As fun as it is to believe conspiracy crap, a few things are obviously more pertinent.
Each party thinks it is representing its followers' wishes. Each party wants the other to blink. No representative knows, or remembers, what it is like for everyone else on the planet, whose jobs are not secure as long as they stay scandal free.
Everyone who wanted this has no idea what it means to the economy, or their portfolios, or to jobs, because the goal was looking tough for the voter. They don't want to inflict pain, because they don't understand that's what happened.
Tell me they know what's in the portfolios and I'll ask for an example of a non blind trust. Tell me who had a normal 8 to 5 or hourly job recently and I'll show you the one in 600 exception. Just a few moments in thought shows this myopic pessimism is a little knowledge in the body of a lot of ignorance. And we are smarter than that.
I am quite certain that the entirety of the training was more than 5 words. You should feel bad. Not throw yourself off a building bad, but you should be required to open 5 random PDF files using adobe products as punishment.
We keep discovering NEW SHIT. There's new shit out there, and we keep finding it. We don't know what it means because we haven't left the fucking SOLAR SYSTEM before. It's kind of a big deal.
Science is pretty much built on being wrong, and looking at the data again, and fixing whatever was wrong. One team studies something and one signal is gone, so we left the solar system. But another team looks at different data and we haven't.
Imagine coming across from China, seeing Hawaii, and seeing an island. The new world! Oops, that was just an island, next one is new world. Oops, next one. Oops, next one. Wait, where did the land go? LAND! Oh crap, it's a bay. There's land! FINALLY!
It's like playing the old game "is this my ass or another roll of fat?" Or the relatively new game "is that a hot chick or Fabio?" or "is this movie going to be any good?" or "is this story a dupe?" or "where does the pee pee go for sexy time?"
You are going to lose plenty of times before winning. That's how we find completely new shit about the universe. Is that a human like species, or a chimpanzee that will rip my face off? I don't know it's fucking new! It might eat me and digest me and shit me out and throw my turd corpse at zoo visitors, because the other visitors laugh and I think it's what I should be doing. Someone has to die for science, I'd rather be behind someone, applauding and pushing them into certain death.
But when that guy dies, I'm going to write down how he died, so that the next poor fucker doesn't die exactly the same way. More information, more new shit that we didn't know before. Go for it, die for science, and let's all LEARN SHIT.
I've heard this for years. Is it still true? Anyone going to corroborate this?
I automatically discount any claim that starts out "Pretty much any large organization" - because how many large organizations publicise how they spend money?
It is one of those things that makes sense, and probably has happened by an actual organization. And therefore is suspect as a blanket statement.
The large organizations I know report either profit or loss, and giving back the budget counts toward profit, unless you are a cost center. Since you made no such distinction, I have to assume you are completely full of shit. Or at least to whatever percentage that large organizations have of cost centers vs. profit centers.
So, any corroboration so we can go back to arguing with trolls? Any actual firsthand evidence of this kind of thing? Reply anon with some hint if you must. I can certainly see asshat managers who build large teams and budgets solely for C.V. bullet points, but they seem the exception rather than the rule.
Sound insider to me. Predisposed to lean on the side of surveillance, which is the point. Doesn't matter who he is loyal to. Career spook gives it two thumbs up.
Your post makes an assumption, and follows to conclusion based on that assumption. The website says:
"The Sakharov Prize is intended to honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression. Like Andrei Sakharov himself, all the winners of the prize have shown how much courage it takes to defend human rights and freedom of expression."
As far as I can tell, Malala wrote for BBC as a 12 year old and had a documentary about her by the New York Times, which isn't much of a fight against oppression. She began giving interviews and became a spokesperson, and got shot. Most of the actual work since then was by other people on her behalf, until a UN speech in July. Not sure that really fits the bill.
Snowden claims he intentionally got a job where he could get secrets, actively violated the law and abused his privilege, left a job in Hawaii and pole-dancing girlfriend, and is now fleeing the very government that, as he damned well knows, has the ability to find him anywhere. He certainly is no free man at this point, and knew what he was getting into. That took far more courage than surviving a shooting.
