstract. There is not enough time to get into the details, to explain to people what all of this means.
Second, most people are in favor of this. Good they think, they are doing what they can to stop stuff like that thing that happened in Kenya. It won't happen here because they are doing what they do.
The actions are abstract and invisible, but so is the coverage and detail. And no matter how much you try to explain, it will just bounce off unless your audience has a techy bent.
Or alternatively, news should be outlawed because it clearly incites people to violence.
Getting an email sounds like no big deal. But how would someone react to checking out on any site, and then finding out the product isn't shipping? How about when hundreds of thousands complain about the same thing? Finally, how about when a government agency says you bought something you are required to buy, then says sorry no you didn't?
That would have directly impacted lots of people who don't have the luxury of posting stupid ideas on tech sites.
Even if we take the 635M number, you would have insurance for a single year. People would get checkups and tests and prescriptions and surgeries, then abandon insurance if possible, aka the problem that is being solved here. If it is cheaper to pay the fine and stay on other or no insurance, people will.
Not sure you thought what would happen after someone implements your ill conceived plan, because disaster would ensue.
It is standard boilerplate, with the HIPAA violation commented out. No part of this is either illegal, or a story. This is the definition of a non story, and your willingness to believe anything bad about Obama specifically or government in general let you swallow this horseshit whole.
Please think before spewing more nonsense. And moderators, there is no +1 fits my preconceived notions". You have an obligation to minimally fact check.
You're cute. I bet you clap for tinkerbelle every time. The point is that by the time everyone cares, it will be way past reasonably defensible.
And, given the 90% of people who will roll over and support anything that fights terrorism (pew study), we have a long way to go before that.
It's not defeatism to admit that there is not a sufficient corps of people with the type of pathos needed to make a difference. Nor to admit it is a large ship to turn around.
The moment https is everywhere because that's how you do it, that is the far side of the boomerang, and you are only halfway there.
Often it is not the immigrant who assimilates; it is their child. This is the strength of the resistance. Worse, ignorance conquered gives way only to incomprehension. This is the breeding ground for apathy, until security is a way of life. Why add the s if it works without it? Same reason you let the cripple take her time down the stairs. That's just what normal people do. Leaving off the s has to be like swearing in church, where someone will say that's just not right.
It's a long row to hoe
Reading too much into it. The snarky and cynical have to constantly bring everything back to the story that confirms their pessimism.
Why let it be Oracles fault and blame incompetence when you can say Oracle was forced, and have malice to rail against?
Every news story suffers from confirmation bias as the unknown details filled in now point to the suspected source.
Fluoride fingerprints your teeth so the fluoroscope at the airport knows what city you visited, because NSA. Contrails disrupt communication so your cell tower loses the race and a spook tower gets the first packet in, because NSA.
I always wondered how the major polytheists got started, and now it is obvious. One story at a time, confirming prejudice, without a pause to consider the details.
That, and karma whoring. But mostly the other one.
Hopefully that was a real question. People are funny when they think their insight grants the clarity to see connections which never existed, and the echo chamber of a thousand similarly deluded souls is a great comfort.
You didn't read one goddam word of the article. Or didn't understand it. I don't know how to even start explaining this to you.
Free speech, censorship, and being able to sell something in someone else's store are not the same.
If an author feels censored, they can self publish or distribute freely. If they want a third party to help, they subject themselves to how that party wishes to be seen, and hamstring themselves by wanting to participate.
Walmart won't sell your book? Not censorship.
PayPal won't process your payment? Not censorship.
I repeat, sciam was not the place for this given the alternative blog, which was in fact "in public". Readers who choose to follow the person can get the scoop, while those who prefer impersonal, objective science can read science.
Did you mention this in a news post or interview mentioning your organization? Guessing no, because you would have been fired. That's the difference between the two blogs.
Discussing openly and discussing on your employers news feed are wildly different.
You mischaracterized the disagreement. In reality, both sides believed themselves scientifically correct. That is the whole point of this, which seems to be further mischaracterized as forcing immunization on the unwilling.
It is no more than a legal disagreement, in which the court took the side of 10 year old science. Which could be found incorrect tomorrow, although it seems solid today.
If you lead off with "think of this as" you have to get the basics right.
You can't consider the children at all. This is one parent against the other, period.
When parents disagree, society normally abstains. Until it becomes a court case, then society has to take care of itself.