Malala's father showed courage, based on the few interviews and articles I read, and would be my vote before Malala.
Not trying to diminish her message, but the award is rather specific about its purpose, and it's not about awareness or motivating change. It is about honoring/rewarding the people who motivate and effect change.
USDA privatized meat inspections in a pilot program, and the resulting recalls due to tainted meat were expensive. For business, not government. I would say USDA pays its own way in savings, but you will just ignore that. So I'll just repeat that inspected food is better than not inspected food. For everyone.
Irrelevant. They could spend money to prepare, but can't spend money now. Site dies, it just stays down. Unless they have a contract with a third party for hosting, and that party expects to submit a bill as usual next month. Please learn to think before posting.
You might have a point, if people knew where funding bills start. They don't, and campaigns do not remind people.
Further, Fox did a study where people were asked if they supported ACA. Half the people saw it called Obamacare, half Affordable Care Act. All things being equal, people were in favour of affordable care and opposed to Obamacare.
People don't understand what they are for or against today, or why. Regardless of where it originates.
Certainty of information: Nobody requires absolute certainty in science.
Exxon is not requiring absolute certainty. I don't see a reviewed paper anywhere, just a report that says Exxon was "the most plausible and likely behavioral trigger". That is far from certainty. The court system is irrelevant, no sense talking about that since 1) I don't know the legal requirements of Madagascar, where the whales got beached and 2) there is no court case.
You are guilty of the "all or nothing" here, not Exxon.
Out of date observations
This was a report on a particular set of events that happened in 2008. There is no data past 2008 on those events. The report did not investigate data outside of those events.
I can't tell based on your link if it is discussing the same 12 kilohertz multibeam echosounder system, since it just says "sonar blasts". The article also does not say whether sonar blasts by the US military could be responsible for whale behavior lagoons in Madagascar based on Exxon's technology, which was the point of this research. Following the related links, I see only references to "235 decibels" and "sonar", so there is no certain relevance
Not saying they are different, I'm just saying that there is not enough information to conclude, even with uncertainty, that these are remotely the same technology.
If you want to deal with impartiality, you didn't mention that this report was done by the International Whaling Commission. It's hard to whale when your product ends up as the equivalent of roadkill. When a whale beaches itself, it may be illness, even if you can get there before rot starts. Are they impartial? We also have a quote from "the advocacy group Oceana." Advocacy groups have an agenda, so you can disregard that. And look who compiled the evidence - lots of room for bias all over the place.
But, if we go with your conspiracy theory, then Exxon is vindicated in its lack of certainty of observations (or if you want to read it this way, lack of observations).
For the record, what little news I remember of similar incidents makes me think the report is a reasonable explanation. That makes it "the best model that fits" because it's the only model I know of, hence the only model that fits. I see no other statistics on how often whales get stranded there. "Highly unusual" is very different from "unprecedented", meaning it has happened before. If Exxon was not the cause for a separate event, the what is? Not having an answer to that is the doubt that keeps me from going with my gut instinct to agree completely.
the TSA told her they had to do some extra checks since she had a baby in a sling
First, the people you met were individual people, the lowest rung on the ladder, and hardly representative of official TSA policy. They could misunderstand, misinterpret, or misremember any or all of their training, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Second, the TSA is constantly revising their procedures due to both publicity as well as information held by DHS and others. The day before, they could have intercepted some "baby in a sling" attack scenario and had orders to check those more thoroughly.
Third, you sound like the very definition of what NSA is profiling - communication with people overseas in underdeveloped areas. I'm not saying they knew, or did not know, if you are a citizen. But it is very easy to be non-paranoid and believe that one of the first two is true, while accepting that your overseas status meanse you are more likely to come up in any large scale dragnet. And your profile could still have just a single added entry: "lives in Africa".
To be fair, no one did a good job defending against the "you said just for fun" attack, which would have exposed the troll far more effectively and quickly. As someone with a vague understanding of the origins of unix, multics, SpaceWar, and C, each response to the troll sounds hollow, incomplete, and tangential.