This is not, morally or ethically, about brainwashing. It is the legal system taking conventional wisdom at the time a case is raised. Same as it always was, for better or worse.
Show me mathematically how my vote will not be a spoiler and I might vote third party. Otherwise I have to shore up this dam with my fingers. Third party was 1% last election, how does it get the other 32% ?
They normally don't sit on the money. Typically it goes into traditional investments, which are money drains. Some goes to venture capital, which benefits the economy. Some is a measure of worth based on their holdings of a company in which they hold majority share.
The last means they are determining how employee futures go. Which was a good thing until the short term profit scene hit.
So there are some fat cats sitting on money or making bad decisions, and many controlling or supporting business well. You know history but not economics, and would make a terrible millionaire. 75%, C-
30% for 3 of 7 days sounds good to me. If you want to go on numbers alone that is fair. You forgot to bring in the cost of a trip to the store, so I'll leave you that opening.
Why can visa and MasterCard float this?, you asked?
Because they get money on idiots paying interest, while the government does not. That's pretty fucking obvious. Gov does not get to balance unpaid debt by bilking retards. It gets to soak everyone it deems can pay, retard or not.
And, legislators wrote the rules, rather than legislators. Any more dumb questions?
Did you just pull random speculation out of your ass? If the system works, the card gets used. Most people on the registers are not going to know about any backup system. Want to use your card? swipe it first. Doesn't work? swipe it. I need to know what the problem is so I can ask my manager.
Manager comes over. What happens when you swipe it?
Now, if you're talking about friend of the cashier, that would raise lots of red flags to have piles of swipes work, followed by a single transaction by the friend. It would work once.
What happens after the data is reconciled for manual backups? If you exceed your limit or the card is not authorized for you, some accounting will find you.
Xerox asked retailers to revert to a manual system, meaning customers could spend up to $50 until the system was restored.
That sounds like a reasonable compromise, once everyone is aware the system actually is down.
That addresses this for most cases, so you don't get fraud.
Sounds like they didn't just let people buy whatever they wanted, because the plan b was down. Now, why did you waste our time posting horseshit?
Really? No such thing as Connection: Keep-Alive? Every request opens a brand new connection?
Fuck me, I didn't know that.
Now, a poorly designed server that actually does not allow keep-alive, that would be something to complain about. But the web design expert did not address that. If someone has an actual test of this, then we have something to talk about.
Try again.
Verbose mode on, if I may, to illustrate why it's crap.
That's because he clearly said the meetings and committees are intended to answer that question. If it had been answered already, we wouldn't need the W3C working groups to find an answer.
New since dinosaurs walked the earth? This has been kicked around for long enough that if you think it's new, or a focus, you need to get your brain checked.
Heavy stuff. Does the web already contain DRM, and users who watch movies at home? My coworker on Netflix says yes. The rest of us? We're not paying big content so big content doesn't care about the rest of us. They are still going to put DRM out there, and as Tim said and you didn't read, you can't stop DRM from existing just by not talking about it.
What are you objecting to exactly? Your personal philosophy being violated? Lots of people have no problem phrasing it that way, instead of pulling horseshit arguments out of the air. I'm sure the argument seems good to you, but you already agree with you. And you need to convince people who disagree, are on the fence, don't care, or actively seek out flaws in an argument to decide which argument is stronger.
I'm going with goofy loon, and can't be arsed to see what Simon means here, because it has been random word salad to this point.
because the W3C is going to answer that you stupid fuck
So the answer doesn't matter, despite the first half of your rant centering on that? If we can't expect anything, then why does the question that isn't asked matter at all? This is the part of the screed where any cognitive processing has completely broken down. A half-formed argument morphs into a different and competing argument, and Simon believes he has a point. This is the red flag for any argument - internal inconsistency.
Sooooo, what is your point? The group says something and it gets ignored, and that's a bad thing?
Like everyone always did since ever?
We aren't to be trusted. We demonstrate that by downloading stuff from torrents all day, every day. We have also shown that a reasonable market that makes it easier to pay and get good quality, useful content will get the dollars. Of nearly anyone, I trust the W3C to come up with a decent proposal that will be ignored at big content's convenience.
Every military person I know did it because they thought it was the right thing to do. I guess we know different people. And how do you explain the people who reenlist? They go to more expensive colleges?
I'm guessing you met your sample during or shortly after college, giving you a sample bias.