After all, most people in R&D do it for reasons that qualify as "fun" psychologically speaking, even though it earns a paycheck. And lots of "work" with mandatory hours and a paycheck can be obviously fun, as in sports.
It was quite painful to read, to be honest, and I enjoyed seeing the meta-argument. Even as an abuse of critical thinking, it was technically a use of critical thinking, which seems rare enough that this account exists primarily to point out failures of logic, or poor argumentation.
My general limit on Slashdot for the past 10 years has been 2 replies, and let the crowd and moderators handle it from there. This format does not lend itself to convincing the predisposed if they are unwilling, and a troll is the most unwilling there is.
create fake evidence chains against your fellow citizens.
You completely mis-read that, and I cannot take you seriously now. The chains of evidence are called "parallel construction". This means taking a target where you *know* they are guilty, and what they are guilty of, but cannot lawfully prove it in a court of law. You get an "anonymous tip", or tail the person until they cross the yellow line on a sharp curve, or set up a sting, or any other way to kick off the part of the investigation that goes in the official file and goes to trial.
Then, using the fact that the person actually was found red-handed doing what you knew they would be doing, use that evidence chain to prosecute instead of the actual one that uncovered the illegal activities.
I've dumbed it down a bit, but you are still finding an prosecuting bad guys for doing illegal things. It is just done illegally. But they are not creating evidence out of thin air. It is still real evidence of real crimes. I was going to claim not taking sides on this so we wouldn't get mired in that argument again, so in case it's not clear I repeat - this method is not constitutional.
Go read more about parallel construction and come back with your suggestions when you are more informed, because otherwise you sound like a complete nutjob. Facts are important when contacting to your elected officials, and anyone who sounds like a conspiracy whacko will be dismissed, even if your point is valid.
Sweeping generalities and useless rhetoric. When people get angry Congress might listen, but as you said yourself, people don't seem to care. So what is the point of this post?
This is classic "preaching to the choir", and as karma-whoring and getting mod points go, you could hardly do better than state the obvious. But as AC, I don't see how this fits in to anything. People who talk for recognition usually use a named account, so that the mod points and recognition go to them personally. An unpopular viewpoint lends itself to AC, in case no one agrees.
Here's what is going to happen. Most people will continue to not care, and most of Congress will continue not reading the letters that the apathetic masses continue not sending. A few concerned citizens and groups will continue fighting for privacy, just as a few members of Congress will continue to ask questions. Other members of the same Congress, elected by different people for different reasons, will continue to dismiss the whole thing with "oversight is in place", "it's just metadata", and "it's what the people want to feel safe".
The important stuff has already been done - in the form of investigations into improper access, FISC opinions, and piles of documentation on just how bad this is, and why it is bad. These leaks have simply pushed the discussion into the open, so that people who don't care can continue not holding people accountable.
Here is something concrete that you could ask for: everyone who exceeded the bounds of authorized access, e.g. every LOVEINT violation, should be handed over as a full case file to the person whose rights were violated. Not one of them should get a demotion, suspension, or reduced pay. Or in the most egregious examples they simply quit before they could be punished. Every one of them should have a civil and/or criminal case from the person whose rights were violated, handed on a silver platter.
That is a solid, specific request intended to create a deterrent while following both the rule of law as well as the secret policy/interpretations own findings and procedures. And it throws everything these leaks have uncovered right in their faces.
Please, no more useless rhetoric. It is tiring. The entire point of discussion is to discuss the specifics of this information, and tie it into previous information and current events. Not hollow pep talk.
Your suggestion on positioning is pretty much what he said, with one point below that you apparently didn't read.
He voiced his opinion in an interview. And he sounds very much like the traditional mainstream. I don't know what kind of audience La Zanzara has, or that station in general, or for that matter what Italy thinks of the gays. But the "on the fence" attitude that you suggest is mainstream these days.
Standard response for the traditional-values crowd, really.
"I would never make a spot with a homosexual family," Guido Barilla said on the Italy radio program La Zanzara (The Mosquito), according to Italian news agency ANSA. "Not out of a lack of respect but because I do not see it like they do. (My idea of) family is a classic family where the woman has a fundamental role."
Hell, thats almost exactly what you said, right?
ANSA reported that when the show's hosts noted that gays and lesbians eat pasta, Barilla responded, "That's fine if they like our pasta and our communication, they can eat them. Otherwise, they can eat another pasta."
Yup, right on message.
Barilla, who with his brothers Luca and Paolo represent the fourth generation running the family-owned firm founded in 1877, also said, "I respect everyone who does what they want to do without bothering others," ANSA reported. He said he supported gay marriage "but not adoption in gay families."
I think the following is where he got into trouble. This is not the "I don't like gay people" slant you took, this is "gay people can't be normal families", which the gay community has taken offense at repeatedly. This is where he should have known better.
"As a father of multiple children, I believe it's very hard to raise kids in a same-sex couple," Barilla said, according to ANSA
You can't say "I have no opinion on gay people". You can't say "Sure, we love the gays" because that alienates a lot of people. You can't say "We hate the gays" because that alienates the rest of the people. This was almost the required answer, except for the last bit. Keeping your mouth shut is not an option, you have to pretend to be on both sides of the fence.
I'm not going to bother searching for poll results, but if you want to participate in discussion, you should know what you are talking about. More than 50% believe these things catch bad guys and don't bother good guys. Voting as the population thinks AND voting as contributions go are not mutually exclusive.
I'm sure people missed this part. I was ready to defend Google until I read this.
"deliver advertisements and create user profiles and models since 2008"
So yeah, that is wiretapping. Taking the contents and profiling you. at that point it doesn't matter that It's only computers, because a human readable profile of you now exists, from your mails.
The only defense is that you gave it to Google, but talking into an Att phone doesn't mean you gave the conversation contents to Att.
Worst case, Google argues the government points about email not having an expectation of privacy, and bad case law ensues. Which is really bad for everyone.
Is no one smart reading the firehose to stop these early? I dont expect editors to be generalists, but surely comments would make them reconsider posting click bait.
So attack his "whiteness" and skirt the racist tone
Okay.
Obama bin actin white again, talkin bout how he gonna get us all insurence free, like that all we care bout. How bout he give us the jobs we need? Why he don't pay my rent? That what I really need.
Mattafat, why he don't pay me to read yo stupid words and shit? This right here worth tree fiddy at least!
Just switched to a process driven system intended to funnel requests through their workflow.
It works for what it was designed to do. But once data goes in, it stays there. What was that thing I did for that user? Don't know, can't find it. That guy who left, he wrote something that solved a problem, was there any specific error checking that made it work? No idea.
Historical data was not a selling point, and was not considered by the people who bought it, and now I'm stuck with it.
The worst case is tracking - why was this changed? Who asked for this? We have ticket references - but they were for the old system, and no way to access it, or get the data. Ticket 12345 could have been seen by the head honcho, or the janitor. A backup probably exists, but there was no migration strategy. Migration is a great selling point - but most of your data won't fit.
ACLU has to defend even the bad guys from bad government. If they wait until the good guys are in trouble, you have piles of case law to undo before you can get to the actual defense. Same way patents are attacked before being granted. protecting free speech means a lot of things you disagree with get said. protecting privacy means some guilty people go free. This is how the country is supposed to work.
I'm not sure how helpful your anti-book rant is going to be for a volunteer at a bookstore which helps a library, which happens to be a subculture which is going to be immune to any argument you make, no matter how well presented. They rather like their books, you see, and some of the people they serve don't have computers. Should they come to the library to read the books online?
I will say that I bought an e-Ink device precisely so I could read stuff I got from the internet, in a book like format. I much prefer it, and I can't defend my preference any more than you can argue that I should prefer chocolate or vanilla. I just like it.
If I am one click away from a local file, I would open it instead of the book. But I rarely am. How many times a day are you one click away from the book you need? If your answer is anything other than "okay I was exaggerating" you are weird. Seriously, most people don't keep books on the desktop or in a folder that is always visible.
If I had to plug in an external drive or DVD, wait for it to spin up, browse to the folder, find the file, and wait for the PDF reader to open up, I would open the book. I can make things sound more complicated than they really are to make my point sound more convincing.
I'm also actually quite good at finding what I want to in a book - with practice it gets easier.
Some people agree with you - you are currently at +4. So you're not wrong. But others disagree with you, and we aren't wrong, either.
Slashdot Mirror
As fun as it is to believe conspiracy crap, a few things are obviously more pertinent.
Each party thinks it is representing its followers' wishes. Each party wants the other to blink. No representative knows, or remembers, what it is like for everyone else on the planet, whose jobs are not secure as long as they stay scandal free.
Everyone who wanted this has no idea what it means to the economy, or their portfolios, or to jobs, because the goal was looking tough for the voter. They don't want to inflict pain, because they don't understand that's what happened.
Tell me they know what's in the portfolios and I'll ask for an example of a non blind trust. Tell me who had a normal 8 to 5 or hourly job recently and I'll show you the one in 600 exception.
Just a few moments in thought shows this myopic pessimism is a little knowledge in the body of a lot of ignorance. And we are smarter than that.
Why didn't submitter just sit on this news for a year? Wait until it happens, or you're just warning the enemy, and giving them time to prepare!
I am quite certain that the entirety of the training was more than 5 words. You should feel bad. Not throw yourself off a building bad, but you should be required to open 5 random PDF files using adobe products as punishment.
We keep discovering NEW SHIT. There's new shit out there, and we keep finding it. We don't know what it means because we haven't left the fucking SOLAR SYSTEM before. It's kind of a big deal.
Science is pretty much built on being wrong, and looking at the data again, and fixing whatever was wrong. One team studies something and one signal is gone, so we left the solar system. But another team looks at different data and we haven't.
Imagine coming across from China, seeing Hawaii, and seeing an island. The new world! Oops, that was just an island, next one is new world. Oops, next one. Oops, next one. Wait, where did the land go? LAND! Oh crap, it's a bay. There's land! FINALLY!
It's like playing the old game "is this my ass or another roll of fat?" Or the relatively new game "is that a hot chick or Fabio?" or "is this movie going to be any good?" or "is this story a dupe?" or "where does the pee pee go for sexy time?"
You are going to lose plenty of times before winning. That's how we find completely new shit about the universe. Is that a human like species, or a chimpanzee that will rip my face off? I don't know it's fucking new! It might eat me and digest me and shit me out and throw my turd corpse at zoo visitors, because the other visitors laugh and I think it's what I should be doing. Someone has to die for science, I'd rather be behind someone, applauding and pushing them into certain death.
But when that guy dies, I'm going to write down how he died, so that the next poor fucker doesn't die exactly the same way. More information, more new shit that we didn't know before. Go for it, die for science, and let's all LEARN SHIT.
I've heard this for years. Is it still true? Anyone going to corroborate this?
I automatically discount any claim that starts out "Pretty much any large organization" - because how many large organizations publicise how they spend money?
It is one of those things that makes sense, and probably has happened by an actual organization. And therefore is suspect as a blanket statement.
The large organizations I know report either profit or loss, and giving back the budget counts toward profit, unless you are a cost center. Since you made no such distinction, I have to assume you are completely full of shit. Or at least to whatever percentage that large organizations have of cost centers vs. profit centers.
So, any corroboration so we can go back to arguing with trolls? Any actual firsthand evidence of this kind of thing? Reply anon with some hint if you must. I can certainly see asshat managers who build large teams and budgets solely for C.V. bullet points, but they seem the exception rather than the rule.
Sound insider to me. Predisposed to lean on the side of surveillance, which is the point. Doesn't matter who he is loyal to. Career spook gives it two thumbs up.
Your post makes an assumption, and follows to conclusion based on that assumption. The website says:
"The Sakharov Prize is intended to honour exceptional individuals who combat intolerance, fanaticism and oppression. Like Andrei Sakharov himself, all the winners of the prize have shown how much courage it takes to defend human rights and freedom of expression."
As far as I can tell, Malala wrote for BBC as a 12 year old and had a documentary about her by the New York Times, which isn't much of a fight against oppression. She began giving interviews and became a spokesperson, and got shot. Most of the actual work since then was by other people on her behalf, until a UN speech in July. Not sure that really fits the bill.
Snowden claims he intentionally got a job where he could get secrets, actively violated the law and abused his privilege, left a job in Hawaii and pole-dancing girlfriend, and is now fleeing the very government that, as he damned well knows, has the ability to find him anywhere. He certainly is no free man at this point, and knew what he was getting into. That took far more courage than surviving a shooting.
Malala's father showed courage, based on the few interviews and articles I read, and would be my vote before Malala.
Not trying to diminish her message, but the award is rather specific about its purpose, and it's not about awareness or motivating change. It is about honoring/rewarding the people who motivate and effect change.
USDA privatized meat inspections in a pilot program, and the resulting recalls due to tainted meat were expensive. For business, not government.
I would say USDA pays its own way in savings, but you will just ignore that. So I'll just repeat that inspected food is better than not inspected food. For everyone.
Irrelevant. They could spend money to prepare, but can't spend money now. Site dies, it just stays down. Unless they have a contract with a third party for hosting, and that party expects to submit a bill as usual next month.
Please learn to think before posting.
You might have a point, if people knew where funding bills start. They don't, and campaigns do not remind people.
Further, Fox did a study where people were asked if they supported ACA. Half the people saw it called Obamacare, half Affordable Care Act. All things being equal, people were in favour of affordable care and opposed to Obamacare.
People don't understand what they are for or against today, or why. Regardless of where it originates.
Exxon is not requiring absolute certainty. I don't see a reviewed paper anywhere, just a report that says Exxon was "the most plausible and likely behavioral trigger". That is far from certainty. The court system is irrelevant, no sense talking about that since 1) I don't know the legal requirements of Madagascar, where the whales got beached and 2) there is no court case.
You are guilty of the "all or nothing" here, not Exxon.
This was a report on a particular set of events that happened in 2008. There is no data past 2008 on those events. The report did not investigate data outside of those events.
I can't tell based on your link if it is discussing the same 12 kilohertz multibeam echosounder system, since it just says "sonar blasts". The article also does not say whether sonar blasts by the US military could be responsible for whale behavior lagoons in Madagascar based on Exxon's technology, which was the point of this research. Following the related links, I see only references to "235 decibels" and "sonar", so there is no certain relevance
Not saying they are different, I'm just saying that there is not enough information to conclude, even with uncertainty, that these are remotely the same technology.
If you want to deal with impartiality, you didn't mention that this report was done by the International Whaling Commission. It's hard to whale when your product ends up as the equivalent of roadkill. When a whale beaches itself, it may be illness, even if you can get there before rot starts. Are they impartial? We also have a quote from "the advocacy group Oceana." Advocacy groups have an agenda, so you can disregard that. And look who compiled the evidence - lots of room for bias all over the place.
But, if we go with your conspiracy theory, then Exxon is vindicated in its lack of certainty of observations (or if you want to read it this way, lack of observations).
For the record, what little news I remember of similar incidents makes me think the report is a reasonable explanation. That makes it "the best model that fits" because it's the only model I know of, hence the only model that fits. I see no other statistics on how often whales get stranded there. "Highly unusual" is very different from "unprecedented", meaning it has happened before. If Exxon was not the cause for a separate event, the what is? Not having an answer to that is the doubt that keeps me from going with my gut instinct to agree completely.
First, the people you met were individual people, the lowest rung on the ladder, and hardly representative of official TSA policy. They could misunderstand, misinterpret, or misremember any or all of their training, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Second, the TSA is constantly revising their procedures due to both publicity as well as information held by DHS and others. The day before, they could have intercepted some "baby in a sling" attack scenario and had orders to check those more thoroughly.
Third, you sound like the very definition of what NSA is profiling - communication with people overseas in underdeveloped areas. I'm not saying they knew, or did not know, if you are a citizen. But it is very easy to be non-paranoid and believe that one of the first two is true, while accepting that your overseas status meanse you are more likely to come up in any large scale dragnet. And your profile could still have just a single added entry: "lives in Africa".
To be fair, no one did a good job defending against the "you said just for fun" attack, which would have exposed the troll far more effectively and quickly. As someone with a vague understanding of the origins of unix, multics, SpaceWar, and C, each response to the troll sounds hollow, incomplete, and tangential.
After all, most people in R&D do it for reasons that qualify as "fun" psychologically speaking, even though it earns a paycheck. And lots of "work" with mandatory hours and a paycheck can be obviously fun, as in sports.
It was quite painful to read, to be honest, and I enjoyed seeing the meta-argument. Even as an abuse of critical thinking, it was technically a use of critical thinking, which seems rare enough that this account exists primarily to point out failures of logic, or poor argumentation.
My general limit on Slashdot for the past 10 years has been 2 replies, and let the crowd and moderators handle it from there. This format does not lend itself to convincing the predisposed if they are unwilling, and a troll is the most unwilling there is.
You completely mis-read that, and I cannot take you seriously now. The chains of evidence are called "parallel construction". This means taking a target where you *know* they are guilty, and what they are guilty of, but cannot lawfully prove it in a court of law. You get an "anonymous tip", or tail the person until they cross the yellow line on a sharp curve, or set up a sting, or any other way to kick off the part of the investigation that goes in the official file and goes to trial.
Then, using the fact that the person actually was found red-handed doing what you knew they would be doing, use that evidence chain to prosecute instead of the actual one that uncovered the illegal activities.
I've dumbed it down a bit, but you are still finding an prosecuting bad guys for doing illegal things. It is just done illegally. But they are not creating evidence out of thin air. It is still real evidence of real crimes. I was going to claim not taking sides on this so we wouldn't get mired in that argument again, so in case it's not clear I repeat - this method is not constitutional.
Go read more about parallel construction and come back with your suggestions when you are more informed, because otherwise you sound like a complete nutjob. Facts are important when contacting to your elected officials, and anyone who sounds like a conspiracy whacko will be dismissed, even if your point is valid.
Sweeping generalities and useless rhetoric. When people get angry Congress might listen, but as you said yourself, people don't seem to care. So what is the point of this post?
This is classic "preaching to the choir", and as karma-whoring and getting mod points go, you could hardly do better than state the obvious. But as AC, I don't see how this fits in to anything. People who talk for recognition usually use a named account, so that the mod points and recognition go to them personally. An unpopular viewpoint lends itself to AC, in case no one agrees.
Here's what is going to happen. Most people will continue to not care, and most of Congress will continue not reading the letters that the apathetic masses continue not sending. A few concerned citizens and groups will continue fighting for privacy, just as a few members of Congress will continue to ask questions. Other members of the same Congress, elected by different people for different reasons, will continue to dismiss the whole thing with "oversight is in place", "it's just metadata", and "it's what the people want to feel safe".
The important stuff has already been done - in the form of investigations into improper access, FISC opinions, and piles of documentation on just how bad this is, and why it is bad. These leaks have simply pushed the discussion into the open, so that people who don't care can continue not holding people accountable.
Here is something concrete that you could ask for: everyone who exceeded the bounds of authorized access, e.g. every LOVEINT violation, should be handed over as a full case file to the person whose rights were violated. Not one of them should get a demotion, suspension, or reduced pay. Or in the most egregious examples they simply quit before they could be punished. Every one of them should have a civil and/or criminal case from the person whose rights were violated, handed on a silver platter.
That is a solid, specific request intended to create a deterrent while following both the rule of law as well as the secret policy/interpretations own findings and procedures. And it throws everything these leaks have uncovered right in their faces.
Please, no more useless rhetoric. It is tiring. The entire point of discussion is to discuss the specifics of this information, and tie it into previous information and current events. Not hollow pep talk.
Your suggestion on positioning is pretty much what he said, with one point below that you apparently didn't read.
He voiced his opinion in an interview. And he sounds very much like the traditional mainstream. I don't know what kind of audience La Zanzara has, or that station in general, or for that matter what Italy thinks of the gays. But the "on the fence" attitude that you suggest is mainstream these days.
Standard response for the traditional-values crowd, really.
Hell, thats almost exactly what you said, right?
Yup, right on message.
I think the following is where he got into trouble. This is not the "I don't like gay people" slant you took, this is "gay people can't be normal families", which the gay community has taken offense at repeatedly. This is where he should have known better.
You can't say "I have no opinion on gay people". You can't say "Sure, we love the gays" because that alienates a lot of people. You can't say "We hate the gays" because that alienates the rest of the people. This was almost the required answer, except for the last bit. Keeping your mouth shut is not an option, you have to pretend to be on both sides of the fence.
I'm not going to bother searching for poll results, but if you want to participate in discussion, you should know what you are talking about.
More than 50% believe these things catch bad guys and don't bother good guys.
Voting as the population thinks AND voting as contributions go are not mutually exclusive.
I'm sure people missed this part. I was ready to defend Google until I read this.
"deliver advertisements and create user profiles and models since 2008"
So yeah, that is wiretapping. Taking the contents and profiling you. at that point it doesn't matter that It's only computers, because a human readable profile of you now exists, from your mails.
The only defense is that you gave it to Google, but talking into an Att phone doesn't mean you gave the conversation contents to Att.
Worst case, Google argues the government points about email not having an expectation of privacy, and bad case law ensues. Which is really bad for everyone.
Is no one smart reading the firehose to stop these early? I dont expect editors to be generalists, but surely comments would make them reconsider posting click bait.
At the cost of clearly refers to scheduling time. Reallocating art and language time to coding. The school day would not be extended, in other words.
Okay.
Obama bin actin white again, talkin bout how he gonna get us all insurence free, like that all we care bout. How bout he give us the jobs we need? Why he don't pay my rent? That what I really need.
Mattafat, why he don't pay me to read yo stupid words and shit? This right here worth tree fiddy at least!
Dude... 400 year old grammar nazi. That's pretty epic.
Just switched to a process driven system intended to funnel requests through their workflow.
It works for what it was designed to do. But once data goes in, it stays there. What was that thing I did for that user? Don't know, can't find it. That guy who left, he wrote something that solved a problem, was there any specific error checking that made it work? No idea.
Historical data was not a selling point, and was not considered by the people who bought it, and now I'm stuck with it.
The worst case is tracking - why was this changed? Who asked for this? We have ticket references - but they were for the old system, and no way to access it, or get the data. Ticket 12345 could have been seen by the head honcho, or the janitor. A backup probably exists, but there was no migration strategy. Migration is a great selling point - but most of your data won't fit.
ACLU has to defend even the bad guys from bad government. If they wait until the good guys are in trouble, you have piles of case law to undo before you can get to the actual defense.
Same way patents are attacked before being granted.
protecting free speech means a lot of things you disagree with get said. protecting privacy means some guilty people go free. This is how the country is supposed to work.
I'm not sure how helpful your anti-book rant is going to be for a volunteer at a bookstore which helps a library, which happens to be a subculture which is going to be immune to any argument you make, no matter how well presented. They rather like their books, you see, and some of the people they serve don't have computers. Should they come to the library to read the books online?
I will say that I bought an e-Ink device precisely so I could read stuff I got from the internet, in a book like format. I much prefer it, and I can't defend my preference any more than you can argue that I should prefer chocolate or vanilla. I just like it.
If I am one click away from a local file, I would open it instead of the book. But I rarely am. How many times a day are you one click away from the book you need? If your answer is anything other than "okay I was exaggerating" you are weird. Seriously, most people don't keep books on the desktop or in a folder that is always visible.
If I had to plug in an external drive or DVD, wait for it to spin up, browse to the folder, find the file, and wait for the PDF reader to open up, I would open the book. I can make things sound more complicated than they really are to make my point sound more convincing.
I'm also actually quite good at finding what I want to in a book - with practice it gets easier.
Some people agree with you - you are currently at +4. So you're not wrong. But others disagree with you, and we aren't wrong, either.